Grand Space Opera 3D Entry: Michael Crawford

#201

Adrian: Just found out an unexpected problem with particles last night, as I was testing out a variation of Gunilla’s suggestion, and have spent the better part of the last six hours trying to get to the root of what was causing it. In short: once you get past a certain number of particles – 10,000 perhaps? – and have more than one light in the scene, with at least one light set to cast shadows, the scene will crash. And not just the normal “XSI has attempted to save your scene” kind of crash; no, the whole program just abruptly vanishes from the screen – “poof!” Now whether this constant crashing is due to the particular shader I’ve got applied to the particles (the blob shader) or is a limitation due to the shadow calculations with so many particles, I’m not sure yet. But I thought I should warn you before you try out something like this and end up with a problem.

Gunilla: Will be posting some variations on what you suggested. Thanks for the input; it’s always greatly appreciated!

Fahrija: I’m sorry my thread has become more of an app-specific recitation of technical problems rather than artistic exploration, but I’m trying to hone these techniques prior to getting into December, as I will be away from my workstation from December 15 to January 10 (a trip to visit family in Seattle, and also do some more background shoots for my multimedia novel). Hopefully I will be back to the artistic side of things between December 1 and when I take off, for otherwise I’m going to have a terrible time getting a final render in before the deadline. Hope to catch up on what is going on in your thread shortly, and be a better contributer to other discussions once I’m up in Seattle and not so wrapped up in this race against time. :slight_smile:

#202

Don’t understand a lot with these particule… so i can’t help you :cry: … but i can say one thing : Good work!! It’s coming very very nice… keep going!!! :beer:

#203

Alex: Thanks for the words of encouragement! I wish my knowledge of XSI extended well beyond those two areas (shaders and particles), but it’s fair to say I’ve spent a disproportionate amount of time exploring those two aspects of the program. It’s a real shame that Phoenix Tools hasn’t kept pace with Mental Images, as it would be nice to be able to utilize some of the shaders they wrote for earlier versions of mental ray (oh, the things you could do with the “thin film” and “volume wire” shaders!), but it’s certainly wonderful news that there’s now a better way of implementing DarkTree in XSI. :slight_smile:

Gent_k: Many thanks for the link, but I’d already had a chance to download the new simbiont and spend a few hours testing it by the time you’d posted. :slight_smile: My first impressions: it’s a HUGE improvement over Felix Gebhart’s implementation (nice to finally see working bump maps!), though there’s still room for both in the pipeline, as the new version gains bump but loses displacement. Ah, well, it’s an early draft, I gather.

Omar: Yes, I am the one-man “infinite number of monkeys”! :slight_smile: (Which is to say, if I spend enough time testing out things, I will eventually come up with something interesting.)

#204

Hi, Lombardo! Yeah, you and me both! (Aaaargh!) At least I was able to confirm that the problem wasn’t with setting a light in amongst the particles, so I can still fake radiance coming from the blob shaders. Will post the new tests in just a minute, then get back to the larger issue of placing the generator under the dome.

#205

hey Michael! what does that mean mate?

as I will be away from my workstation from December 15 to January 10
you won’t be able to work for almost one month??? :eek:
how can you get your project finished in time?! although nothing is more important then family…
but it’s very sad to hear you won’t be posting your wonderful stuff for a month…
but anyway i think it’s better to stop testing stuff all around and start posting some work my friend… :smiley:
keep it up bro and cheers… :beer:

#206

Yeah, Paul, it’s a real disadvantage, but I can still run DarkTree and Photoshop on the little Windows Me system up there so it’s not like I can’t do anything while I’m gone. As long as I get done with most of the modeling before I leave I’ll have a fighting chance to put everything together once I get back in January – even if the final image isn’t quite as refined as it would otherwise have been (there’s always AFTER the contest for that). The thing is, the ticket was purchased back in September, before the contest was announced, so I had no way of knowing I’d be right in the middle of a project. More importantly, my goal was always to complete the contest and do as well as possible – ie., produce something I could add to my portfolio – and I’m on track for that. I’ll leave it to the real veterans and outrageously talented students to battle it out for the prizes. (I mean, cripes, I already have a fully-loaded dual-Xeon workstation running XSI Advanced, so unless there’s a copy of Houdini 7 up for grabs it’s not like I’m going to improve my situation dramatically if I somehow managed to produce a show-stopping piece of work.) :slight_smile:

#207

sure Michael… your right but i think the challenge is the best place to check your skills… compare it with other very talented guys… and get most important… feedback and judgment from public… so i think you may try to take your beautiful workstation :love:with you… few years ago i spent 3 months travelling all over europe with my desktop… :smiley: it was neccessary… so you may try it as well… :slight_smile:
though working only with DarkTrees for a month will give you a huge experience… you may get back from Seatlle DarkTree guru… :slight_smile:
i like Seatlle… very quiet city… though a bit rainy… good place for family… btw i’ve never been there… :smiley: but i think i’m right in my conclusions…

#208

Yes, I’m still working on the innerworkings of the dome. Since deciding to go with a more symmetrical approach to Waterhole Alpha, it’s more important than every to get the details right on the dome (since I’m going to be using three generator domes, not just one). Two more versions to post on this round of renders, then back to dealing with the floor plan of the dome.

#209

Very nice work! I can only advice to add some very small motion blur to those particles under the plasma ball. It would give a nice effect of the flow. Now I don’t feel in what direction they are comeing.

Good work, keep it up man:thumbsup:

#210

It was shortly after completing this render that I encountered problems. I had modeled a “source” for the plasma swirling up into the containment field and had moved a second light into the sources to give a greater sense of the luminance of the plasma … but every attempt to render resulted in a crash. As a result, I had to strip the scene down and run a series of tests to determine where the problem was. Best guess at this point: some bug involving the calculation of shadows in a scene with a high number of particles. I was VERY concerned that I wouldn’t be able to illuminate the plasma stream, which would basically require me to go back to a fully-enclosed container, but it seems the limitations all revolve around the shadow settings on the second light. Turn off “cast shadows” and it renders fine.

Once I determined this, the next thing I tested was adding actual thickness to the “Techno HiperGlass,” since I wanted to bump up the illumination to justify the lack of shadows. I will post that test render momentarily.

#211

Last one in the series, so you can all breathe a sigh of relief. :wink: Yeah, I finally worked out the kinks and feel reasonably satisfied with this compromise approach that doesn’t completely cover up the plasma but avoids some of the other render headaches. More importantly, this design should enable me to get the glow I want for the inside of the domes without any unfortunate “side effects.” Whew!

#212

read some good advice you gave the guy building the powerplant on the sun -then i saw the tentacles…

last time i looked at your thread, you just had some concept sketches up; happy to see all your hard work, planning and attention to detail is beginning to pay off -such careful lighting, modeling, textures, etc. your work is beautiful -superb quality!

even though i’m not planning on going anywhere near maya, i do appreciate your write ups and step by step progress notes -they really are a big part of the whole ‘we’re here to learn’ concept.

thanks nman,
ben

#213

The last particled render looks good, but I still thing it lucks some luminance and glow on the incoming swirling particles :smiley: , I think it can be easily added in post work. Anyway, keep it up and try to keep that desktop with you in Seattle as Paul adviced! It’s quite a time with no workstation…I’ll do the same too during christmas holidays!!

Always waiting for more!

:wavey:

#214

Love your latest updates! If any of my comments set you off in this direction, I’m happy. It really looks good.
You’re going away without your workstation!?? For almost a month? :banghead: That’s really to bad - I hope you still be around here anyway, and that you find enough time to complete when you get back.
Multimedia novel sounds cool, what’s that?

#215

Oh, Man! I’m back online and… what a treat for my eyes (and for my struggling XSI learning). I’m liking a whole lot what I’m seeing, and specially all the explanations you’re giving out as usual.

I believe you’ve found a great way to depict the plasma, that last one is really cool and the “tentacles” are adding lot of drama (that, sincerely, I didn’t find in the “cylinder-container” previous version).

Your was the first thread I took a look upon as soon as I got my connection back. I’ve spent this week overloading my synapses with all the learning material that came with 4. Result: I think I’ll re-model a couple of things in my entry. :eek:

You just please keep up posting … :beer:

Stefano

#216

I think it is a very avantgarde concept… good work!

#217

hi Michael…
i was thinking, thinking and finally decided to post…
well… honestly i’m not impressed my friend… :sad: sorry…
i’m sure mate you don’t need particles in this case… they do nothing except raping your wonderful workstation… no look or feel of plasma… your loosing details on the great model (sphere)… lighting is loosed as well in my opinion…
maybe i’m not getting a main idea or other something important stuff…
but as i look at it now (honestly) i don’t like it my friend… :sad:
and i’m telling this so unpleasant words cos i’m 100% sure you can make it looking great… not simply looking good but great!
i may suggest you once again… try to use simple spheres with complex transparency and fall-off materials… trust me you’ll get much more impressive results then this… but if you still preffer to use particles you have to use face mapping… again with complex transparency and noise (in this case your imitating fall-off)…
sorry again mate for harsh crit but i can’t and don’t want to lie you… :beer:

#218

Fair enough, Paul; I appreciate your honesty. Since it’s not precisely the effect I envisioned when I started down this road I’ll take a break to catch up on sleep, investigate alternative approaches, and basically decompress. I’d rather take the time to figure out how to do good work than rush and continue to turn out crap. See you back here in a few days!

#219

Hello nuclearman, you’ve done some excelent models and experiences back there, but I don’t see then here! why?.. am I blind?

#220

way to go dood:buttrock: