nParticle / Maya Fluids in Maya 2018.3 and newer versions

#1

I am trying to get an answer to these questions from Autodesk on their forums and my post keeps getting deleted. This is telling me that Autodesk is not planning to address these important issues. I am sure that these are issues that affect anyone that is still trying to use Maya for dynamic related projects.

In Maya 2018.3 or moving forward to Maya 2019 will we be able to do any of the following?

-Can we slow down cached nParticles yet?
In 2010 Duncan Brinsmead said that it is not possible yet. http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=864289 Is it possible in 2018.3 yet?

-Can we mesh nParticles that have been deformed with a lattice for example?

-Can we cache nParticles that have been deformed with a lattice for example?

-Can we combine two separate nParticle systems into one to mesh them?

-Maya Fluids multi-threading.
Fluids quality and size expectations nowadays is such that Maya cannot keep up. Maya Fluids look sort of ok, but they are terribly slow and there’s tons of catches in the process that make production uncompetitive. If Maya Fluids at least took advantage of all the CPUs or the GPU it would make life just a touch better. Up to today working with Maya Fluids remains a very time consuming counter productive and therefore expensive procedure. Today’s client expectations are 1000 time more demanding than a decade ago. But Maya has remained as difficult in this area as it was a decade ago.

These are all old questions that keep coming up with each new version of Maya. Actually they are not just questions. They are constant obstacles. Projects, companies and customers repeatedly require the functionality mentioned above. The answer unfortunately too often has been “Maya cannot do this”. At least not out of the box, in the project timeframe and project budget.

Is there intention of implementing any of these? These are and have been desperately need features.

It is not a matter of when will these be addressed. It is a matter of why have they not been addressed all these years.

I have some semi complex workarounds for all of the above but it’s too much work to have to do it every time it’s needed day in and day out. The time and budget just does not allow it anymore and the clients are taking their projects elsewhere.

Autodesk deleting this post on their forums again and again sends a very clear message that Maya users should not expect any of these features to be implemented and should not expect to be productive and competitive if they decide to continue to use Maya for any dynamic related projects.

#2

hahaha you are the troll that keeps spamming every thread in the official maya forum with useless posts and swearing FK ,FK ,F**K all over the place? What are you expecting? you are lucky that they didn’t already ban you.

[quote=]-Can we slow down cached nParticles[/quote]there is some tricks with the regular particles which have oversamples, you can link both nparticles and legacy

[quote=]-Can we cache nParticles that have been deformed with a lattice for example?[/quote]yes

[quote=]-Can we combine two separate nParticle systems into one to mesh them?
-Can we mesh nParticles that have been deformed with a lattice for example?[/quote]
the best way for meshing things is with this free plugin, you can hookup whatever you want into it, particles, curves, meshes and combine all of them at the same time to buildup a single mesh.
http://www.mootzoid.com/plugin/empolygonizer5

[quote=]-Maya Fluids multi-threading.[/quote]of course it is

I don’t know if you are aware but now maya has bifrost which is clearly the future of maya on a wide spectrum not just fluid.
They have started to implement Aero and it will probably be the successor of maya fluid.
All the effort will now go to bifrost, even particles and cloth at some point will be in the bifrost framework.

#3

Legacy? Give me a break.

I have used empolygonizer and it is indeed superior than anything Maya has offered up to now when it comes to meshing particles. So the solution is a 3rd party plugin. That goes to show how incomplete Maya is. That is exactly why I was posting this thread. It’s pathetic that Maya still can’t do it and users have to rely on 3rd party tools that may or may not exist from one version to the next.

http://download.autodesk.com/us/company/files/2018/UsingParallelMaya.html
So I am not sure why you are saying “of course it is”. Unless you mean multi-threading when reading the cache. I mean simulating. So the answer is “of course it does not use all CPUs”.

Bifrost is not a replacement for Maya Fluids or nParticles yet. And from the looks of it will not be for a while.

They start a lot of things. And they never finish anything. Like Parallel evaluation and Viewport2.0.
So pretty much all the answers that you posted are not really solutions. Including the legacy particle solution. NParticles have been around for a decade at least. To have to shoehorn legacy particles into the workflow to make Nparticles do what they should be able to do after 10 years is very much why Maya… how should I put it? It sucks?

#4

-yes legacy, it’s just an in-between with nParticles you still get all the specific things that nParticle has

-Man the plugin is free, you just like to complain or what. Anything, any tool could vanish from one version to the next.

-You are confusing parallel evaluation and multithreading it’s not exactly the same thing.

-Concerning Bifrost well it takes time if you consider the whole picture and what they want to achieve about proceduralism etc.

Now let me ask you a question why are you still on maya and loosing your time here? go breathe some fresh air elsewhere; you have plenty of 3d tools.

#5

Because Maya is the industry standard? LOL!!!

#6

as houdini is especially regarding fluid, particle etc

#7

[quote=]houdini [/quote]What is this Houdini? Another free 3rd party plugin that is better than Maya?

#8

hahaha lol are you serious?

#9 
            Lol!
#10

[quote=]Can we cache nParticles that have been deformed with a lattice for example?[/quote]I would be very much surprised if it were suddenly possible. Last time I tried it was still not within Maya’s capabilities. It’s one of the many “oops” in Maya.

#11

you have to select the input shape (your original particle shape) so basically don’t select the particle you see in the viewport (that’s the output).

#12

and this is not something new, you just have to get how maya works

#13

I think you are missing the point… again. Perhaps you work for Autodesk. :slight_smile: If you want to cache the particles after they are deformed you can’t . What you are saying would give you a cache of the original pre-deformation particles.

#14

No perhaps i simply really work with the tool.
If you would just spend your time to really learn the tool rather than yelling all over the place.

#15

Perhaps my English is not good enough. What you are showing in what you posted is some particles that are first cached and then they are being deformed.
I want to cache them after they are deformed.

(Peut-être que mon anglais n’est pas assez bon. Ce que vous montrez dans ce que vous avez posté, ce sont des particules qui sont d’abord mises en cache et ensuite elles sont déformées.
Je veux les mettre en cache après qu’ils sont déformés.)

#16

(ok t’es français, du coup je comprends mieux le coté râleur et casse bonbon hahahah)

What is exactly your practical case? technically the output is not a sim just kind of a holder.
Anyway if you want to bake the output and have a second cache you could hook-up another particle shape and goal it.
That way you will have an “active” particle shape and you will be able to have another cache for the output.

#17

The practical case no longer exists. This was part of a project maybe a year ago. And a couple of other of time when I needed to do this.

It is not important that

[quote=]technically the output is not a sim"[/quote]What is important is that Maya made me need this and then it would not allow me to do it. I don’t remember all the details but when you deform particles you lose a whole bunch of custom attributes that you may have added. Or something like that. The only solution was to cache these deformed particles and do something with them to address the needs of the production. Any attempt to script or connect some custom set up to force a cache to work was ignored by Maya.

Goal-ing was one of the t hing that I also tried but ran into even more complications because the lifespanPP of the particles was also used on the original particles and it caused some issues that I do not recall now.

Anyway. You see how your answers were not correct. Your intentions may have been good.
And that is how most discussion about Maya end.

You ask something.
Someone jumps it and says “it is possible”.
You say it is not.
They insist and show that they never really understood what you were asking.
And when you explain, the only thing they have to say is “Why do you need that?”.

Do not assume I do not know what I am doing or talking about.
Never mind why I need that.
And try to answer the question. If you can.
If you cant don’t change the original question and give solutions that are unrelated. You are wasting your time and mine and in the end you end up with 10 posting of garbage that helps no-one.

It looks like the answer really can only be another product. Houdini or Blender or anything but Maya. Having to rewrite half of Maya every time you have click has been ridiculous for decades. There is nothing new in that fact. I think I have had enough of Maya. That is the only thing you were right about from the beginning.

Merci!

#18

“Do not assume I do not know what I am doing or talking about.”
Man just the fact that you are confusing the parallel evaluation and the maya fluid multithreading is enough to show that you just like to complain.

And if i’m asking about the practical case it’s simply because it helps to have a better understanding of the whole picture. If you keep adding information afterward we can go far.
You asked for caching the output that’s it, and the answer is yes. Now you are adding information about issues you had for custom attribute etc. And now you don’t understand why ‘im asking for the practical case really?

And yes there is always a solution and even more with Soup (i see you coming saying blabalbalba yet another plugin blablabla), last time i had to do some stuff with Bifrost foam which is not compatible with Redshift but i managed to make it works with the nparticle and passing all the data i needed for mblur etc. And yes it’s not easy and it’s not a one click solution.

And speaking about useless posts i think you are the king for that, jumping on random threads with no solution, just swearing all over the place about maya. Just like the recent post about VP2 in this forum; you are doing this all the time, here or on the autodesk forum.

And as i said you have plenty of 3d softs, but you will probably continue to complain.

#19

Thanks Onouris.

The questions were short and clear. But in Maya the answers and solutions are never short and clear. If you can even accept these “answers and workarounds” as “solutions” for a production environment with budgetary and time limitations.

#20

again, you don’t have to use maya for everything if doesn’t suit you.
You will always find things that are faster or quirky/slower on every soft.
and regarding budget and time limitations I don’t know any facilities that is using only one software for everything.