|
Correct me if I'm wrong Kim but this is more a shader issue rather than a simulation thing.
If XSI had a good volume shader, we could achieve this result with both grid-based and particles simulations.
I've once been told though that it's more difficult to implement the "hypervoxel" or "afterburn" texturing features in MR (because they are isosurface or someeeethinnng like that).
On 6/13/06, kim aldis <kim(at)aldis.org.uk> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On
> Behalf Of Ronald Beirouti
> Sent: 13 June 2006 18:56
> To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
> Subject: RE: Re: Re: [OT] dynamite v1.1
>
>
> The last four smoke renders (after the head renders) are particles
> rendered with a volumic shader. Particles are simulated using a
> standard particle system, so it's much faster. Other advantages are
> more control over the simulation making achieve a wider range of
> effects including non physically realistic effects. Also, the
> simulation is not bound to a volume. However, although a rendered still
> image looks very nice, the fluid movement is not as fine as with grid-
> based simulations but still looks quite nice when tweaked right. This
> is the solution you find in Lightwave and plug-ins such as Binary
> Alchemy.
>
[kim aldis]
It's worth pointing out here, though, that motion for some of those particle
based simulations you won't get right XSI's particle system. In particular,
check out that one with the black smoke and fiery middle. If there's a
motion of it available you should see a really nice boiling kind of motion
which is very typical of big, explosive type effects. There's another nice
example on Glasswork's site which I think is one of their custom particle
effects, correct me if I'm wrong Alastair. Pete, wasn't it?
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
|
