Re: Re: Re: [OT] dynamite v1.1

["Vince Fortin" <vfortin(at)gmail.com>]

I don't know Gene... surprise suplies went out of stock while watching for the 1,000th time fluids going from solid to liquid to gas in the same sim  8-)
I need a coffee now.

On 6/13/06, Gene Crucean <emailgeneonthelist(at)gmail.com> wrote:

BLENDER has fluids!

Wait did I mention that already? Crap sorry. Game on!

On 6/13/06, Vince Fortin < vfortin(at)gmail.com> wrote:

I see... I think it's a combination of the two.
It happens where density and temperature (simulation) peak then the shader draws the colors according to these.
Maya fluids have a nice set of texturing/gradients tools for that. You can really play with the thresholds for each voxel attributes and make the clouds crunchier, brighter, etc.
Back to XSI, with a simple volume shader, I recall being able to give some kind of SSS look to the render using the density returned by the particles (see the 4th orange render on the page) but I guess it couldn't go any further due to the lack of extra channels in the voxels.
Everything else is beyond my knowledge. So I guess you're right Kim, XSI needs a fluid solver ;-)

cheers

On 6/13/06, kim aldis < kim(at)aldis.org.uk> wrote:

Smoke like that, I think is as much a motion issue as a shader issue.  I couldn't find a video of that smoke but you get this kind of boiling motion where the smoke kind of pushes through and folds back on itself. It's very distinctive. I thought I could find a better example, but check out this link. I don't think you could get that with XSI particles.

 

http://www.bbcmotiongallery.com/Customer/SearchDetails.aspx?searchText=refinery+fire&type=Simple&itemId=2aa3ac71-8c02-4205-a278-fa1617d9616f&page=1

 

 

From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM [mailto: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of Vince Fortin
Sent: 13 June 2006 20:57
To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [OT] dynamite v1.1

 

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

 

--
Gene Crucean
Lead Artist
Quietman
www.quietman.net