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

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

You can make smoke, water and fire with grids and texture too!
It sure has nothing to do with computational fluid dynamics...

On 6/14/06, jim bough <jimbough(at)hotmail.com > wrote:

Hmm, correct me if I'm wrong here, but, this isn't a fluid simulator right?
It's a voxel renderer, sure, and wow, the best I've seen at that, but they
claim that it does smoke, fire, water... like to see some examples, gallery
of their fire and water.

"5x5 Voxel Renderer


Are you trying to produce spectacular volumetric effects: smoke, clouds,
tornadoes, fire, large bodies of splashing water?

Did the client request 4K renders and you're wondering how you can even
deliver 2K because your shots are taking days of renderfarm time to
complete?

Does your current solution severely restrict your artist's productivity and
creativity? Does it threaten your deadline?"



>From: "Vince Fortin" < vfortin(at)gmail.com>
>Reply-To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
>To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
>Subject: Re: Re: Re: [OT] dynamite v1.1
>Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 10:46:21 -0400
>
>And the documentation is a real gold mine for anyone interested in the
>subject !
>
>On 6/14/06, Marc-Andre Carbonneau <marc-andre.carbonneau(at)ubisoft.com >
>wrote:
>>
>>  Some more voxel stuff. This time for Houdini.
>>
>>http://www.myrtlesoftware.com/index.php/fivebyfive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>>
>>*From:* owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM [mailto: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] *On
>>Behalf Of *Vince Fortin
>>*Sent:* June 13, 2006 5:43 PM
>>
>>*To:* XSI(at)Softimage.COM
>>*Subject:* Re: Re: Re: [OT] dynamite v1.1
>>
>>
>>
>>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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

_________________________________________________________________
Find out more about Canada's Real Estate Outlook in Sympatico / MSN's Spring
Lending Features  http://spring.finance.sympatico.msn.ca/


---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi