Re: Realflow and the bottle neck of fluid sim

["adrian" <adrian.wyer(at)fluid-pictures.com>]

we are just finishing (fingers crossed!) a big job with fluids (hurricane 
katrina doc)
we used a mix of xsi, maya fluids and realslow.... along with a ton of 
footage i shot at
a white water rafting centre.....(you can't beat real textures)

some of the shots are great, but the efforts of all involved were 
enormous... (blood, sweat and other fluids)

will post something when im allowed to....

a

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marc-Andre Carbonneau" <marc-andre.carbonneau(at)ubisoft.com>
To: <XSI(at)Softimage.COM>
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 8:38 PM
Subject: RE: Realflow and the bottle neck of fluid sim


> Adrian is in trouble with the name of his company... ;)
> http://www.fluid-pictures.com/
> LOL
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf 
> Of Tim Leydecker
> Sent: July 7, 2006 3:24 PM
> To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
> Subject: Re: Realflow and the bottle neck of fluid sim
>
> > So I say it will take three weeks. The client goes  away and comes back a 
> > month
> > later with a new concept.
> >
> > And I'm always afraid they would say yes for three weeks.
>
> You´re definitely risking too much.
>
> How about 12 months?
>
> For three spots reliably booked and payed.
>
> First one delivered after 9 months.
>
> Second at 11th, third at 12th?
>
> Having you end up being the only company capable of
> doing 3D fluid(s) in a commercial quality.
>
> Something that should fit a 12 year old Whisky quite well?
>
> Cheers
>
> tim
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Francois Lord" <francoislord(at)gmail.com>
> To: <XSI(at)Softimage.COM>
> Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 3:59 PM
> Subject: Re: Realflow and the bottle neck of fluid sim
>
>
> > I totally agree with you.
> > The most challenging situation with fluids is when the client want his 
> > product to
> > be CG. Imagine a scotch company who wants to make a commercial where 
> > their scotch
> > pours down a glass with invisible ice cubes. You have no choice, you must 
> > do it in
> > 3D. If they were to shoot it, it would take an entire day to adjust the 
> > lighting,
> > the reflexions, do many takes, etc. This day would cost over 50 000$. If 
> > you were
> > lucky enough to get that much budjet for your shot, you would still have 
> > a very
> > hard time getting the fluid behave exactly like scotch, not like water, 
> > not like
> > vodka, and certainly not like glycerin.
> > Everytime a project like that arrives at Buzz, I take the time to do some 
> > tests,
> > and then promply say to the project manager to refuse the project, we 
> > just can't do
> > it. Then he says he can't do that and we need to give them a price. So I 
> > say it
> > will take three weeks. The client goes away and comes back a month later 
> > with a new
> > concept.
> >
> > And I'm always afraid they would say yes for three weeks.
> >
> > VR XSI Forces wrote:
> > > A first simple >filling the water glass - of course< test with RF4 gives 
> > > me
> > > the impression that RF4 is working better. No crashes yet, looks nice in 
> > > XSI
> > > ... simulation seems to be slower but more accurate?!
> > >
> > > But let's talk about the major bottle neck of fluid sims with RF.
> > >
> > > Filling a water glass is working fine but we have to understand that 
> > > this is
> > > just a simple simulation and far away from a more complex task. Why does 
> > > RF
> > > not have some perfect setups for loads of different fluid types which 
> > > work
> > > physically perfect in small and big scaled situations [let's forget the 
> > > sim
> > > time in this case]? The only answer I could imagine is: the developer 
> > > also
> > > doesn't know how to set them up.
> > >
> > > RF ist fascinating indeed and it's fun to play with. The problem begins 
> > > if a
> > > client needs to solve a fluid task, let's say liquid chocolate flowing 
> > > like
> > > highspeed filmed over a waffle. You get some real footage of perfectly
> > > filmed high-speed EUR 40.000 fluids in high aesthetic style. Due lack of
> > > fluid sim experience you start with high motivation beeing sure: I will
> > > solve that. After a few days trying hard you will come to the 
> > > conclusion:
> > > not that easy but possible. One week later you feel running out of time 
> > > and
> > > budget and you ask your admin what a 4 proc number crunsher with 128 GB 
> > > ram
> > > will cost. 2 weeks later you will understand that the beauty of those 
> > > high
> > > speed fluids is mainly ruled by perfect >infinite res< surfaces and a
> > > special complexity you can't work out with RF in a reasonably time plus
> > > those damn budget limits. The client expects that he will get the 
> > > computer
> > > generated fluids cheaper and that he is able to have some post control 
> > > over
> > > it for >fast< changes or variations. At the end you have to tell them: 
> > > each
> > > change will take 2 more days [if they like the result].
> > >
> > > A first time killer is that you can't work in fast low res mode with 
> > > short
> > > sim times and just set up the values to a higher res because this will
> > > affect the whole behaviour of the fluid. So you must start with high res 
> > > as
> > > possible to get sure that the result you present to the client is not 
> > > much
> > > different to the next >perfect< step. The work flow is getting as low as 
> > > the
> > > sim times will explode exponential. A good but still not perfect looking 
> > > 150
> > > frames >filling HALF the water glass< will probably take 3 hours on a 
> > > Dual
> > > XEON 3,0 Ghz machine. Doing more complex stuff end up easily in a whole 
> > > day
> > > of sim calculation you have to wait for till you can go on. There's no
> > > chance to get it faster with usual equipment because you are forced to 
> > > work
> > > with the higher settings till you hopefully get what the client likes.
> > >
> > > And at the end you are surely confronted with another unfair fact. Once 
> > > you
> > > have worked out hard something which looks close to a filmed reference 
> > > the
> > > client will drive you mad with: this doesn't look real ... there's 
> > > something
> > > wrong ... the drops look wrong ... this drop should fly there and those 
> > > 3
> > > drops shouldn't be there ... etc. etc. etc. ... even if the result looks
> > > [theroretically spoken] 95% like the filmed material strangely 95% of 
> > > the
> > > clients would not really accept or approve it. I am totally sure. And 
> > > this
> > > is the next big surprising killer for the whole production. Without a 
> > > good
> > > fighting producer the chance is high that the whole job ends up in pain 
> > > and
> > > chaos?!
> > >
> > > Probably I am wrong ... due lack of intensive RF experience *:-)
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in 
> > > body:
> > > unsubscribe xsi
> > ---
> > Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in 
> > body:
> > unsubscribe xsi
>
>
> ---
> Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
> unsubscribe xsi
>
> ---
> Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
> unsubscribe xsi 


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