I cannot agree with you, sorry.
The thread was about getting the panels mist/volumetric appearing on the reference video, and for that I would highly recomend trying the techiniques I propose before, and in the same order, as using fluid dynamics would be not needed for such case. Dont forget that knowing how to work with fluid dynamics in any software doesnt mean you should be using it for every type of effect.
Thinking oput of the box too may take you always further... 03:33... Not smoke, nor particles, nor fluid dynamics after all:
Im glad he got it working
You don´t have to agree with me, and that by no means would prove anything other than you disagree, som would agree with you..many would not.
The samples you refer to is not that relevant, its a completely different type of effect that don´t hold that delicate motion needed for high velocity gas movement.
cool at that time, though I also thought it wasn´t reaching a proper smoke density, movement was designed to be controlled, to the fullest, with some fluid tools of today, they could probably, or would probably use something else than that method.
At that time they used basic standard shading with incidence angle gradients, today you could for instance animate it in Lightwave, send that animated "smoke" mesh to blender convert to a volume and use true volume shading with much better density reacting better to light or vertices/geometry intersections than pure shading.
Yeah..geometry, this is also geometry I made many years ago, but with hv´sprites applied, but..it´s a completely different effect, I wouldn´t use any of it for the case we are talking about here, may have to fire up embergen and show some fluid samples later this week, or even use gas solver in native lightwave.
Geometry, and hv sprites, all surface geometry and shading is unseen, this technique yields a proper density mapping when geometry (particles) intersect, unlike the method used for 300 smoke effects..which can´t do that, the problem is that you need to increase subdivisions that much, and if you distort it too much, some gaps in density may show.
So with aconvert mesh to volume in blender for instance.. you could overcome that issue nowadays ..for this kind of effect, you would get a smooth density all over, but could retrieve "partilce" or vertices amount attribute data to get the density shading to be more pronounced where it has more vertices...all that without getting gaps.
