Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 70

Thread: Deep Rising FX v1.1 Update Released

  1. #46
    Super Member jboudreau's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Halifax
    Posts
    800
    Quote Originally Posted by darkChief View Post
    Ah sorry, I forgot to show the emitter strength, I had set it to 5 or 6.
    oh okay that was the issue. See I'm going by the default settings. and the default is set to 10 for strength. Shouldn't the default settings give you similar results to how most particle simulations software works including lightwave own particle system because I have to change quite a few settings to get it to be the same as lightwave's particles.

    Thanks,
    Jason
    VFX Artist / 3D Animator
    Animatrix Productions

    Dell T7600 Dual XEON E5-2687W 3.8GHz / Dell M6700 i7 -3940XM 3.9GHz
    64GB Ram / 32GB Ram
    Nvidia Quadro K5000 / Nvidia Quadro K5000M
    Windows 7 x64

  2. #47
    Registered User darkChief's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Global
    Posts
    443
    They are very different engines, for one particles can't overlap (SPH in general). Maybe it is coincidence that Lightwave and Realflow have similar default settings that give the results you talk about.

  3. #48
    Super Member jboudreau's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Halifax
    Posts
    800
    So I've been playing around with the Deep Rising FX plugin and it's great!! Dark Chief has done an amazing job!!

    on another note though I see some limitations that may or may not be addressed in future versions.

    - Having the solver work for everything limits you from having two different emitters in the scene. (For example you can't set a different gravity or step count... for another emitter. Every emitter uses the same settings)

    - You can't change the surface of another emitter because no matter how many emitters you have in the scene they all use the same one surface.

    - When you use meshing it meshes all emitters in the scene (no way to mesh a specific emitter only) You may want to mesh one emitter different from the other (for example you might want one emitter to have gaussian blur and one to have dilate)

    - It would be great if you could mix too emitters together and have the surfaces blend into one another (like mixing tow different colors of paint together)

    Maybe you can add some of these as future feature requests.

    Thanks
    Jason
    VFX Artist / 3D Animator
    Animatrix Productions

    Dell T7600 Dual XEON E5-2687W 3.8GHz / Dell M6700 i7 -3940XM 3.9GHz
    64GB Ram / 32GB Ram
    Nvidia Quadro K5000 / Nvidia Quadro K5000M
    Windows 7 x64

  4. #49
    Registered User darkChief's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Global
    Posts
    443
    Hi,

    I logged all these as feature requests. It's only at version 1.1 so anything is possible.

    I can promise to do my best to get these implemented in the future.

    Regards,

    Mambo

  5. #50
    ack ack Markc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    995
    Mac version pretty please
    Mac Pro (2010) OSX 10.11 LW 2015 Fusion 8 Oculus Rift Gear VR

  6. #51
    Registered User darkChief's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Global
    Posts
    443
    Rendering this out, here's a still in the mean time. This is going to be the main feature in the next free update, Bullet physics integration, and two-way coupling. There will be a host of other feature requests also implemented.

    I'll be busy getting that done, so I won't be posting that many updates.


  7. #52
    Registered User darkChief's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Global
    Posts
    443
    And the video.
    Last edited by darkChief; 03-27-2017 at 04:14 PM.

  8. #53
    Registered User darkChief's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Global
    Posts
    443
    More rigid body dynamics tests! An ice cube!


  9. #54
    almost there should float.... imho
    new web page up www.null.hr

  10. #55
    Registered User darkChief's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Global
    Posts
    443
    Depends on the mass and coupling stiffness. Floating objects easily done

  11. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by darkChief View Post
    Depends on the mass and coupling stiffness. Floating objects easily done
    btw what is about stability of hard body objects/fluids at the end of calc?... is it possible to make it less vibrating and look more natural... is that somethin that deals with substeps or calc resolution
    new web page up www.null.hr

  12. #57
    Registered User darkChief's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Global
    Posts
    443
    Quote Originally Posted by mav3rick View Post
    btw what is about stability of hard body objects/fluids at the end of calc?... is it possible to make it less vibrating and look more natural... is that somethin that deals with substeps or calc resolution
    Just in time for a new clip

    I like the little jiggle at the end, since there are forces working inside the fluids (like vorticity) But you can tone it down or smooth it out completely. That's what the coupling stiffness does. When stitching physics engines together its easy to forget forces won't be equal (different integrators or iterative solvers that converge differently), so the stiffness lets you adjust how strongly the fluid forces affect bullet dynamics .

    Timestep and substep automatically synchronised.

    Also I was having trouble with Bullets default impulse based constraint solver, hard to to tune and synchronize in my opinion. Luckily its a very modular platform and they have different solvers that can be plugged in. I will be using the MCLP solver, because its more accurate, like pure SPH.

    And you asked about floating objects, check out the clip. The surface area also affects how things float or sink.

    Last edited by darkChief; 04-11-2017 at 05:42 AM.

  13. #58
    nice now how it works with surface/weight compensation/penetration.. i mean if you have wood cube falling in water it will sink a little until weight is compensate with water density and pull it up on surface... i can still feel bullet detection is too much sensitive.. need bit more smoothout sorry for being picky just want to help you getting it believable.
    new web page up www.null.hr

  14. #59
    Registered User darkChief's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Global
    Posts
    443
    The MCLP solver is very impressive, have you tried it out?
    It's meant for traditional offline simulations, and not real time. The other physics engine I'm very familiar is Physx, you would get similar results I think.

    Well a coupling stiffness of 0 will completely kill all forces. So it's completely tunable.

    Technically there's no collision detection between the two engines. Euphorik only sees boundary particles, not polygons. Pressure is symmetric at the boundaries, so it creates forces for Bullet. Long conversation, there's a lot literature on the topic if you're interested in the details.

    I've tested the cube in a shallow fluid simulation, it will sink and rise to the top. However the rigid coupling solution I've encountered so far won't give you a simulation you can use in a realworld engineering project of course, these methods were not designed for that (maybe SPH is an exception).

    The coupling stiffness also allows a lot of artistic freedom.
    Last edited by darkChief; 04-11-2017 at 09:45 AM.

  15. #60

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •