PDA

View Full Version : Tree Burst



Mr Rid
11-13-2009, 02:29 AM
http://www.box.net/shared/static/lkr3zrugty.jpg"]http://www.box.net/shared/static/lkr3zrugty.jpg

animation-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGZbMJcKLYs

Tree modeled in Maya by Patrick Jänicke. http://www.designsfiction.com/

I did lighting, FX, animation, texturing, and made leaves in FFX Strand Modeler.

MUCUS
11-13-2009, 03:18 AM
Just a big WOW for this one! :thumbsup: Earth cracking, tree movement/deformation and particle system are both top notch! (And plus, of course, render and lightning are great)

Was Maya use only for modeling or did you use it for that nice particle system too?

Mr Rid
11-13-2009, 04:20 AM
All Lightwave for dynamics, particles and sprites (43 emitters). The tree animation is keyframed.

UnCommonGrafx
11-13-2009, 05:02 AM
That was VERY nice...
Kudos.

-EsHrA-
11-13-2009, 05:34 AM
gorgeous mr.rid! :)

mlon

safetyman
11-13-2009, 05:43 AM
Simply outstanding. Great job, man.

OnlineRender
11-13-2009, 01:24 PM
nicccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc cccccccccccccccce

Andrewstopheles
11-13-2009, 06:04 PM
cool

Shiny_Mike
11-13-2009, 07:19 PM
Wow, looks like a lot of work, the result is fantastic!

karlieman
11-14-2009, 01:13 PM
The second video with the dirt not the dust, are those particles with hypervoxles?

arsad
11-14-2009, 02:28 PM
Very nice effect! Great work as usual...

shrox
11-14-2009, 02:29 PM
I'm convinced.

Mr Rid
11-14-2009, 06:34 PM
The second video with the dirt not the dust, are those particles with hypervoxles?

Sprites... with a patented fake volume processing. One of these days I would like to do a tutorial.

79291

BTW, the tree and ground were all rendered in a single pass. This is an example of how I avoid making a bunch of unnecessary layers. When the lighting is done right you shouldnt have to break out a bunch of channel passes. Lighting should be kept simple. Here, there is only an area light at frame right, and a spot light at frame left. No GI. The leaves are just 4-poly, clip-mapped cards with normal displacement.

BlueApple
11-15-2009, 11:07 AM
Very nice work, Mr. Rid. A tutorial on your fake volume processing technique is very welcome. I am assuming it's not really patented, right?

karlieman
11-15-2009, 11:54 AM
Sorry I was not clear, I meant the video with the clumps of dirt not the dust are those particles or are they dynamics?

Weetos
11-15-2009, 01:54 PM
Wow - Amazing ! Really nicely executed

A tutorial would be much appreciated indeed !

Mr Rid
11-15-2009, 04:12 PM
Sorry I was not clear, I meant the video with the clumps of dirt not the dust are those particles or are they dynamics?

PFX and Surface voxels. An emitter for larger dirt clods erases at ground impact, then at that point the child emitter throws up a little burst of smaller clods to create the effect of the larger chunks shattering into smaller pieces on impact. Although there is a frustrating problem in PFX where not all parent particles emit child particles as they should. Consequently, a lot of the larger clods just vanish into the grass. To counter, the higher the child birth rate, the more parent particles inherit child emissions (?), but then a birth rate high enough to get all the parents emitting, inevitably generates way too many particles. The smaller particles needed to bounce, but then you have the jittery problem where the particles never come to a stop. So here I just have to pretend they are falling below the grass line.

I also ran into a bug with these scenes where LW refused to acknowledge more than 2 groups. It kept ignoring any subsequent groups for some reason. I had to tediously enable and disable different sets of effectors and calculate things separately.

The biggest headache was that stupid jittering hardFX pieces problem. Nothing would get the large ground chunks to stop flipping around long after they should have come to a stop. I wound up having to crank up 'resist spin' but then of course the chunks would not rotate realistically, but they are just sort of obscured in the action here. There's too much compromise with LW dynamics.

IgnusFast
11-16-2009, 08:46 AM
Please don't take this as an insult, but I absolutely cannot tell that shot was not done in live action with miniatures. Absolutely amazing!!!

And for some reason, it reminds me of the movie Beetlejuice, though I'll be damned if I can figure out why...

Mr Rid
11-17-2009, 01:20 AM
Reminds of an unintentional compliment when I read an IMDB comment on a crappy movie called Storm that I worked on. Someone said how cheezy the FX looked because he could see the wires on the planes... but they were all CG, so I assumed he thought they looked like miniatures.

Shooting half scale miniature of a shape punching thru dirt was considered. But I figured it was too difficult to plan something that would work with the different stages of branches punching thru, and for tweaking changes.

I was not happy with the appearance of the HardFX ground chunks. They looked too sharp-edged and geometryish, although they are somewhat obscured in the action. I could not use high res, displaced geometry because it took too long to run a sim with it, and could not use HardLink since neighboring chunks had overlapping points and it can not practically interpret which point should go where. To break up the shapes, I tried a test with FFX that would have helped, but encountered too much glitchiness and could not quickly enough get FFX to work in the more complex scene, to spread densely enough over the whole ground object, and to light in a way that blended well into the BG. If I had more time I would have tried instancing. I did apply some HVs to the chunks to break up their shapes a little, but as usual they mostly looked like little Milkduds.

FFX test
http://www.box.net/shared/static/3h48b3rhfm.gif

karlieman
11-17-2009, 10:26 AM
Here is a little test of the surface hypervoxel dirt clumps please tell me what you think.http://www.newtek.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=79396&stc=1&d=1258478773

IgnusFast
11-17-2009, 10:40 AM
They're so light in color and disappear that they look more like sparks. Maybe that's just me. :)

Mr Rid
11-17-2009, 02:29 PM
Here is a little test of the surface hypervoxel dirt clumps please tell me what you think.

Thats the idea. But yeah, I think your child pfx are popping up a little too high for the velocity of the parents. You also want to have as aggressive a hyper texture as possible to break up the ball shapes. It is better to have the child particles bounce instead of erase (in a separate group) but then they wont come to a complete stop.

Mr Rid
11-17-2009, 02:50 PM
I needed emitters to emit while they passed up thru the ground collision, but LW insists on this weird thing where the particles emit above the collision-
79403

Another ongoing frustration I mentioned before is how child particles will not emit from all of the parent particles, unless the child birth rate is cranked up to an impractical value. Here, the parents (blue) will not begin emitting children for several frames after birth-
79404

karlieman
11-17-2009, 04:17 PM
Here is a better test.http://www.newtek.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=79405&stc=1&d=1258499805

Mr Rid
11-17-2009, 10:58 PM
mmm, but now the child particles dont bounce at all. Try a bounce collision with Fix Power of 2 or 3.

geo_n
11-18-2009, 01:18 AM
Another excelllent effects work. Would really be interested with those tutorials. Kurv should try to get those techniques to videos. It would benefit the lw community and maybe we can get more jobs with it.

Hieron
11-18-2009, 07:06 PM
Really nice.. +1 for a tut :)
Great looking dust.

AdamAvenali
11-18-2009, 07:17 PM
Mr Rid, are you okay with being my hero? :thumbsup: great work!

Mr Rid
12-01-2009, 09:51 PM
Thanks everyone.

wireframe-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2C5ZwDEfDQ

The spheres parented to limb bones serve as collisions for the ground, and as dirt and dust emitters.

gordonrobb
12-02-2009, 02:51 AM
Very sweet work there Mr Rid

It would appear to me, that you are the god of lightwave's particle effects for sure.

Hieron
12-02-2009, 06:10 AM
I like the movement of the dust as it swirls a bit, how did you go about doing that?

mav3rick
12-02-2009, 07:13 AM
orgasmic :)

Cageman
12-02-2009, 08:01 AM
Very well done! :thumbsup:

Cageman
12-02-2009, 12:06 PM
BTW, the tree and ground were all rendered in a single pass. This is an example of how I avoid making a bunch of unnecessary layers. When the lighting is done right you shouldnt have to break out a bunch of channel passes.

Not to pee on your parade here, but have you ever used Janus or Passport? Or any system that actually do layer/multipass breakups without having to fiddle with it? I'm not saying you are doing anything wrong, and in this case I wouldn't see a reason to break things up more than what you already have done, but you always manage to make it sound like it is rocket sience and timeconsuming to get these things working smoothly with LightWave regarding breaking scenes up into several layers and/or multipass (as in Spec, Reflection, Shadow etc). Granted, with Out-Of-The-Box LightWave it is... but with Janus and exrTrader...think again...

Today I made use of Janus to render out an Environment, two characters (separate from eachother) and a prop that one of the characters interacted with (the reason was because alot of post-work needed them separate). All of this is in a single scenefile, but with the press of ONE button (after spending 30 tedious seconds to set things up in Janus), I got 4 renderscenes that each rendered out those 4 different elements. Not just that, but in each of these renderscenes all other elements were masking the the main element of the renderscene. . So, no matter in which order these things were put together in the compositing application, all of them masked eachother where they should. 30 seconds of setuptime!

Change something? Well, open the main scene, apply your change and click that button again to update all the renderscenes and just re-init on the farm. With two clicks on the mouse, I could make those 4 layers to output as multichannel exrs containing all the buffers, if that would be necessary. Oh and, I forgot to mention this, but the total rendertime for these 4 layers compared to render all of them in camera was actually lower. That 30 second setuptime in Janus was well covered by the savings on the rendertime.

Just a thought...

:)

Mr Rid
12-02-2009, 02:56 PM
Not to pee on your parade here, but have you ever used Janus or Passport? Or any system that actually do layer/multipass breakups without having to fiddle with it? ...

:)

That's all perfectly fine. Go for it.

But when the lighting is done right, I just have no need of extra channels. The extra passes take up more drive space (and it all has to be logged in a database and backed up daily for many shots on a feature), and may unnecessarily clutter the comp and add possibilities for things to go awry. I see many examples of shots getting overcomped by 2D artists who like to fiddle with the elements too much, or who may be less skilled, or who are failing to read or interpret my notes properly, or who I may have no communication with in some cases and they get "creative" with how the elements were intended to be used.

In dailies, the supe or client may not like how a comp is looking but is often difficult to pinpoint the exact problem to fix. Sometimes, 'it just doesn't look right.' In some cases we waste time going thru iterations before I have to sit down with the compositor (whose feathers are probably ruffled at this point) and go over each of my elements they are loading, and exactly how they are interpreting and processing them. Often, a setting somewhere is overlooked. I would much rather give 2D the least elements necessary (key word). Besides minimizing passes, I optimize everything I do in 3D, and is part of why I am often told I seem to do the work of 2 or more artists. Each step added to the assembly line of perhaps hundreds of shots and artists is another chance for things to go wrong.

Myself (when I composite), and an excellent compositor I usually work with, Brad Moylan (who has worked on about 90 movies http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:VNA6cBaAgOkJ:www.imdb.com/name/nm0610487/+brad+moylan&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us do not want to mess with any more elements than necessary. For example, Brad said that when he was compositing on Transformers all the channel passes were available, but that he never once needed them because the beauty passes were already so close to photoreal, they only needed minor processing to integrate. This is also how I prefer to work.

Another thing is that I try to be as certain as possible that any technical problems in comp are not coming from 3D, by carefully pre-comping all my elements to make sure they are ready for comp. This greatly minimizes problems before we are sitting in dailies, wasting everyone's time critiquing a shot that is not where it should be.

The penguins were also rendered in a single RGB pass- http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104101 except for the first shot, the beaks had an isolated alpha because Sas took light so differently than the geometry.
The squirrels needed only an additional shadow pass- http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104227

I have just learned to keep the process as straightforward as possible. There is enough inherent complication in 3D and VFX as it is.

Mr Rid
12-02-2009, 03:18 PM
I like the movement of the dust as it swirls a bit, how did you go about doing that?

A vortex wind. There is also a big donut wind for the woosh of the last limbs to swing up.

Digital Hermit
12-02-2009, 10:30 PM
Man, what I would like to say is, "I am absolutely inspired!" :bowdown:

However, what seems to come out is... "Ah crap, I quit!" :(

Larry_g1s
12-02-2009, 11:47 PM
Dag Yo! You do some amazing work. Big props.
One of these days I would like to do a tutorial. ABSOLUTELY. How about one of those days be tomorrow. :thumbsup:

shrox
12-03-2009, 09:02 AM
Mr. Rid is getting too good...he's throwing off the curve!

Iaian7
12-07-2009, 11:04 AM
Man, what I would like to say is, "I am absolutely inspired!" :bowdown:

However, what seems to come out is... "Ah crap, I quit!" :(

Haha, same here!

erikals
12-28-2009, 05:10 PM
the fake volume is very cool, i never did, but consider using Zdepth to make fake volume.

very sweet animation,
was it a test? it looks too good to be a test.

as for jumping particles, HowardM once suggested using groups, did you try that?
never quite got what he ment, long time ago...
let's see if i can find it,...
http://www.spinquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6386

Mr Rid
12-28-2009, 06:09 PM
...
as for jumping particles, HowardM once suggested using groups, did you try that?
never quite got what he ment, long time ago...
let's see if i can find it,...
http://www.spinquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6386

I looked at that awhile back, but it assumes all your particles land and bounce all at once, and is convoluted to set up a group for each bounce. Even if I could use that, I would need three times the groups (for three bounces) for each of dozens of dirt emitters, but I could not even get LW to handle 3 groups in this scene. For some odd reason that I did not have time to troubleshoot, LW just ignored any 3rd group that I tried apply to anything. I wound up having to enable and disable certain effectors to run different parts of the sim.

More recently I figured out to use a very low fix power at 1 or 2 that can allow the particles to bounce but stop them when they slow down. At 3 the particles just stopped on the first collision and would not bounce. Depends on particle velocity.

sampei
12-28-2009, 08:06 PM
wow, kick ***. seriously.

erikals
12-28-2009, 08:17 PM
More recently I figured out to use a very low fix power at 1 or 2 that can allow the particles to bounce but stop them when they slow down. At 3 the particles just stopped on the first collision and would not bounce. Depends on particle velocity.

hm, interesting...
some time back i was thinking about stick mode or wind with a negative value and a falloff, but never got the time to test.

btw, came across this, Bukadan plugin,
http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98964&page=2
edit: um, see u already subscribed...

Mr Rid
12-28-2009, 08:58 PM
HowardM once suggested using groups

some time back i was thinking about stick mode or wind with a negative value and a falloff,

Ah, the hoops it must amuse NT to watch us jump thru.



btw, came across this, Bukadan plugin,
http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98964&page=2


Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it. I read too many of these things that wind up never being released or not working as hoped. I have no idea why so many people yap on and on about Core. When its working, lemme know.

Mr Rid
12-28-2009, 09:12 PM
wow, kick ***. seriously.

Now if only the same thing would work with HardFX. :bangwall:

erikals
12-29-2009, 05:13 AM
I read too many of these things that wind up never being released or not working as hoped.

very true, it gets to the point were one just don't care about asking anymore...
i remember even making my own icons to try to get my point through...
...crossing fingers and toes Core will have some decent dynamics.
...hope they keep the way the wind effectors are done though, better than Maya's solution imo.

http://erikalstad.com/smiley/LwDynamicsNo.gif http://erikalstad.com/smiley/BetterDynamics.gif

erikals
01-03-2010, 08:22 PM
regarding Bukadan, they are currently looking for Beta testers...
http://www.spinquad.com/forums/showthread.php?p=261403#post261403

prometheus
01-04-2010, 06:35 AM
regarding Bukadan, they are currently looking for Beta testers...
http://www.spinquad.com/forums/showthread.php?p=261403#post261403

Well yeah if Mr Rid got the time,he should sign up, he really is qualified to test that bukadan me thinks, and I guess he has seen how fume fx works too.
Im not sure for my part, I need a month before I get my new 64 bit machine with quadro fx 3800.

Regarding faking volumetrics, I wouldnīt be surprised if Mr Rid does that
with post process in fusion.

On the other hand it might be the faking it by using gradients on lumunosity,color or opacity or even density channels and use distant to object ref gradients for example.

otherwise Im clueless:confused:

Michael

erikals
01-04-2010, 07:20 AM
i'm guessing in the line of the last one,
"...or even density channels and use distant to object ref gradients..."

remember though that you can use Blender Smoke,
a guy at this forum tested it and indeed there is no problem with camera match.
it's cool to know it works.

but of course having Fluids inside LW would give much more control and faster feedback.

prometheus
01-04-2010, 08:16 AM
i'm guessing in the line of the last one,
"...or even density channels and use distant to object ref gradients..."

remember though that you can use Blender Smoke,
a guy at this forum tested it and indeed there is no problem with camera match.
it's cool to know it works.

but of course having Fluids inside LW would give much more control and faster feedback.

nope, blender smoke didnīt work for me,it always crash when trying to add the smoke in blender, but that is most likely
due to my graphics card thats a bit faulty it seems and some drivers
that couldnīt be installed correctly.

Again, for a more volume mode of the sprites, you can increase the slices
, wich are slices of a volume.

I also believe you could get something out of the nodes to, once the dp node volume plugin for hypertextures are installed.

another idea out of nowhere, maybe image maps?

Michael

erikals
01-04-2010, 08:30 AM
yep, Blender crashing is most likely the graphics card, did a small test-run some time back,
worked fine.

Mr.Rid uses sprites, which is essentially the same as image maps.

btw, anyone know how Dante's Peak was done?

OnlineRender
01-04-2010, 11:35 AM
nope, blender smoke didnīt work for me,it always crash when trying to add the smoke in blender, but that is most likely
due to my graphics card thats a bit faulty it seems and some drivers
that couldnīt be installed correctly.

Michael

Probably correct , but I came across a problem with my C+ runtime envoriment .
" every time i went above 200 rez in fluids it crashed "
wasnt my graphic card ,I booted into ubuntu and blender worked fine !

erikals
01-04-2010, 11:42 AM
200 rez, in smoke or fluids?
cauz pumping up the rez in fluids in Blender has been known to produce problems.
(no way around afaik, just Realflow)

lardbros
09-20-2012, 06:45 AM
Going through this thread again, and still think it's flawless and gorgeous work!

Now, Mr. Rid, are you able to spill the beans a little on your faking of volumetric sprites? Would love to hear more, if you're feeling like it! :D

erikals
09-20-2012, 08:01 AM
i had success with mixing sprites and a fake manual z-depth, +some post work.

inakito
09-21-2012, 02:40 AM
superb work mr rid, big thanks!