PDA

View Full Version : so how can I do this in ffx?



sadkkf
03-02-2012, 12:00 PM
I have a plane I'm trying to add some grass to following William's tute (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2OctIgp9CU), but it doesn't work.

The grass appears, but as soon as I add anything above 0% for clump, the fibers split down the middle of the x and z axes as the attached photos show.

Am I missing something?

dwburman
03-02-2012, 02:59 PM
Is your plane made up of four polygons? It look like it is clumping toward the center of the poly that the fibers are on.

-FP-
03-02-2012, 04:29 PM
In my experience thus far with the 11 trial, FFX is WAY broken.

raw-m
03-02-2012, 04:41 PM
Was trying the exact same thing today. Found on another thread (search FiberFX and clump) that the poly FFX is applied to needs to be subdivided quite a bit. I'm finding FFX in LW11 very slow on a mac, nothing like the speeds in the tutorial on YT - and that's on a computer from nearly 3 years ago! Will try instancing for this instead.

sadkkf
03-03-2012, 09:27 AM
thanks for the input everyone.

My original plane was 1 poly, but after dividing it into ~20 I got the same unusable results.

I really hope this is fixed in the next .x release.

Quick update: I added grass to a plane with ~9800 polys and it looks much better. Way slower renders, but looks okay.

bazsa73
03-04-2012, 02:07 AM
Unstable and unreliable. Ffx is slow, errorprone, inflexible and frustrating, last time I used it in a real-life project I felt so deeply disappointed plus my client was sitting beside me, my cheek was burning red-hot because I couldn't resize a mesh without crashing everytime, and when I resized the mesh the fibers stayed in their original place not following the shrinken surface, it was so embarrassing and lame. It should be rewritten from the ground up.

geo_n
03-04-2012, 02:47 AM
Beg Joe shave and haircut to port lightwave version.

IMI
03-04-2012, 06:48 AM
I'm finding it incredibly hard to believe that after all this time, FFX is still a mess.

It seems even worse that they treat it as a feature they're proud of, instead of the liability it is.

sadkkf
03-04-2012, 10:21 AM
what horks me off the most is it USED to work better than it does now.

hate to say it, but I guess you get what you pay for.

sadkkf
03-04-2012, 10:53 AM
Definitely broken. The more I use it, the more it doesn't work.

Loading saved settings doesn't bloody work. All that time I spent setting up my scene was wasted.

Good thing I'm independently wealthy and only work to occupy time time. :rolleyes:

Andy Meyer
03-04-2012, 04:15 PM
so how broken is ffx? completely?
not working at all on trial content scenes.
load trial content scene in FiberFX/Furry_Animals/ folder, no ffx in opengl.
activate vpr, no fibers. f9 no fibers.
is this kind of fun? i like jokes, but i dont understand that one...

Dodgy
03-04-2012, 04:35 PM
Loading saved settings doesn't bloody work. All that time I spent setting up my scene was wasted.

I can save and load settings no problem. Do you have an example scene?

Greenlaw
03-05-2012, 10:58 AM
so how broken is ffx? completely?
It was mentioned in another thread a while back that FFX is receiving a bunch of fixes for an SP1 release. The release date has not been announced yet.

I'm guessing that LW11 SP1 will be like 10.1 compared to 10.0. For me personally and at work, 10.1 was a huge improvement over 10.1 in many key areas.

I only started working with 11 last week, but mostly playing with Bullet at the moment. I'll try working with FFX later today and post a few thoughts tonight. I actually got very good results with FFX in 10.1 during the HC beta last year so it will be interesting to compare results.

G.

sadkkf
03-05-2012, 11:58 AM
I can save and load settings no problem. Do you have an example scene?

The settings load, but the scene then doesn't render any fibers. All I see in the VPR are dots. I don't have that scene any more but I can try to recreate.

CaptainMarlowe
03-05-2012, 12:39 PM
Make sure you have selected a surface in the lowest part of fiber FX tab. And if you have instanced your FFX object, volume only seems to work OK in F9 renders, although it's quite slow (in VPR also).

MAUROCOR
03-05-2012, 12:51 PM
Are you having problems with the Werewolf scene too? Because FFX works fine here in that scene!:question:

CaptainMarlowe
03-05-2012, 01:23 PM
Yep, it works fine, but only if you reassign a surface. At least on Mac.
I've checked for instancing, it doesn't seem to work without "volume only". This said, rendering a lot of instanced polygonal grass is wayyyy faster.

Dodgy
03-05-2012, 05:16 PM
The selecting of surfaces would be the major difference. I don't think that came in until recently, so you'd have to set that up if you're loading old settings.

Andy Meyer
03-05-2012, 09:57 PM
well, LW11.0 looks very stable. but FFX trial scenes that dont work at all is a bit ... i dont know. what about testing? install the app and load all demo scenes and look if they are ok could be a good start for internal tests, right?
why showcasing something LW is bad at?

jasonwestmas
03-05-2012, 10:24 PM
Make sure your objects are the right scale. You're using LW11 for these tests? I probably wouldn't rely on settings and files from previous versions of FFX either.

Dodgy
03-05-2012, 10:58 PM
Is that the 11 trial content? I have a feeling someone said they weren't working as FFX got updated after they were made and they didn't get updated to go with it. Bit of a boo boo if they still haven't been updated.

50one
03-06-2012, 12:17 AM
Yip, the ffx scenes in trial content don't work, which isn't funny as this is something to promote the product.

hunter
03-06-2012, 06:10 PM
As has been said you have to select a surface in the ffx options for the fur to show up. I loaded the giraffe scene selected BaseSkin surface and hit f9. Not that I'm a huge fan of ffx but worked for me.

hrgiger
03-06-2012, 07:05 PM
Yes will wait to see what the service pack 1 for LW 11 does but I'm finding it hard to believe that this is the third major release featuring FFX and it still is buggy and unreliable. I find it incredibly hard to get good results with it even when everything seems to be working. It was so easy to get good results with Sasquatch with minimal fuss.

Hieron
03-07-2012, 03:48 PM
Yes will wait to see what the service pack 1 for LW 11 does but I'm finding it hard to believe that this is the third major release featuring FFX and it still is buggy and unreliable. I find it incredibly hard to get good results with it even when everything seems to be working. It was so easy to get good results with Sasquatch with minimal fuss.

/agreed. sadly...


It was mentioned in another thread a while back that FFX is receiving a bunch of fixes for an SP1 release. The release date has not been announced yet.
....

Afaik, FFX is "getting fixes" for quite a few years now. So that's nothing new?



Still, I hope they can work out the issues.

-FP-
03-09-2012, 08:38 AM
I just modeled sets for a low-budget, crazy deadline Lightwave 9.6-created TV commercial (not online yet, unfortunately). The director chose Fiber FX for the hair. There were major problems and regrets, lots of FFX "never again" declarations.
☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺
Anyone remember the partially-mocapped, Lightwave-animated version of THE LEGEND OF SLEEPY HOLLOW (http://www.cgw.com/Publications/CGW/2000/Volume-23-Issue-1-January-2000-/A-Head-Turning-Production.aspx) that used an early version of Fiber FX, called Fiber Factory, for the hair? FOX aired it once, twelve years ago. Almost all the scenes with hair were technical disasters, flickering, glowing, and not matched from shot to shot.

http://www.cgw.com/images/Media/PublicationsArticle/TheCrew300.jpg

jasonwestmas
03-09-2012, 08:50 AM
I just modeled sets for a low-budget, crazy deadline Lightwave 9.6-created TV commercial (not online yet, unfortunately). The director chose Fiber FX for the hair. There were major problems and regrets, lots of FFX "never again" declarations.
☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺
Anyone remember the partially-mocapped, Lightwave-animated version of THE LEGEND OF SLEEPY HOLLOW (http://www.cgw.com/Publications/CGW/2000/Volume-23-Issue-1-January-2000-/A-Head-Turning-Production.aspx) that used an early version of Fiber FX, called Fiber Factory, for the hair? FOX aired it once, twelve years ago. Almost all the scenes with hair were technical disasters, flickering, glowing, and not matched from shot to shot.

http://www.cgw.com/images/Media/PublicationsArticle/TheCrew300.jpg

That's not the same FFX as we have now fyi, Unless your point is that in software, nothing is fixable.

erikals
03-09-2012, 09:05 AM
quite old, the article mentions "Steamer"...

bazsa73
03-09-2012, 09:19 AM
What I noticed today that FFX is more stable using guides from modeler than the generated ones in layout. You can't rely on the latter, a simple change, let's say in a weight map will cause amnesy among the guides, they just forget how they were scaled or combed. With predef guides it doesn't happen. Of course combing in modeler is painful. With the ffx tool you can comb one follicle at a time, it wont work like the magnet tool.
Selecting only the non-fix guides is another challenge. You cant deselect the fix points, once I succeeded but already forgotten, that should be a maximum 2 click solution.
Ah, it's just way too frustrating.

jasonwestmas
03-09-2012, 09:46 AM
You may want to try combing your guides in layout and then creating a mesh out of it. Then save the mesh guides out to a separate lwo, then apply ffx settings to those 2 point poly guides and save your scene.

bazsa73
03-09-2012, 10:39 AM
You may want to try combing your guides in layout and then creating a mesh out of it. Then save the mesh guides out to a separate lwo, then apply ffx settings to those 2 point poly guides and save your scene.
Good idea, but once I converted layout guides to actual geometry I'm on the edge of the cliff where it falls to the sea. How can I use once more the nice layout combing tools on geometric guides? But I will try it or rather I will try ZBrush's fibermesh tool.

jasonwestmas
03-09-2012, 10:44 AM
You have one other option assuming your layout ffx guides will never ever save to lws. You can try the FFX IK chain modeler inside of LW modeler. But yeah that's not the same as brushing. If you have Zbrush I would definitely try that technique. ^.^

Greenlaw
03-09-2012, 11:26 AM
This was something I threw together to help out another user a few months ago:

Strand Modeler Demo (http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=97727&d=1314169183)

It shows how to use FFX Strand Modeler to make guides for Fiber Filter or Sasquatch. I only spent a few minutes on this piece (I think I spent more time preparing the Photoshop layout) but I think it shows you can make a credible 'do' with it quickly. This is typical of what I've been doing for several years now, though traditionally I've been using Sasquatch for rendering. I've used this technique for both humans and creatures.

Here's the original thread if anybody is curious:

FFX for Hairstyles (http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?t=121521&highlight=fiberfx)

Last year when 10.1 was in beta, I tried the FFX styling tools in Layout and it worked pretty well. This was actually a test for the new FFX dynamics and motion vector output but I wanted to try doing it all in Layout:

FFX Dynamics Test (http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=101332&d=1327985938)

Again, not meant to look pretty and I only spent a few minutes on this too. I was very pleased with the results--it actually looked great in motion, no flickering and good shadows. I did have trouble with the motion vectors but it was in beta at the time. I haven't had a chance to revisit this test with 11 yet to see if this was fixed. Hope to do so soon since I would really like to use FFX in an upcoming project.

The original thread is here:

FiberFX Questions (http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?p=1215384&highlight=FFX+motion#post1215384)

In brief, hair combing was all done in Layout and it worked just fine. Even so, I was concerned about stability so I did a Save Transform to save out the guides as a regular LW object. When you do this, you get an .lwo with all the geometry, so you need to delete the character mesh in Modeler before you can use this version of the guides in Layout. It's a workaround but it is definitely possible to permanently save your FFX styles from Layout.

I'm posting this just to show that FFX does work. Maybe not perfectly yet but it's definitely useable.

Now, I won't lie to you: FFX still needs a little work--the motion vectors output is the most compelling feature over Sasquatch for us at work and we really need this to work be flawlessly before we adopt FFX in the Box--but IMHO, FFX is so very close to being fully production ready.

I'm really looking forward to SP1. Excited in fact! :)

Coincidentally, I beta tested FiberFactory 4 (the pre-NewTek version of FFX) about five years ago on an unfinished short film called RVJ. My wife and I are planning to revisit and finish RVJ in a couple of months, so it will be pretty cool if by then FFX is also ready to finish that project with us.

G.

Greenlaw
03-09-2012, 11:44 AM
BTW, that Fox show mentioned earlier must have used a very early version of Fiber Factory, which I believe at the time was the only guide based solution available for Lightwave. It only created 2-point polygon chains or meah geometry, so the flickering you saw was likely caused by low quality shadow mapping. Fiber Filter didn't exist back then and Sasquatch, if it was even available for this production, may have just been released (I think Sas came out in 2000 or 2001.) You really can't compare Fiber Factory 1.0 - 2.0 from 10 years ago with FFX of today.

G.

Greenlaw
03-09-2012, 11:51 AM
I'm doing a new animated FFX test right now in LW 11. Will post the results later with LW 10.1 comparisons. Very curious to see how it works out.

jasonwestmas
03-09-2012, 03:22 PM
LW 11.0 FFX test here with my Trusty old test head.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/6ramyc

Some Stats:

-) 22,028, 2 Point Polys

-) 25 Fibers per guide

-) Self-Shadowing: 60% (Point Sample)

-) Sample Radius: 2

-) Multi Sample: 1

-) Shadow Depth: 18

-) Rendertime per frame: 4:48 Approx.

-) AA Min 1, AA Max 6, AS .05, OS .4

-) 2 Dome Lights, 2 Area Lights

-) Ray Recursion 4

-) Ray Precision 6

-) Ray Cutoff .03

-) Shading Samples 8

-) Reflection Samples 8

I could probably increase the shadow quality a bit but I was kinda surprised it only took 4:48 per frame and doing it with the Skin Material node. Gotta fix the guides and flickering around the left ear. It's probably being caused by the intersecting of the hairs with the geometry.

DigitalSorcery8
03-09-2012, 03:36 PM
Fiber Filter didn't exist back then and Sasquatch, if it was even available for this production, may have just been released (I think Sas came out in 2000 or 2001.)
Yes, Sas came out Spring/Summer 2000.

Chuck
03-09-2012, 04:25 PM
It was mentioned in another thread a while back that FFX is receiving a bunch of fixes for an SP1 release. The release date has not been announced yet.

I'm guessing that LW11 SP1 will be like 10.1 compared to 10.0. For me personally and at work, 10.1 was a huge improvement over 10.1 in many key areas.

I only started working with 11 last week, but mostly playing with Bullet at the moment. I'll try working with FFX later today and post a few thoughts tonight. I actually got very good results with FFX in 10.1 during the HC beta last year so it will be interesting to compare results.

G.

We're working to get SP1 out very quickly, and it literally is just a service pack, with fixes only, spread across the applications and plugins. This does include a number of important fixes for FiberFX, and those NewContent scenes are working properly in the new builds.

Greenlaw
03-09-2012, 05:04 PM
We're working to get SP1 out very quickly, and it literally is just a service pack, with fixes only...this does include a number of important fixes for FiberFX....
FFX fixes alone will be a huge deal for me. Thanks for the heads up Chuck! :)

G.

Greenlaw
03-09-2012, 05:20 PM
LW 11.0 FFX test here with my Trusty old test head.
Pretty neat! Keep posting your progress. :thumbsup:

erikals
03-09-2012, 07:50 PM
you might wanna set up some collision nulls by the ear,
might keep the strands from being locked into the ear.

(i believe this is because of the old algorithm used in ClothFX, HardFX)
alternatively, pump the collision mm setting really high, or really low.

bullet soft dynamics should probably remove this problem later on...

jasonwestmas
03-09-2012, 08:20 PM
you might wanna set up some collision nulls by the ear,
might keep the strands from being locked into the ear.

(i believe this is because of the old algorithm used in ClothFX, HardFX)
alternatively, pump the collision mm setting really high, or really low.

bullet soft dynamics should probably remove this problem later on...

I think it's just because I have 25 fibers per strand so it kinda just clumped up there. So I just have to be smarter about where I put each guide. The dynamics are actually calculated in messiah and applied with MDD.

Yeah I'm kinda looking forward to those new soft bodies. They look cool.

Greenlaw
03-09-2012, 08:32 PM
A few tips for long hair:

What I typically do for long hair is build a cage object that groups the hair into locks, apply clothFX to that, and then use FX Metalink to animate the guides. IMO this helps the long hair move more realistically because hair tends to gather in locks rather than individual strands; also, this method cuts calculation time down to a few seconds instead of several minutes.

A cage can also give hair dynamics a more natural falloff from roots to end, and if you give it a bit of hold, the hairstyle will go back to it's original shape when the character isn't moving so much.

I used this technique for a couple of long haired female characters in Saboteur cinematics and for a few long furred Crash Bandicoot mutants a while back, and it worked quite well. The trick was was originally developed for the characters in an early version of RVJ (the short film mentioned a few posts back,) because my home computer at the time was pathetically underpowered for running ClothFX calculations. :)

G.

jasonwestmas
03-09-2012, 08:40 PM
A few tips for long hair:

G.

Yeah I still haven't tried that cage hair metalink technique you told me about 6 months ago ^.^. It would make things a bit easier with messiah SB too even though it calculates in near real time. It's the collision clipping that makes things hard in messiah.

Greenlaw
03-10-2012, 05:46 AM
That reminds me, the cage thing also makes the hair dynamics more controllable, meaning it's a lot easier and more predictable to set up for collision.

This and the extra speed boost was really important to me back when I started the RVJ project because one one of the characters is on-screen for a full minute without cuts, so the time it took to solve hair and clothing ClothFX calcs was completely unpractical without the cages. After designing cages for hair and clothing, it suddenly became practical to do as many iterations as I wanted.

The downside to using a cage with hair is that you do lose the detail of individual strands breaking away from locks. But in general I find the look with using a cage more preferable to too many individual strands flying about.

G.

jasonwestmas
03-10-2012, 06:56 AM
That reminds me, the cage thing also makes the hair dynamics more controllable, meaning it's a lot easier and more predictable to set up for collision.

This and the extra speed boost was really important to me back when I started the RVJ project because one one of the characters is on-screen for a full minute without cuts, so the time it took to solve hair and clothing ClothFX calcs was completely unpractical without the cages. After designing cages for hair and clothing, it suddenly became practical to do as many iterations as I wanted.

The downside to using a cage with hair is that you do lose the detail of individual strands breaking away from locks. But in general I find the look with using a cage more preferable to too many individual strands flying about.

G.

Yep, those are really good points. But it's not like we don't have control over how many cage/pieces we make right? Could probably use both strand and cages together with two different layers of geometry and use a little self colllision if that's available to you. Not a lot of strands mind you but enough to try to blend with the cage links in the right areas of the scalp.

Greenlaw
03-10-2012, 07:59 AM
Yes, that should work. You might have issues with penetration but to be honest, you almost never notice that stuff when the hair is in motion.

Another tip: You can also use multiple cages on a single hairstyle. I often do this for complicated hairstyles. For example I had to do this for a character that had a lot of separate locks of different lengths in front and sides, plus a long ponytail in back. Using cages and FX Metalink, I was able to apply different ClothFX settings to different pieces.

jasonwestmas
03-10-2012, 08:14 AM
That makes sense, thanks again. Sounds like intricately involved hair-dos (or could be) but awesome.

erikals
03-10-2012, 09:46 AM
...You might have issues with penetration...
this is where the null collisions come in, i think they should be able to fix this.
(it might be that many nulls would have to be used though)
for some reason these collision nulls seem to be able to withstand penetration. (i think)
the ClothFX dynamics problem where penetration happens happens near the vertices of the object, a null doesn't have vertices, this might be why it works, or works better. (need to test more)

Greenlaw
03-10-2012, 09:51 AM
Oh, I was talking about hair through hair, but yes, you're correct. I usually use simplified geometry for head and shoulder collision. At home I just use Use Bones From to deform the collision objects, but at work I need to use FX Metalink because we use .mdd data from Maya to animate the characters in LW.

jasonwestmas
03-10-2012, 09:54 AM
I noticed that FFX does a good job at blending hair clumps together it seems. I've got 100 or so poly chains in that example I showed, each with 25 fibers on it. I didn't really notice anything too strange with the blending between locks of hair. But yeah using dummy colliders/ invisible collisions do help with the the hair clipping into the geometry.

Greenlaw
03-10-2012, 09:56 AM
One more thing: I often do all my hair stuff in a separate 'calc only' scene containing only the hair rig, minimal character stuff and nothing else. This makes working with hair a lot more interactive and tweakable, and it speeds up calculations. When I'm done, I just save the .mdd data to apply in the final render scenes.

G.

-FP-
03-12-2012, 04:16 PM
That's not the same FFX as we have now fyi, Unless your point is that in software, nothing is fixable.

My point is not that it's unfixable.
My point is that it hasn't ever been fully fixed.
It appears 11 has temporarily broken it worse.

FFX has always had a distinctive, often faulty look. It requires more wrangling than Sasquatch. The scenes tend to blow up during renders for reasons unknown. Here's hoping for a successful new FFX that works in the next iteration...

jasonwestmas
03-12-2012, 04:32 PM
My point is not that it's unfixable.
My point is that it hasn't ever been fully fixed.
It appears 11 has temporarily broken it worse.

FFX has always had a distinctive, often faulty look. It requires more wrangling than Sasquatch. The scenes tend to blow up during renders for reasons unknown. Here's hoping for a successful new FFX that works in the next iteration...

I haven't seen any of that in LW10.1 or 11 yet.

Rowsby
03-17-2012, 01:44 PM
A simple point release update isn't going to solve all the problems folks are having with FFX... It has some very deep issues.

What would immediately help, I think, is the developer needs to use the software on complex objects, linked to Layout. Clearly, the Handshaking between the plugin and LW appears to cause the majority of critical error crashes I have.

Been turning off the Pixel Filter plugin "On" check mark, so I can make panel / texture changes without LOSING ALL MY WORK just clicking on something as simple as DIFFUSE inside the FFX panel! This trick has cut down on much wasted time, but there is no excuse for having to litterally wait MINUTES between a single mouse click-- to change ONE setting. NONE.

This situation reminds me of when the new Graph Editor in LW 6 was created: in a sandbox disconnected from Layout. That developer was bragging about how AWESOMELY FAST it was, and yet, never tested how well it played using real data being parsed to it via Layout, until months after the product shipped. And the investigation into the slowness wasn't something that came as a natural part of Newtek's development process. It only came about because so many people continued to ***** about it, for months.

FFX feels exactly the same way to me... NewTek: Please start using this on something more than simple objects, like spheres and planes, so people can use this tool in production, with highly subdivided models from ZBrush. :P

Feature Request: Add a "Comb Cage" button, so guides are ONLY generated on the lowest subdivision level of an object. Smoothly Interpolate the higher levels, internally. This single workflow enhancement will make many studios happy...

So in summary, if the developer / Newtek got to experience what we in the trenches have to deal with, I think the outcome would be the creation of a much better product.

Sorry for the rant, but I can contain my disappointment, no longer.

Thanks,
-Rowsby


It was mentioned in another thread a while back that FFX is receiving a bunch of fixes for an SP1 release. The release date has not been announced yet.

I'm guessing that LW11 SP1 will be like 10.1 compared to 10.0. For me personally and at work, 10.1 was a huge improvement over 10.1 in many key areas.

I only started working with 11 last week, but mostly playing with Bullet at the moment. I'll try working with FFX later today and post a few thoughts tonight. I actually got very good results with FFX in 10.1 during the HC beta last year so it will be interesting to compare results.

G.

Greenlaw
03-17-2012, 02:42 PM
Hey Rowsby! Long time no see. :)

Greenlaw
04-11-2012, 05:18 AM
I finally made time to try FFX in Lightwave 11 tonight. Here's a rough test I threw together:

Lightwave 11 FiberFX - First Test (http://bit.ly/I3av8T)

Yeah, I know, the hairstyle is pretty crappy--I just wanted to do a quick test to see how it looked on a character in motion.

For the most part, FFX worked well. Render was fast (about 50 seconds per frame) but for some reason three frames refused to render (46, 63, 68). Otherwise, no flickering or other noticeable errors. This is really not bad for how little time I put into this test.

I'll post more info about this test and other FFX tests in this thread:

http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?t=127311

G.

jasonwestmas
04-11-2012, 08:37 AM
really nice Greenlaw, what kind of light were you using?

Greenlaw
04-11-2012, 10:44 AM
Thanks!

It's just one Distant Light and one Point Light. I was lighting more for speed than 'beauty' here--don't have all day to wait for test results. :p

(That said, after we put the two new computers online and got BNR squared away for Lightwave 11, this render took, I think, about 18 minutes. I'm very excited about this--maybe now we can render 'Happy Box' in HD.)

One nice thing about FFX is that the shadows will render soft even when they are lit with raytracing lights. I used fairly 'low quality' settings here (again, for speed,) but you can easily dial in more detail.

I'll post more info at the thread mentioned above (http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?t=127311) later today.

G.

Greenlaw
04-11-2012, 11:31 AM
Well, maybe tonight. Looks like I'm going to be pretty busy at work today. :p

DigitalSorcery8
04-11-2012, 11:37 AM
That does look really good! :thumbsup:

Did you just go back and manually render those three frames?

Greenlaw
04-11-2012, 12:56 PM
No, the frames are actually missing in this footage. For some reason Layout and lwsn both crash consistently on those three frames. I was too tired to figure it out last night so I'm not sure if it's even FFX related--it could just as easily be a ClothFX or .mdd error, or some new Lightwave 11 quirk. It could be something dumb that I did. (Probably.)

I'll take a look at it tonight.

G.

hrgiger
04-12-2012, 05:21 AM
Not bad greenlaw.

FiberFx still has that 'wispy' look to it though that I wish they could fix. It looks very unnatural.

erikals
04-12-2012, 06:05 AM
sharpening helps a bit

Dodgy
04-12-2012, 06:21 AM
It's funny, but I prefer FFX's look to Sas. Sas always looks like a teddy's fur, but FFX looks soft and like Timotei girl's hair. I use them both, for different types of hair.

OnlineRender
04-12-2012, 06:31 AM
http://www.lightwiki.net/images/TeddyBearFinalsmall.png

was messing around with the otherday pretty buggy at times especially if you copy and paste the same fibrefx onto another surface

jasonwestmas
04-12-2012, 08:33 AM
It's funny, but I prefer FFX's look to Sas. Sas always looks like a teddy's fur, but FFX looks soft and like Timotei girl's hair. I use them both, for different types of hair.

FFX filter is almost too soft for some things imo. Of course a lot of hair generators look that way. Sas always looked too coarse for human hair when adding several hairs to a single guide.

jasonwestmas
04-12-2012, 08:36 AM
Not bad greenlaw.

FiberFx still has that 'wispy' look to it though that I wish they could fix. It looks very unnatural.

I think that happens when you don't have enough guides and have too many fibers per guide without defined clump setting.

Greenlaw
04-12-2012, 11:16 AM
I think the 'whispy' look is just a matter of taste--I had to intentionally dial in this level of 'whispiness' because I felt the default settings looked too coarse. I could just as easily gone in the other direction. In other words, FFX doesn't have to look 'whispy' if you don't want it to.

I'm looking at my settings now and I think my main 'whispyness' parameter was defined in Width, which is set to 25%. Cluster Radius contributes to the 'heaviness' of the strands, and changing the Fiber Type (Thin was used here,) can also dramatically change how thin or thick your fibers look.

And of course, switching to Volume Only will instantly make the fibers look sharper but at the expense of longer render time.

I guess it's just me but I like the 'whispy' look. :)

G.

Greenlaw
04-12-2012, 11:18 AM
I think that happens when you don't have enough guides and have too many fibers per guide without defined clump setting.
And then there is that. Like I said, only 395 guides were used for this test to keep ClothFX and render times very low. I would use a lot more guides for an actual 'production wig'.

G.

jasonwestmas
04-12-2012, 11:29 AM
And then there is that. Like I said, only 395 guides were used for this test to keep ClothFX and render times very low. I would use a lot more guides for an actual 'production wig'.

G.

Right, I didn't mean to make it sound like a bad thing. Some people's hair is soft and static/fluffy.

Greenlaw
04-12-2012, 11:30 AM
Hi Jason,

I think you're right--I checked my settings and I did not use Clump at all (0%). When I set this up I really didn't want the strands to 'clump', but now that you've pointed it out I'm curious to see happens. ;)

Sorry, I've been busy but I'll make some time today to post setup info on that other thread.

Greenlaw
04-12-2012, 11:36 AM
...but FFX looks soft and like Timotei girl's hair.
I had to look that up. I guess we don't have that brand here in the States.

Maybe Newtek Marketing can use your quote? ;)

G.

hrgiger
04-12-2012, 03:05 PM
I think the 'whispy' look is just a matter of taste--I had to intentionally dial in this level of 'whispiness' because I felt the default settings looked too coarse. I could just as easily gone in the other direction. In other words, FFX doesn't have to look 'whispy' if you don't want it to.



I don't know, maybe whispy isn't the right word but it FFX definitely has a softness that I have seen a lot in my own tests. I'll have to play with it more once the fix is out. Honestly I haven't messed with it a lot ever since they've made the pixel and volume modes more consistent.

Greenlaw
04-12-2012, 03:35 PM
I think I know what you mean. I need to play with FFX some more but I believe you can get a 'harder' look by heightening contrast and spec--I'll mess with a few variations as soon as I get the chance.

Regarding Volume Only mode, I'm not sure it will ever be a 100% match with the pixel filter mode because the nature of how the fibers are rendered is very different, but the match does seem much closer now.

That reminds me, I need to run some tests with Volume Mode because there are a few issues with the pixel filter that I suspect don't exist in Volume Mode. (More on this later once I'm sure about what I'm looking at.)

FWIW, I do like the pixel filter look, plus I really like the render times.

G.

jasonwestmas
04-12-2012, 03:58 PM
volume is still very different from the filter, using the same settings in my experiments so far. You'd still have to use two different sets of settings if you wanted to swap out between volume and filter mode. So you'd have to eyeball it and compare renders between volume and the filter, which I think is completely doable. The swap out is of course for reflection and transparency reasons in the environment.

Greenlaw
04-12-2012, 04:08 PM
Yeah, I agree, but that's not what how I want to use Volume Mode anyway. More later. :p

Greenlaw
04-16-2012, 02:53 PM
I finally got around to posting part 1 of my FiberFX walkthrough video for long hair:

Lightwave 11 FiberFX Walkthrough for Long Hair, Part 1 (http://bit.ly/ITASR3)

I know it's a bit short but I think the video may be helpful to new FFX users. If you want more information about the workflow, please participate in this thread:

Lightwave 11 FiberFX - My First Test (http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?t=127311)

BTW, this walkthrough video was created using build 2238. I just got SP1 a few minutes ago and I can't wait to test it! :)

G.

DigitalSorcery8
04-16-2012, 05:00 PM
Thanks Greenlaw - looking forward to part 2! :thumbsup: