PDA

View Full Version : Suggestions On Creating Sugar Pouring Into a Mound



Michael Lizak
09-08-2014, 11:53 AM
Hi,

Posted this some time ago in General Support but no replies. Though I'd try here. How would one go about this? Attached my attempt so far. Is there a way to do this all with dynamics or do you think I would have to fake it? Any suggestions or tutorials are appreciated! -ML

hazmat777
09-08-2014, 01:27 PM
Hi,

Posted this some time ago in General Support but no replies. Though I'd try here. How would one go about this? Attached my attempt so far. Is there a way to do this all with dynamics or do you think I would have to fake it? Any suggestions or tutorials are appreciated! -ML

I'm no expert on this sort of thing by any means, but the first thing that popped into my head was to try doing it backwards. Start with the mound of sugar and then use some particle fx trickery to get it to its source object. Does that make sense?

Michael Lizak
09-08-2014, 01:56 PM
Thanks for the suggestion. I had not thought of that approach. I'll try that. -Thanks

hazmat777
09-08-2014, 02:16 PM
Let us know how it turns out ! :)

jeric_synergy
09-08-2014, 02:37 PM
I think a PURE dynamics approache would be brutal in simulation times.

I suggest a MIX of dynamics/particles combined with some visual trickery: the pouring parts particles, and the growing mound simply a scaling object. true accumulation is a tough problem: fake it.

Michael Lizak
09-08-2014, 03:49 PM
Thanks jeric_synergy. -ML

spherical
09-08-2014, 05:15 PM
I think a PURE dynamics approache would be brutal in simulation times.

I suggest a MIX of dynamics/particles combined with some visual trickery: the pouring parts particles, and the growing mound simply a scaling object. true accumulation is a tough problem: fake it.

Yes. I remember a thread from a while back where the solution was along the lines of having the dropping stream particles die as they hit and the pool of water or pile of grains grow up into it.

jeric_synergy
09-08-2014, 06:22 PM
Yeah, that or snow.

jwiede
09-08-2014, 06:58 PM
I think a PURE dynamics approache would be brutal in simulation times.

I suggest a MIX of dynamics/particles combined with some visual trickery: the pouring parts particles, and the growing mound simply a scaling object. true accumulation is a tough problem: fake it.

I agree, in fact, I suspect "brutal" won't even be remotely adequate to describe the actual sim times involved to try and use LW dynamics. Lagoa in SI would be great for such a scenario, if you could get access, but then you'd need to bring into LW somehow, which would wind up as difficult a problem I suspect.

As always, it comes back to how the view of the sugar is being used: Is anything else going to manipulate the stream of sugar particles? Or the mound? Do you really need it to be 3D at all, versus a captured pouring video comp'd onto the scene? If it must be 3D, what kinds and levels of interaction are needed in that regard?

I'd do it like Jeric said, if that was all that was needed, or possibly just comp in a video of sugar pouring if that looked good enough. Is that all you really need?

Michael Lizak
09-11-2014, 08:51 AM
Just want to thank everyone for taking time for the very helpful suggestions. After two days messing around, I came up with the attached test movie.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/te3y6mbqmjmh4mo/Sugar%20Pile_v011.mp4?dl=0

I think I could make this look good, but as Jwiede brought up, it can be done more quickly, look better & with less effort if I just shoot sugar & make it work in After Effects. If I did not have a camera I would probably continue with the 3D route faking a mound scaling up as particles drop from above. Would then tweak maybe several layers of particles together in After Effects. LW particles just seemed to be a really good idea initially. It looks like sugar falling! Often with LW I feel like the guy that posted on the BBS about having LW for a year & not being able to do anything with it. Been using it since 2000 & had 3D experience before that. To make myself feel better, I tell myself that there are many disciplines with 3D & it takes total immersion in the field to have control of this very deep software. I do mostly AFX with rather infrequent 3D jobs. The 3D jobs are never the hard stuff like characters, but challenging for me. I would like to take on a character job, but I have no idea how long it would take me to get it to work & that would only be after weeks of trial & error. Even then then it would not function well just like my sugar animation. If I did 3D all the time I think things would be different. I guess that's why the credits at the end of a 3D feature go on forever. 3D is complex & there are specialists in the various area like modeling, rigging, animating, etc... When you have to do it all, it can be challenging. But, it's great that you can spend $2000 & have access to software used in films. I just wish I had the mind of William Vaughn. If I had the $ I would take his 1on1 class. Thanks, -Michael

Michael Lizak - Art Director/Designer
Image Base
430 W Erie Chicago 60654
[email protected]
312-587-8700 Ext. 224

wesleycorgi
09-12-2014, 10:16 AM
Just want to thank everyone for taking time for the very helpful suggestions. After two days messing around, I came up with the attached test movie.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/te3y6mbqmjmh4mo/Sugar%20Pile_v011.mp4?dl=0



Thanks for sharing — I do think with time and refinement this could get you where you want it to. But since you're more of a AfterEffects whiz, comping would be much quicker.

jeric_synergy
09-12-2014, 11:45 AM
Got a final clip, using comps instead of LW? (That one was very small --?)

Axis3d
09-13-2014, 12:24 PM
A few years back I had to work on some sugar pour tests for a film. Never had to make a 'mound' build up, though. Here is a link to those past tests: https://vimeo.com/97884372

You might have to break your particle simulations into different groups for more control.