PDA

View Full Version : Lightwave for VFX



kartel1900
07-14-2015, 12:46 PM
Hi All,

I am thinking of trying out Lightwave, I have a couple of questions.

1) is Lightwave any good for doing small scale VFX work, is there any decent tutorials on sci-fi or horror vfx (my main interest).

2) are Lightwaves particles and HV any good (say in comparison to blenders or modo's) for creating fire/smoke/liquids.

3) Also is jumping from modeller to layout and back, really as annoying as it seems.

4) Also is there a way to use a lattice/deformation cage, without paying for a plugin, as it seem it should be part of the main software.

I have searched youtube and am trying to find some decent VFX related tutorials (I can find loads on blender/c4d/maya/3ds and a few with modo) but none using lightwave.

any ideas, as lightwave seems to have all I need, but am downloading the trial, but need some guidance.

Thanks for your time

RebelHill
07-14-2015, 01:08 PM
1... Sure. End of the day, the VFX pipeline (tracking, compositing, etc) is no different irrespective of the 3D app used... Its just the model/texture/animate/render stuff thats different. Dont expect to find VFX tools (like track, comp, etc) in LW as you may in some other softs... its basically the 3D side only.

2... No, they're rubbish. But then again, its HARD to get GOOD fire/smoke in other apps without specialised (and often expensive) plugins anyway. You can just about get some passable such effects with LWs HVs... IF... you work really hard to master them (few have). Liquids though... forget it.

3... Yes/No (delete as applicable).

End of the day... its capable (but not outstanding) and you pretty much get what you pay for when you compare it to the price of other apps. You're not gonna get LOTR/Marvel level stuff out of it in a million years (well ok, you probably could if u had a spare million years). All the mainline tools it has are capable and the renderer is solid, so a LOT of what you get out will come down to what you put in, and your own artistic skill.

One thing that is for sure... If you cant produce (some level of) decent looking work using LW (on accout of your own skills), you wouldnt be able to do it with some other app.

kartel1900
07-14-2015, 01:21 PM
Hi Rebelhill,

I understand i will have to track in syntheyes/AE then import that into Lightwave, then do the 3d work, then export it into Fusion/AE/Nuke etc to comp.

Are there any detailed tutorials on setting this up in LW. and render passes.

As I would like to do the trial, see if I can work it out before deciding on buying.

RebelHill
07-14-2015, 01:30 PM
Not really much around I know of... but as I say, no different to other apps for the interchange. Bring in what syntheyes spits out (easiest probs as an fbx unless there's an LWS option). Take what LW renders as images into comp.

Passes are a lil neglected in LW... have a look through the docs for the stuff on PSD export (not ideal)... also, render buffer export, and LWs EXR tools.

[edit] 4... No (and yes it should).

kartel1900
07-14-2015, 01:44 PM
Thanks for the reply,

Just seemed strange that LW was used in walking dead and defiance and game of thrones (I heard somewhere but could be wrong) but no tutorials on the subject of VFX.

I will have a play see what I can do, I will post up if I can manage to work it all out.

I was thinking syntheyes/LW/Fusion for low cost setup.

Pity about the deformations,

Dexter2999
07-14-2015, 01:56 PM
Over at Liberty3d.com, Kelly "Kat" Meyers has a series on production techniques you may find helpful.

http://www.liberty3d.com/2014/01/35-off-all-kat-videos-limited-time-only/

The sale is long since over but it is a list of his available training.

RebelHill
07-14-2015, 02:08 PM
Yeah... "LW was used on X"... doesnt necessarily tell you the whole story (the same being true for other apps as well sometimes). You'll find, quite often, that LW gets used for a certain piece of the pipeline, such as just for the modelling, or just for the surface/render, with import/export to/from other 3D apps to complete the work.

kartel1900
07-14-2015, 02:09 PM
Thanks Dexter2999,

That's more like what I was after.

Also are there any 'must have' plugins that don't cost the earth, just so I can cost it all up. only the essentials though.

thanks again.

kartel1900
07-14-2015, 02:12 PM
Yeah... "LW was used on X"... doesnt necessarily tell you the whole story (the same being true for other apps as well sometimes). You'll find, quite often, that LW gets used for a certain piece of the pipeline, such as just for the modelling, or just for the surface/render, with import/export to/from other 3D apps to complete the work.

Ahh I see, so LW may have only been used in a small part (like pre-vis or something), i wonder if LW has been used in the final shots for anything?

Markc
07-14-2015, 02:19 PM
Don't take this the wrong way, but do you have experience on other 3d/graphics software in doing VFX work.
It sounds as though you are buying a shed load of software upfront.
Just be aware there is a large learning curve in all these different apps.
Apologies if you are a seasoned Artist.

RebelHill
07-14-2015, 02:27 PM
are there any 'must have' plugins that don't cost the earth

Depends what your must have features are...


so LW may have only been used in a small part (like pre-vis or something), i wonder if LW has been used in the final shots for anything?

Exactly... and its hard to say. Sometimes you get a bit of info about a specific shot, or somesuch, but only when it comes out from the inside. For certain there's all the "megashark-pseudolobster-helicopterfruitcake" B movies that've been going round the past few years that are pretty much LW end to end (admittedly not the greatest vfx work... ok, its pretty awful... but they do crank out something like 2 movies a day).

Otherwise, have a noodle round here on the forums for posts by Mr Rid... He does a lot of jobbing FX work for movies (including some big ones), some longer form, some pickups/odd shots, and he uses LW as his primary tool (again, largely end to end).

Oh yeah... also... http://platinumplatypus.com/vfx/

kartel1900
07-14-2015, 02:38 PM
Don't take this the wrong way, but do you have experience on other 3d/graphics software in doing VFX work.
It sounds as though you are buying a shed load of software upfront.
Just be aware there is a large learning curve in all these different apps.
Apologies if you are a seasoned Artist.

Hi Markc,

Yes I have done some VFX work, a few years ago using some 3dsmax/AE and touched on some scripts with Nuke (may have some shots I could post).

But I am starting again, and am after a low cost (comparable) setup to re-learn, and AD is out of my range.

Seemed LW was a good choice, I knew the basics rigging, weight painting small amount of modelling, projection mapping (all in 3ds).

So I need to remember and re-learn using LW (did play in blender but its hotkey setup and R/L Click, forever drives me nuts, I know you can configure it but it hurts my brain)

kartel1900
07-14-2015, 02:55 PM
Depends what your must have features are...



Exactly... and its hard to say. Sometimes you get a bit of info about a specific shot, or somesuch, but only when it comes out from the inside. For certain there's all the "megashark-pseudolobster-helicopterfruitcake" B movies that've been going round the past few years that are pretty much LW end to end (admittedly not the greatest vfx work... ok, its pretty awful... but they do crank out something like 2 movies a day).

Otherwise, have a noodle round here on the forums for posts by Mr Rid... He does a lot of jobbing FX work for movies (including some big ones), some longer form, some pickups/odd shots, and he uses LW as his primary tool (again, largely end to end).

Oh yeah... also... http://platinumplatypus.com/vfx/


to churn out that quantity, they must be very short or minimal shots (or LW is a beast)

I would like aim for partial digital double work (well limbs etc), matte painting and fracturing dynamics and a touch of smoke/fire/liquids (metablobs)

A big aim but I like to push myself and I can remember the basic principles, its just applying them in LW and learning at the same time.

RebelHill
07-14-2015, 03:09 PM
Well... 2 a day might be an exaggeration, but they're a factory floor more than an art studio, lets say.

Partial digital double eh... so having the like of false "bits" attached to real actors (digital prosthetics)... That's hard in ANY app, mainly due to the tracking issues. Syntheyes should help in some regards, but be rpepared for a LOT of manual frame by frame work (and some [technically] ugly morphing).

Smoke n fire are gonna be your biggest hurdles... turbulence is possibly your best bet there... as for liquids, you'll have to use some other app and import mesh sequences to LW.

kartel1900
07-14-2015, 03:23 PM
Well... 2 a day might be an exaggeration, but they're a factory floor more than an art studio, lets say.

Partial digital double eh... so having the like of false "bits" attached to real actors (digital prosthetics)... That's hard in ANY app, mainly due to the tracking issues. Syntheyes should help in some regards, but be rpepared for a LOT of manual frame by frame work (and some [technically] ugly morphing).

Smoke n fire are gonna be your biggest hurdles... turbulence is possibly your best bet there... as for liquids, you'll have to use some other app and import mesh sequences to LW.

Yes my plan is do a few limb test, clean plate, digital limb work and digital makeup, I will look at Pftrack as well (as that used to have good object tracking) they have trial and PLE.

Turbulence has a learning edition as well (looking hopeful), as for liquids (maybe use blenders fluids)

well its a plan, if i can get a grip on LW, ill post in WIP thread with my efforts (should be fun)

Thanks again for all help, time to scour liberty3d and YouTube/vimeo for anything that will get me up to speed.

motivalex
07-14-2015, 03:29 PM
I see you use AE for vfx. LW is good at talking to After Effects and vice versa easily. I use both together often. Just select your null, camera etc and send to AE. No messing about with importing/exporting text files to exchange the 3d info. You install a plugin in AE to allow sending the layer/camera data back to LW.

With post-processing you can get ok smoke/fire using HVs. Not as good as a dedicated plugin such as TurbulenceFD for LW.

Markc
07-14-2015, 03:31 PM
FYI KAT from Liberty 3D worked on Iron Sky using LightWave.
If you haven't seen it, it's worth watching.

kartel1900
07-14-2015, 03:38 PM
Its good to hear LW to AE works well.

I will play with HV see if they are what i am after, else ill try the turbulence LE.

Iron Sky, ill look into it.

Thanks for the tips.

prometheus
07-14-2015, 04:12 PM
Its good to hear LW to AE works well.

I will play with HV see if they are what i am after, else ill try the turbulence LE.

Iron Sky, ill look into it.

Thanks for the tips.


Hv for fire, that would take quite some time to get used to hypervoxels for getting " semi decent fire"
TurbulenceFd is the way to go for it for most realism, but that will cost you.
otherwise fire and smoke in blender perhaps..since that is build in nativly, you would have to deal with the UI though:D

explosion stuff can work under certain circumstances with hvīs..and has been working for space shots, but it depends on the explosion type, and often mixed with real explosion photage to enhance the realism.
The question is if you can match up to what is to expect today when it comes to vfx explosions with hypervoxels only, or if you need to invest in a fluids tool.

If you are in to vfx of the explosive and particle style, maybe houdini indie program is something for you?

using hypervoxels only, well..I think almost all results from that would be at one or two step levels beneath fluids, even if you are good at it.
it would help if we could have a fireshader like the old dynamite and get hypervoxels updated..but currently no...and even with that it would still be some levels behind
TurbulenceFD.

Greenlaw
07-14-2015, 04:26 PM
I'll let the others speak for the details. This is just my general opinion:

I used Lightwave at Rhythm & Hues for about twelve years doing mid-to high-end vfx for commercials, features and video game trailers and cinematics. A tiny portion of the work we did in our department can be seen on the reel I put together a couple of years ago. From job to job, we used a lot of different tools but most of the animation and visual fx on the reel was created using Lightwave.

My Little Demo Reel (https://vimeo.com/64145283) (I need to put out a new reel--there's a lot more stuff I can show.)

For about three years before I went to R&H and for about a year afterwards, I was using LightWave mainly for creating vfx in low-to mid-range budget movie productions.

Nowadays, I'm mainly involved with creating cartoon animation but I still use Lightwave for 3D and vfx work and for enhancing 2D animations. I also use Lightwave in my personal projects which tends to lean towards 2D and 3D cartoon production with a fair amount of visual fx.

For me, LightWave has been a good fit: it's inexpensive, easy to use, and has been quite capable of completing whatever task that's thrown at me. For about 18 years, LightWave has gotten me through an incredibly diverse spectrum of work, both large and small.

But that's me...my needs may be very different from yours. The best way to see if it fits your needs is to download the demo and try it out. A good way to find out is to learn the basics, use the program for your own projects, and when you get stuck, ask questions here. This forum has some of the most helpful and talented artists around, hobbyists and pros alike who love to share their knowledge. (I often rely on them for help myself.) :)

All that said, no single 3D package is really complete by itself. IMO, you can make up for a lot through compositing. Regardless of which 3D package you choose, for serious fx production, I recommend adding a compositing program to your vfx workflow. (My personal favorites are Fusion and After FX.)

Good luck and I hope it works out for you.

G.

prometheus
07-14-2015, 09:26 PM
just a question, scifi and vfx..and horror, that could be anything between this and that..so a question would be to ask more specifcly what type of scenes you want to work with?

And yes...Lightwave has been used a lot for many scifi series from one of the first on the television net (babylon 5) ships modeled and exploded ..laser blasts etc...to star trek, stargate, battlestar galactica, defiance etc, but keep in mind that also other software together with lightwave has often been used.

there are some articles here and there scattered all over the net ..covering a bit more in detail exactly how it was used for some series, I would recomend take a look at the lightwave magazines and last years siggraph ..it covers defiance, battlestar blood and chrome and a whole bunch of other stuff.

https://www.lightwave3d.com/community/lightwave_magazine/



I specific tutorial covering the full set of vfx destruction, fire and smoke? ...probably kurv studios as retail sales and instructor sean M Jackson covers ship explosions the way they did it on battlestar galactica, havenīt seen it myself, and I am not sure it is available today though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2VFxt57EJo


Greg Sullivan has released som old technical direction and dynamic and detail tutorials that I think you should go through, a little old, and it covers the old dynamic system..not the newer bullet stuff...but I think it will be of value anyway.

the first one dynamic and detail covers an aeroplane firing and blowing up an amp station, old dynamics..includes particle effects, but it doesnīt cover hypervoxels unfortunatly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xTKd7pA3rU

and the second one controlling the aeroplane..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDvLVsYTEaA




on liberty3d ...(commercial)

http://www.liberty3d.com/2014/04/tfd-for-lightwave3d-advanced-concepts-and-projects-nuclear-weapons-pack/

http://www.liberty3d.com/2014/01/tfd-advanced-concepts-and-projects-atmospherics/

http://www.liberty3d.com/2013/09/tfd-advanced-projects-and-concepts-fireball/

http://www.liberty3d.com/2014/06/weapons-fx-in-lightwave-by-ryan-roye/

I think kelly myers has a few more weapons direction etc, but I think the website is a bit unstructured to show all at once..and a bit of a hazzle for me to browse through, if they could do a better category overview so one could check certain options and be able to see all stuff on one page would be better.

Dexter2999
07-14-2015, 11:03 PM
I think kelly myers has a few more weapons direction etc, but I think the website is a bit unstructured to show all at once..and a bit of a hazzle for me to browse through, if they could do a better category overview so one could check certain options and be able to see all stuff on one page would be better.

That was why I posted the link about the sale from January. It was Kat's video's only, all on one page.

kartel1900
07-15-2015, 01:46 AM
Thank you all for the input and information.


just a question, scifi and vfx..and horror, that could be anything between this and that..so a question would be to ask more specifcly what type of scenes you want to work with?.

I want to be as diverse as possible, but mostly looking at human based VFX (maybe a small part of matte painting/space scenes) so it would be limb replacement (head, part head, arm, legs etc) and under skin crawling, dissolving (just think of sci-fi horror) I have no time limit to learn, but would like to hit the ground running.

Houdini was first on my list, but with its high cost and limited modelling capabilities (without 100,000 node tree) seems like modelling would be external (unless I was making a bridge/road or something procedural). and to be honest the learning curve seems a nightmare (are they going to release Houdini engine for LW?).

And blender for fire/smoke, would be a pain unless you can import the simulation into LW.

I don't want to get into the endless loop of forever learning and not doing, that's why I have some test plates ready to start with, so its just learn the basics, get the track and plate in and start playing.

are HV really that bad?

Another thing if I wanted to do some entrails dragging etc. how does soft bodies act, also with no lattice deformer, I am guessing it will be painfully slow.

kartel1900
07-15-2015, 02:12 AM
I'll let the others speak for the details. This is just my general opinion:

I used Lightwave at Rhythm & Hues for about twelve years doing mid-to high-end vfx for commercials, features and video game trailers and cinematics. A tiny portion of the work we did in our department can be seen on the reel I put together a couple of years ago. From job to job, we used a lot of different tools but most of the animation and visual fx on the reel was created using Lightwave.


For me, LightWave has been a good fit: it's inexpensive, easy to use, and has been quite capable of completing whatever task that's thrown at me. For about 18 years, LightWave has gotten me through an incredibly diverse spectrum of work, both large and small.

But that's me...my needs may be very different from yours. The best way to see if it fits your needs is to download the demo and try it out. A good way to find out is to learn the basics, use the program for your own projects, and when you get stuck, ask questions here. This forum has some of the most helpful and talented artists around, hobbyists and pros alike who love to share their knowledge. (I often rely on them for help myself.) :)

All that said, no single 3D package is really complete by itself. IMO, you can make up for a lot through compositing. Regardless of which 3D package you choose, for serious fx production, I recommend adding a compositing program to your vfx workflow. (My personal favorites are Fusion and After FX.)

Good luck and I hope it works out for you.

G.

Hi Greenlaw,

That's good to hear, that's my plan, I have LW demo already installed and syntheyes and pftrack LE, will have a go tonight, see how far I get.

I am sure I will have several hundred questions (as I hit a problem), and it is good to see the forum is active and people are helpful.

And yes a lot cant be hidden/enhanced in comping, my main issue with AE was the nested comps, so I may start in AE (as I know the system) but with plans to eventually move to Fusion (I know Nuke is god) but fusion feels better and more important, its free, just need to get used to flicking to display.

inkpen3d
07-15-2015, 02:34 AM
Hv for fire, that would take quite some time to get used to hypervoxels for getting " semi decent fire"
TurbulenceFd is the way to go for it for most realism, but that will cost you.
otherwise fire and smoke in blender perhaps..since that is build in nativly, you would have to deal with the UI though:D

explosion stuff can work under certain circumstances with hvīs..and has been working for space shots, but it depends on the explosion type, and often mixed with real explosion photage to enhance the realism.
The question is if you can match up to what is to expect today when it comes to vfx explosions with hypervoxels only, or if you need to invest in a fluids tool.

If you are in to vfx of the explosive and particle style, maybe houdini indie program is something for you?

using hypervoxels only, well..I think almost all results from that would be at one or two step levels beneath fluids, even if you are good at it.
it would help if we could have a fireshader like the old dynamite and get hypervoxels updated..but currently no...and even with that it would still be some levels behind
TurbulenceFD.

You could use the excellent particle system in the (free) Blackmagic Fusion (https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/fusion) (see, for example, https://vimeo.com/9777734), as well as using Fusion for all your compositing work.

kartel1900
07-15-2015, 02:40 AM
You could use the excellent particle system in the (free) Blackmagic Fusion (https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/fusion) (see, for example, https://vimeo.com/9777734), as well as using Fusion for all your compositing work.

Interesting idea, wonder how it compares to LW particles/HV (I assumed they was mainly for dust/sparks type FX)

Also how does LW - Fusion work together (can you export animations into Fusion or just static meshes for example, alembic or FBX)

prometheus
07-15-2015, 03:44 AM
You could use the excellent particle system in the (free) Blackmagic Fusion (https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/fusion) (see, for example, https://vimeo.com/9777734), as well as using Fusion for all your compositing work.


yes..looks good, and I have to check on that, though I suspect it is more adapted for whispy smoke and fiery fire, not thicker stuff or explosive volumes.


Interesting idea, wonder how it compares to LW particles/HV (I assumed they was mainly for dust/sparks type FX)








Also how does LW - Fusion work together (can you export animations into Fusion or just static meshes for example, alembic or FBX)

that is sort of what I believe too.

modo volumetrics...havenīt tried any fire stuff there, I believe you can get almost as good with hypervoxels in those situations, though modo has implemented new methods for cloud stuff that are better in some ways...but that is clouds.

otherwise sitni satni afterburner is probably the best for applying on particles if you exclude fumefx...and it worked out well for the matrix reloaded shot at least...I wonder if they would have revisit the shot today, it might be possible they would have made it
with fluids, then again...that shout had a special look that they probably needed full control over, so that could also be why they choose to go with particle fx.
http://www.afterworks.com/afterburn.asp

the matrix truck collision breakdown shot...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q95FbitaBT8

hypervoxels arenīt that bad, itīs just that itīs sort of an old volumetric technique that in most cases canīt compete with fluid solutions today, and hypervoxels is a bit behind afterburner I would say.
The old dynamite plugin had a nice fire shader and openGL preview that was much much better than hypervoxels display, though it was instable and the developer disappeared in smoke.


hereīs a sample of the old dynamite plugin...though I had too many crashes with it, and some artifacts I didnīt like, so I never bothered pushing it 4 levels more which I probably could have for a really nice particle explosion, the principles could
be applied with hypervoxels, but a bit harder to set up...


https://vimeo.com/28587261

you can check some of my little experiments...some different stuff, fire on sprites, explosions on nulls, particle trail explosions, and dynamite volumetric system, none is intended to be finished work..just showcase and fiddling with different techniques.
hereīs a collection album...

https://vimeo.com/album/3481335/page:2/sort:preset/format:thumbnail

https://vimeo.com/album/3481335

kartel1900
07-15-2015, 04:13 AM
Thanks Prometheus,

I will play with HV before investing in plugins, you mentioned Modo, to be honest the particle system seems still in development (minimal what can be done) some basic particles and forces.

Do you know if Fusion can import animated 3d objects, as that could be interesting (but I am probably aiming to high, at this stage)

Also with regards to LW, can it do multiple projections on a single object, and the projected texture stick while the object is animated? (just a random idea I had for a shot)

inkpen3d
07-15-2015, 04:20 AM
Some more videos on Fusion particles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78bt_cQ3OIk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHtowSj1omI

IMHO, Fusion's particle system is far easier to set up and control - in contrast, LW's particle system only pays lip service to the concepts of physics and has always been fiddly to adjust.

I've used LW's HV quite a lot and, although they can be a bit slow to render, you can achieve some impressive results.

As far as I know Fusion can import e.g. fbx, obj and camera motion. But I don't think you can import object animations, but I've not really investigated that aspect of Fusion, perhaps someone else can enlighten us on that.

kartel1900
07-15-2015, 04:39 AM
Some more videos on Fusion particles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78bt_cQ3OIk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHtowSj1omI

IMHO, Fusion's particle system is far easier to set up and control - in contrast, LW's particle system only pays lip service to the concepts of physics and has always been fiddly to adjust.

I've used LW's HV quite a lot and, although they can be a bit slow to render, you can achieve some impressive results.

As far as I know Fusion can import e.g. fbx, obj and camera motion. But I don't think you can import object animations, but I've not really investigated that aspect of Fusion, perhaps someone else can enlighten us on that.

Thanks for that, definitely worth looking into.

I was thinking getting particles/smoke to interact with an object that can later be excluded (wonder if Fusion supports that, or HV tbh) hence the animation question and general workflow ideas.

kartel1900
07-15-2015, 04:45 AM
Just had a quick look on youtube, looks like Fusion 7 supports animated Alembic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwLAAYFasGY) *i know the video uses maya

Now just hoping LW can export alembic.

inkpen3d
07-15-2015, 04:58 AM
If you look at the last part of this Fusion particles overview video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWtIaP3PgxU, you'll see the smoke particles interacting with an object (a tilted plane in this case) within the 3D space. This could equally be an imported mesh, which you could make unseen by the camera. Then again, you can achieve the same thing in LW using particles/HV.

inkpen3d
07-15-2015, 05:10 AM
Yes, LW exports Alembic.

kartel1900
07-15-2015, 05:47 AM
sounds like I got a lot to do.

I just need to get my head into LW way of thinking.

Thanks again to everyone, I am sure ill have a load of questions, in the next few hours/days/weeks.

mummyman
07-15-2015, 08:31 AM
There are a lot of great minds here to help. (excluding mine...it's so mushy lately) Good luck!

prometheus
07-15-2015, 09:00 AM
Thanks Prometheus,

I will play with HV before investing in plugins, you mentioned Modo, to be honest the particle system seems still in development (minimal what can be done) some basic particles and forces.

Do you know if Fusion can import animated 3d objects, as that could be interesting (but I am probably aiming to high, at this stage)

Also with regards to LW, can it do multiple projections on a single object, and the projected texture stick while the object is animated? (just a random idea I had for a shot)


fusion question is answered..the multiple projections, donīt know exactly what you mean? and I have been awake for 24 hours straight now, so I am too messed up right now...so that I will leave to others.

about modo, well the particle system is actually and probably more advanced than lightwaves today, you can turn the particle velocity flow to a a mesh, then sculpt deform it to wrap around objects then turn it back to particle flow again, that we canīt do with lightwave, you also got particles in modo that can push the modo hard body bullet system, soft body I donīt know.
And modo forces..as far as I have seen, the forces seem better implemented with node control that you canīt do with lightwave today...and noise functions seem to look nicer than some wind forces in lightwave.
Heard rumours that modo might not be able to handle the same amount of particles in simulation though..without a major slowdown, canīt tell for sure though.


in lightwave you canīt break a wall with particles...unless hacking it with linking/cloning objects, or kinematic forces to each particle....in modo you can just set the particles to have forces etc.
otherwise in lightwave..hacking it...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSd5iN3ZWG0


for the actual volumetric voxels to apply on particles, I find it easier to work with lightwave in terms of setting things up and get started, you also got viper previewer (not VPR) to help create previews of how dynamic effects work with hypervoxels..donīt think modo has that previewer.
hypervoxels are contained in itīs own window module, so it is easy to find everything..for me anyway, in modo it getīs a bit more confused where to find everything in the shader tree etc.

That said..modo has volumetric item, which is turning geometry to volumetrics, in lightwave we can only use voxels on points, object vertices and particles...(there is a hack to use boolean nodes for almost similar Geo to volume)

Lightwaveīs VPR renderer seem to handle volumetrics faster than modos previewer, then again modoīs voxel system has a much nicer blending between voxels..smooth tension between particles, where lightwaves blending is horrible, also
the smoothness/thickness of voxel edges (end of hypertexture volume) is much better in modo too, and modo has a forward rayleigh scattering controls that can be tuned with a seamless slider, it also has deep shadow mapping for faster voxels.

so the voxel system in modo has some newer enhancements I miss, especially for clouds that is.

A side note, go check bryphi77 at youtube and his node and part move tutorials, there is amazing things that can be done by displacing object segments or points with nodes in lightwave, so check this out, almost a must....
https://www.youtube.com/user/bryphi77/videos

Greenlaw
07-15-2015, 10:29 AM
IMHO, Fusion's particle system is far easier to set up and control - in contrast, LW's particle system only pays lip service to the concepts of physics and has always been fiddly to adjust.
I love Fusion's particle system. It's so easy to set up, and because it's nodal, it's far more controllable. The calculations are significantly faster that ParticleFX, and with the right sprites, you can make them look like pretty much anything. Much of them time I find I can get away with Fusion's 2D Particles system too, which is even faster than the 3D system.

There are times when I absolutely need the particles to be fully interactive with Lightwave animation and geometry, so I will still use PFX when I have to. Actually, using PFX isn't operationally bad, it just becomes super slow when you need, say, 20,000 particles or more--which is almost never enough when doing water, fire, and smokey tendrils. Fusion on the other hand, has very little trouble handling hundreds of thousands of particles.

About a year and a half ago, I started working with Trapcode Particular for After Effects. This system is pretty cool and it's what I usually use now since I'm more often in AE these days. TP is very fast and it allows you to set up very convincing 3D particle effects, and like Fusion, you can bring in the Lightwave camera into AE to sync it up with your 3D scenes. The one bad thing about Particular is that you can't import objects to AE for it to interact with (you can with Fusion,) and the collision options are far more limited than what you have in Fusion (and of course in Lightwave.)

One big advantage in AE is that you have all the great filters that can make your particles look like a variety of elements. Glass, for example, is terrific for making water and blood effects. (I'll see if I can post some examples with tuts.)

As a matter of fact, I've used all three tools for a single effect on a handful of movies a while back--animation and camera from Lightwave to Fusion via FBX, Fusion for interactive particles rendered to frames for AE, where I applied the filters I needed for the proper look, and then back to Fusion for final compositing.

More recently, I used Particular with various filters in AE so I could overlay water effects in a Maya render using a camera that was transferred to Lightwave by FBX, so I could use Send to AE to get the original camera into AE. Just another day of dancing at the office. :)

BTW, you mentioned using SynthEyes. You can't go wrong with it: I used it all the time on my laptop for film effects and it works great with Lightwave and Fusion, and it just keeps getting better every year. That said, I've also used After Effects' native 3D Camera tracker for many shots, and it works well for many situations too, AND the data can be sent to Lightwave using the Send to Lightwave command. Surprisingly, Mocha in AE (also native) works incredibly well too--sometimes better than actual 3D tracking. I've used it for replacing fake snow with 'real' snow in many closeup 'winter' scenes. If you get the commercial upgrade to Mocha Pro (about $200 last time I checked,) it gives you an actual 3D camera, which I believe you can send to Lightwave. (I don't own the Pro plugin so can anybody who has it confirm this for me?) The two AE solutions don't fully replace SynthEyes' capabilities but sometimes it's very convenient to be able to do it all within your compositing program.

Hope this helps.

G.

P.S., I would love to see a new particle system introduced to Lightwave (especially if it's nodal) but even if PFX was only updated so that it could handle many hundreds of thousands of particles, I would probably go back to using it in more situations.

m.d.
07-15-2015, 01:53 PM
BTW, you mentioned using SynthEyes. You can't go wrong with it: I used it all the time on my laptop for film effects and it works great with Lightwave and Fusion, and it just keeps getting better every year. That said, I've also used After Effects' native 3D Camera tracker for many shots, and it works well for many situations too, AND the data can be sent to Lightwave using the Send to Lightwave command. Surprisingly, Mocha in AE (also native) works incredibly well too--sometimes better than actual 3D tracking. I've used it for replacing fake snow with 'real' snow in many closeup 'winter' scenes. If you get the commercial upgrade to Mocha Pro (about $200 last time I checked,) it gives you an actual 3D camera, which I believe you can send to Lightwave. (I don't own the Pro plugin so can anybody who has it confirm this for me?)




yup mocha pro generates a 3d camera....not the best results in the shots I used it on for 3d moves but can work in a pinch....
Syntheyes by far the best of the 3 mentioned, but mocha has by far the best planar tracker going.....I've had to replace tailmarkings on f-15's flying by me at 250MPH and mocha locked on flawlessly

Fusion has a very good particle system....and with the pCustom tool...you can take it pretty far

Quite a bit off topic, but since someone brought up hypervoxels...if you were not aware....baking them will work in Fusion's fog tools
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuoGw7X1qvU

not sure how practical that is...but it's possible

Greenlaw
07-15-2015, 02:31 PM
yup mocha pro generates a 3d camera....not the best results in the shots I used it on for 3d moves but can work in a pinch....
Thanks for confirming.

I agree, where Mocha AE (standard,) really shined for me was its planar tracking. The ground snow replacement scenes mentioned above were all hand held and there was a far amount of distortion going on. Regular camera tracking didn't quite work but the squashing and stretching of my elements by Mocha AE's planar tracking helped the elements integrate more seamlessly than SynthEyes could...in this case anyway. There was one shot that had a much bigger camera move, and in that case, SynthEyes worked where Mocha failed.

In my experience, you can never have too many tracking options. :)

G.

Note: Since that time, SynthEyes added its own planar tracking system so nowadays it might be able to do what I did with Mocha AE back then. I haven't used the SynthEyes planar system yet...might have to check it out when I get the chance.

The Dommo
07-15-2015, 02:41 PM
In case no-one posted this already, a Lightwave VFX guy doing compositing with 'damaged' body parts or whatever is here:
https://vimeo.com/116631514

m.d.
07-15-2015, 06:59 PM
In my experience, you can never have too many tracking options. :)



true dat....

syntheyes planar tracker doesn't seem quite as good...only used it 2 or 3 times though....


The nice thing about syntheyes tracker...planar and 3d, is you get a real world camera with real world units based on focal length and sensor size.

As you would see in mocha's 3d tracker they give you 3 lens choices <35mm...35-70mm...and greater than 70mm.....they don't even ask you sensor size so we would have to assume 35mm equivalent.

In syntheyes with the proper backplane size and accurate focal lengths you should in theory have a technically accurate 3d scene.

Mocha is basically coming up with a solve that would satisfy 2 separate planes perspective position in 3d space....so not really accurate, but could possibly be a life saver when you have extreme motion blur etc...or little tracking detail

Mocha is more of a number fudger....kinda like me doing taxes, and syntheyes a precision machine, demanding good data but giving precise results

tyrot
07-15-2015, 07:33 PM
one big advantage in ae is that you have all the great filters that can make your particles look like a variety of elements. Glass, for example, is terrific for making water and blood effects. (i'll see if i can post some examples with tuts.)



please tuts please tuts

prometheus
07-16-2015, 03:14 AM
I think after effects and element3d is probably to expensive for kartel1900, but I wanted to show it anyway..

in videocopilot they showcase how they went about doing the intro to star trek in to darkness, with 3d elements and also som pre- rendered particle turbulent effects which later on was duplicated and spread around suns etc...I think I tried to do the similar with sprites and clips directly in lightwave, but that didnīt work since the particle rotation or sprite rotation can not recognize any normals when determing itīs local rotation axis, it could possibly work with mapping it on to polys instead.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYzGhNkNBWs




http://www.videocopilot.net/blog/2013/09/main-titles-for-star-trek-into-darkness/

kartel1900
07-17-2015, 03:12 AM
[QUOTE=prometheus;1437085]I think after effects and element3d is probably to expensive for kartel1900, but I wanted to show it anyway..

in videocopilot they showcase how they went about doing the intro to star trek in to darkness, with 3d elements and also som pre- rendered particle turbulent effects which later on was duplicated and spread around suns etc...I think I tried to do the similar with sprites and clips directly in lightwave, but that didnīt work since the particle rotation or sprite rotation can not recognize any normals when determing itīs local rotation axis, it could possibly work with mapping it on to polys instead.

[QUOTE]


Hi Again,

I have been busy getting to grips with LW modeller/Layout (its weird to keep swapping, I must admit) just when you think your all set in layout, something pops up that you have to send back to modeller, edit, save it, back to layout (it takes a bit of getting used to), but I am getting there.

with regards to comp software, Its not so much about price, as more about making sure the software can do what I am after, and I can work with the software (as they all have their little quirks), soon as I am happy that we gel, I will buy plugins, and whatever else (but I don't want to waste money while I am learning)

It would be handy to know what the material system is like in Fusion (say for texturing or realistic skin) compared to doing it in LW. to save learning 2 different material systems, or can you materials be exchanged between LW/Fusion (or am I being overly hopeful)

I have a track out of syntheyes into LW, all good there, installed LE of pftrack, want to try tracking a head (with a low poly base), then bring that into LW, swap for high poly version, then edit the parts I want to change (delete the rest), then maybe try Alembic save, bring into fusion and material and comp there.

At the moment I am having a blast (so much to learn)

Farhad_azer
07-17-2015, 03:52 AM
Hi Kartel and good to see you.

this might not be the exact answer to your questions but this video by Ivan helped me a lot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4sVez6aC5E

I followed the tutorial and with some experiments and exploration sent my animated scene to Fusion and results were perfect.

inkpen3d
07-17-2015, 08:08 AM
Regarding materials in Fusion, see this short introductory video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl9BFmGAzKw

You could export materials/UV maps from LW and import them into Fusion - recommend you get Kert Gartner's excellent video tutorial "How to use UV passes with Eyeon Fusion" (only $19): see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYtr3kcJPa4 [He uses C4D, but the same principles apply for LW]. Kerts Fusion tutorials (btw, all the rest are free) are some of the best out there!

Cageman
07-20-2015, 07:02 PM
LightWave is certanly capable... some interviews from artists at Siggraph

Feature Film:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSayebGbaaM

The Hunger Games and The Amazing Spiderman (and some talk about Terra Nova as well, which is a TV-series).

Stargate Studios:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuWWqaspXqw (The Walking Dead and a bunch of earlier shows not in production anymore).

In both these they are certanly not secret about the fact that they use a bunch of different tools, and the interviews are certanly focusing on LWs interchange capabilities.

These videos are two-three years old now, but LW has certanly not become worse over those years. :)

EDIT: Obviously these artists are extremely seasoned with Lightwave (and other tools). And... yes, they are passionate about LW as their main tool of choice...

But the most impressive is probably Chris Zapara... also, mainly, TV VFX (he used to work at Eden way back as well).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss--Cn6h5bE

Farhad_azer
07-21-2015, 02:24 PM
Mr Cageman, thanks for letting us know about Chris zapara interview, that was really awesome.

Just one question, people seem to complain a lot about particle/hv etc in LW, there were shots from Battlestar galactica which Mr Zapara talked about. I mean they were perfect. does it mean they have used some plugins bec it was not mentioned in the interview. I am sure you know more about that.

Axis3d
07-21-2015, 02:55 PM
I've used LW on films that I've worked on in the past. I've used EXRtrader in the past to render out exr files with embedded buffer channels. Most of the compositing done for the films has been done with Nuke. Although, the stuff for Teeth was done in After Effects.

The Road
Safe
Teeth (opening title sequence)
After Earth

to name a few....

Greenlaw
07-21-2015, 02:56 PM
LightWave's PartcleFX and HyperVoxel are actually pretty easy to use they really aren't so bad if you have the patience for them. The main issue is that the tool are a bit dated--PFX and HV haven't changed much in 14 years, except for compatibility tweaks--and ParticleFX has never handled huge point counts very well. I still like to use them when it's appropriate though.

As mentioned earlier, these days, I like to go to Fusion or AE with Trapcode Particular first for fire and other effects...it's just so much faster, and since you can get the LightWave camera into either program, you don't have to worry about tracking. But sometimes you just have to do these kind of fx in LightWave.

If I need whispy or billowy volumetric effects in LightWave, I tend to go with Turbulence FD first, but I still like to use HyperVoxels for snow, dirt, rock fragments, and even foamy water splash effects, because it's fast to set up and render, and convincing enough when composited into quick fx shots.

Apart from improving the number of particles, I would like to see in LightWave move towards a nodal particle system. That would be much easier to use and more predictable. Try playing with the 3D particle system in Fusion to see what I mean.

G.

jboudreau
07-21-2015, 04:15 PM
[QUOTE=kartel1900;1437137][QUOTE=prometheus;1437085]I think after effects and element3d is probably to expensive for kartel1900, but I wanted to show it anyway..

Hi Again,

I have been busy getting to grips with LW modeller/Layout (its weird to keep swapping, I must admit) just when you think your all set in layout, something pops up that you have to send back to modeller, edit, save it, back to layout (it takes a bit of getting used to), but I am getting there.



Hi

It's weird at first going back and forth but you will get use to it, Are you using the HUB? It makes it alot easier, with the hub all you have to do is press F12 on the keyboard to switch between modeler and layout, make your changes and press s on the keyboard to save, press F12 again to switch and the changes will be made no need to re-importy models etc. (really it's kind of like other 3D software that has seperate tabs to go to different workspaces) To be honest I really like having my models in a seperate environment, It's easy to just focus on modelling with out all the other stuff in the way. (Hiding moving stuff out of the way) Another huge benefit to it is being able to save your models sepearate from your scene. This allows you to put proxy models into layout, Once you have your scene set up with all your models in place, you just have to go into modeler, delete the model and replace it with the higher res model (by copying and pasting) save the model and when you go back to your scene all your models in the scene are replaced with the Higher res version. Huge time saver.

Thanks
Jason

prometheus
07-22-2015, 01:32 AM
Mr Cageman, thanks for letting us know about Chris zapara interview, that was really awesome.

Just one question, people seem to complain a lot about particle/hv etc in LW, there were shots from Battlestar galactica which Mr Zapara talked about. I mean they were perfect. does it mean they have used some plugins bec it was not mentioned in the interview. I am sure you know more about that.

I donīt think those are perfect, I think they perhaps would have gotten even more realistic stuff with fluids instead, depends on, these type of space shots often works out well with hvīs and post processing, and also with real photage combined, the nature of what to be espected in space explosions doesnīt neccessarly need fluids.
bringing such explosions down to earth often requires a different type of explosion dynamic and feel to it, and in such case it will probably only look semi decent with voxels only.
space explosions often goes out in normal direction and donīt need bouyance or vortex turbulence that lingers on.

There is a difference between battlestar galactica space shots VS the prometheus movie alienship explosion or transformer explosions, the budget decides what to go for and also what might be enough for a certain type of scene.

as I mentioned about the matrix reloaded truck explosion, which is one of the coolest ones done with particle fx, but with the afterburner plugin..afterburner has a specific warp deformer suitable for explosions and a radial gradient suitable for fire distance that lightwave donīt have, they could also get a nice feedback with opengl to see particle size on those trails that was expanding, in lighwave we donīt have such good opengl view, the old dynamite plugin had it..and I wish hypervoxels could get that to someday, like this from the old dynamite plugin for lightwave., you can also get it to show the temperature if you want in openGL.
Lightwave hvīs isnīt that bad, but it is very poorly enhanced the latest years and lack some stuff....

OpenGL helps to better visualize and get feedback on size and movement of the particle expanding trails, VPR canīt do that since it needs refinement which will interfere with getting true realtime feedback in the clip.

OpenGL preview..


https://vimeo.com/9127056

Farhad_azer
07-22-2015, 10:02 AM
I have not thought of this before dear promethuse, I think you mean zero gravity is a lot easier than explosion near the earth and the shot that I mentioned has probably been built using real life shots and not volumetric rendering. it is too advanced for me but I would like to know why it is challenging.

Farhad_azer
07-22-2015, 10:08 AM
Dear Greenlaw, I wish I could hug you. you are so true about your points.

I am not so much experienced with particles but after watching some free tutorial in utube I can make a lot of complicated effects thanks to node based particle in Fusion. everything is controllable and automatic and just real fast. I have never used aftereffect but even when I see someone doing sth in AE which includes particle I easily recreate it in Fusion.

You are an experienced person with knowledge in lots of software and maybe you can elevate this discussion separately. Newtek always adds great stuffs to LW and I think node based particles will be the most awesome upgrade to our beloved arsenal IMHO.

Greenlaw
07-22-2015, 10:59 AM
Glad to help.

Depending on what you want to do, you will certainly run into some limitations by doing particles in compositing--but because you are in compositing, there are many tricks available for working around many of these limitations.

Most of the jobs I've ever been on have very tight deadlines and/or small to moderate budgets, so I usually pick the faster way to get pretty good (and sometimes great) results.

Plus, I really don't want to spend every minute of my day doing this stuff. :p

prometheus
07-22-2015, 12:23 PM
I have not thought of this before dear promethuse, I think you mean zero gravity is a lot easier than explosion near the earth and the shot that I mentioned has probably been built using real life shots and not volumetric rendering. it is too advanced for me but I would like to know why it is challenging.

Can you specify the time of the shot in the sample? if I could look closer I think I might be able to tell wether or not it has been enhanced with real photage, the quality of the clips are quite bad though when posted on youtube and also from a screen within that..so it can be hard to judge.
Donīt get me wrong, the explosions are very well done..not perfect in my opinion, but it may pass through as very well done and acceptable for a tv-series anyway.

mostly those kind of shots have been used both hypervoxels for initial blast and even explosion plumes and mostly for smoke trails, debris, and spark glows often with partigons(not hv render)
and finally they might have used comped real photage with that.

You can get away alot with only sprites too on particles, hereīs some sprite samples I fiddled with long ago, but I could probably enhance them a few levels more, but no one is paying me..so I let it go for a while, could of course do a good real one day with much better stuff.

I had a thread here in the forums ..called something like explosion particle plume trail workshop, I posted a simple particle set up, but refused to post the hv settings ..since I wanted some folks to join in and learn themself along the way, and also letting me evolve with that, but there was no real interest in it ..so nothing really happened with that workshop.

regarding space shots vs earth atmosphere shots, yes as you said, zero gravity works sort of like that, we can get away not using any vorticle/turbulence/boyauncy upwards force, and space explosions often seem to dissipate quite fast ..thus no thick smoke to linger and billow in the same way as a car bomb for instance.

Even though I and many other complains about hypervoxels lack of development, they are easy to work with and you can set them up quite fast, in fact I think they seem to be one of the easiest to set up and work with..compared to modo and houdini at least, unfortunatly I havenīt tested afterburner for max.
So a good fast and easy workflow with such tools are important and of value too, so no wonder hypervoxels have been used extensivly in scifi shows with tight deadlines and budgets.

Only sprites...

https://vimeo.com/26926486

and another one with sprites..

http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=129018&d=1437589071

https://vimeo.com/27101544

Farhad_azer
07-22-2015, 01:30 PM
5:18 of the following link for example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss--Cn6h5bE

prometheus
07-22-2015, 01:36 PM
5:18 of the following link for example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss--Cn6h5bE

ah...hard to tell, I reckon they might have had at least one real flame clip in there for the gun firing, together with hypervoxels..and a lot of post processing glow, canīt tell 100% though..the following explosion could have been hypervoxels only though.

prometheus
07-26-2015, 08:47 AM
hereīs a clip showcasing a little of the "older battlestar galactica" vfx with comments on the dropping ship that collapses and jumps in space, think that was mostly hypervoxels..even though it was in the atmosphere, the nature of the fire was of the kind that hvīs can produce with help of post processing.

the viper missile hits was a mix of real photage and mostly particle trail and debris...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aOyb4okufo&feature=youtu.be

One thing that Lightwave seem to do very well and used a lot for, that is set extensions, a lot of scifi series taking advantage of that, and movies like the davince code "angels and demons" vatican room.
Some new tools with the 2015 version that might help lining up stuff too.

except for that turbulenceFD seem to have had some issues with crashing (canīt tell for sure how it is working now) and except for that turbulenceFD can not use particle advection (pushing lightwave particles with the fluids) it can in cinema4D..I think you should really look in to it if you can put money aside for it, I have been fiddling around with pyrofx for houdini and turbulenceFD, and in my opinion it was easier to get up and running with decent results faster than with pyrofx, that could of course have changed now with the latest houdini versions, to note is that houdini is of course much more powerful when going in depth for more advanced stuff or extreme stuff and also in combination with other dynamic stuff.


Old school hypervoxels nukes...

The 24 series and jack bauers worst day sequence, has a small nuke going off, it was created with lightwave and the dynamite plugin, even though the dynamite plugin had fluids, they choose not to use it..only the particle/voxel volumetrics, they said it was to difficult to get what they wanted so they did it with displaced geometry and the volumetric voxel engine from dynamite that had such nice fire shader, that was used for the mushroom top, the stem for the nuke was hypervoxels.
I donīt have the vfx behind the scenes on it in front of me..but it is somewhere on the net I think.

Ghostlightdigital did something similar for a small commercial I think, and it was inspired by what zoic did for the 24 series nuke..but they only used hypervoxels, check 2:40 in the clip for descriptions on how they made that nuke, with lightwave and hypervoxels...some commercial stuff mostly in the beginning and some other vfx elements.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9aJt_YSgnE&NR=1


Mr rid has done some nice fire with hypervoxels, but it takes a lot of practice and post processing, for a big rolling fire/smoke cloud he used some donut winds, and he did get a very nice believable effect only with hypervoxels and postprocessing...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-RMfc8JhqI

and a flame thrower with a lot of particles and blurring and turbulence distortion in postprocessing...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnzfeyc-bH4

So Hypervoxels isnīt bad..just that it hasnīt evolved a lot during the last years, as mentioned before..the blending between particles could be much better, and it could use a distance between particles gradient in all possible channels..that would help enhance the results from such effects made with hypervoxels..and it would enhance liquids as well as dissolving smoke when particles stray away from the main particle clusters.
and if they could throw in a similar black body heat shader like the discarded dynamite plugin, it would make it much stronger as a volumetric tool.

Though with turbulenceFD it might be easier and more realistic to use the fluids anyway..if you know how to use it properly to do what you want, at the time when dynamite had itīs fluids..I donīt think it was as good as turbulenceFD.
And if you are interested in nukes with turbulenceFD fluids...check kelly myers nuke pack tutorials and scene content over at liberty3d.com, I havenīt tested themself..but it looks good.

kartel1900
07-28-2015, 03:07 AM
Hi All,

I am still busy working out LW, I have managed to get a track from sysntheyes to LW,add a object, do some basic animation, and got a basic object from pftrack to LW, next I need to work on the material system (does LW support PTEX or is it UV unwrapping)

I am still undecided between Fusion/Nuke for compositing, as they seem so alike (I know Fusion has better 3d capabilities but nuke has better tracking and better support)

Also another area I no doubt will need to work on is basic rigging (does LW have auto weights, or is it manual weight painting).

Soon as I get the basic look and feel, I will post a WIP.

Also how good are the metablobs for blood spatter, or is it best to go real flow.

And lastly is there a way to calculate soft bodies faster, like low proxy version, then swapping to high (I have heard something about this in modeller, but have no idea how that works), so annoying there is no lattice deformer.

still so much to learn, but its fun.

prometheus
07-28-2015, 07:07 AM
Hi All,

I am still busy working out LW, I have managed to get a track from sysntheyes to LW,add a object, do some basic animation, and got a basic object from pftrack to LW, next I need to work on the material system (does LW support PTEX or is it UV unwrapping)

I am still undecided between Fusion/Nuke for compositing, as they seem so alike (I know Fusion has better 3d capabilities but nuke has better tracking and better support)

Also another area I no doubt will need to work on is basic rigging (does LW have auto weights, or is it manual weight painting).

Soon as I get the basic look and feel, I will post a WIP.

Also how good are the metablobs for blood spatter, or is it best to go real flow.

And lastly is there a way to calculate soft bodies faster, like low proxy version, then swapping to high (I have heard something about this in modeller, but have no idea how that works), so annoying there is no lattice deformer.

still so much to learn, but its fun.


ptex...donīt think so..uv unwrap yes.

fusion-nuke...no idea, using after effects here but will checkout fusion later since itīs free.

metablobs?
there is metaballs wich is for modeler and also layout, but that requires creating a mesh, you probably mean hypervoxels blending in surface mode, it lacks distance between particle gradients which would make it much better for blood splatter, they have introduced some new blending gradients to enhance it..but I donīt think it
compares to distance between particle gradients.

real flow might be the best.

Auto weights?
there are different weight applyance methods, you should check some plugins too, not exactly sure what you mean by autoweights, you can use different tools to set weights by selecting points or use weights tool with different falloffs like linear, radial, point linear, or use spline guide in weight mode, there is also skelegon weight tools etc...then of course paint brush it where you need it.

check these searches..there are some there not exactly related but you will find som weight tools.
https://www.lightwave3d.com/assets/plugins/contains/weights/

soft bodies..
yes you can calculate a soft body that has lower resolution, then you metalink the higher mesh to that lower cage, and it will deform accordingly, it is done in layout, not in modeler..though you of course model the versions there.
Iīm not sure...I think I have seen a vid somewhere on youtube or william vaughan made it..the metalink is found in displacement tab, so you add it in the higher res objects objects/deform tab and open the plugin and select the lower cage to be linked too...canīt be sure since I havenīt used it for a long long time.
I think you should be able to do that with both the old cloth system and newer bullet soft body system.

kartel1900
07-28-2015, 08:07 AM
Auto weights?
there are different weight applyance methods, you should check some plugins too, not exactly sure what you mean by autoweights, you can use different tools to set weights by selecting points or use weights tool with different falloffs like linear, radial, point linear, or use spline guide in weight mode, there is also skelegon weight tools etc...then of course paint brush it where you need it.
.

Hi Prometheus,

Auto Weights, with Genoma, does it calculate the weights automatically to give a base deformation from a base rig, that can latter be touched up, or do you have to do the whole thing manually.

I didn't think LW supported Ptex (worth asking though), how is the UV tools in LW?

HV for blood, is that possible, I guessed RF would be best, was after a temporary solution (for now).

I have some tentacle type objects (quite high poly) and would like to add some kind of soft bodies to them so they would squish around (maybe if possible in LW add wetmap).

RebelHill
07-28-2015, 08:23 AM
Also another area I no doubt will need to work on is basic rigging
Plenty for you in the sig... vvv


does LW have auto weights, or is it manual weight painting
Well sorta... but really no. Lw doesnt strictly require weights as mesh deformation can be based off of proximity to bones (falloff weighting). This is however not good enough on its own for everything, and you will have to setup your own weights manually, usually in an "isolation" fashion.

LWs weighting (due to the falloff method available) is quite different to what you see in other apps, and the way that weight values, and bone strength values work and mix isn't what you'd immediately expect (though explicit weights like other apps are also available). Again... lots of coverage of that in the tuts below.

Greenlaw
07-28-2015, 08:48 AM
LightWave requires UV maps--I think most 3D animation programs still do. Programs like 3D Coat can bake PTex to UV coordinates for use in these programs.

Re: Fusion vs. Nuke.

I use both Fusion and Nuke, although I have way more experience with Fusion. (I used Fusion for about 12 years in the Box at Rhythm & Hues.)

The workflow between the two programs are indeed very similar--in fact, if you can use one, you can quickly learn the other once you get the differences in terminology straightened out. The capabilities of each are pretty much the same.

In general, I feel the UI in Fusion is a bit more polished and easier to use and learn. Nuke handles larger files a bit better though and has a better way to dig into multichannel file formats. Nuke is probably a bit more scriptable but that's based on what I've observed programmers doing with it at studios where I've worked, and not my personal scripting experience. (I'm a beginner as far as scripting goes, and have only written tools for AE.)

Overall, I still like using Fusion better because there are a number of 'common' tools and functions in Fusion that are standard nodes, and with Nuke there have been a number of situations where I've had to assemble a bunch of nodes to create the same functionality I have in Fusion. I guess that speaks to Nuke's greater 'openess' but most of the time I'm not interested in building tools, I just want to get my work done simply and quickly, so I can get home in time for dinner. But maybe that's just me...like I said, I've been using Fusion for a very long time. :)

If price is a consideration, Fusion is a whole lot cheaper than Nuke.

Fusion used to cost about $5000 (although you could get it as low as $1500 at tradeshows,) and it was extra to get the render nodes, but nowadays the full version costs under $1000 and includes unlimited render nodes. IMO, that's a fantastic price for a 3D compositing program of this level and sophistication.

Nuke is around $8800 or so, and there are various levels of pricing depending on which features you're willing to give up.

Both companies offer free non-commercial versions but there are some technical limitations in each. I'm not sure what's missing in the free version of Nuke but in Fusion you can't use third party plugins and there is no network rendering. (Naturally, I need both for my work.)

In my private studio, I'm still using Fusion 6. Alisa and I own two full licenses and six additional render nodes. When Eyeon owned Fusion, they always offered a perpetual license but you were required to subscribe for fixes and updates. We did that for a few years but stopped because the cost was getting inconvenient. After Black Magic Design bought Fusion, they stopped the subscription requirement, and now we're thinking of finally upgrading to Fusion 7. We'll have to buy brand new licenses but we're actually okay with that because the new price is cheaper than what it would have cost to renew our licenses under the old plan.

I have no intention of purchasing Nuke for our private studio. It's a fine compositing program of course but IMO, it's just way too expensive for what it offers. But if you're a freelancer, I recommend learning it because it seems to be used by many studios these days.

G.

kartel1900
07-28-2015, 09:26 AM
@RebelHill - yes I think there is some different terminology, I will watch your vids, see if that will clear it up.

@Greenlaw - I was leaning towards Fusion anyway (and free is always good), just wondered what was so amazing about Nuke that warranted the huge price (guess its like AD, studio use mainly and can almost charge what they like, as its so integrated and the cost to change or re-learn would be too much, just my guess as I have no inside knowledge).

Just wish there was more training videos on LW, seems a bit sparse, and on LW most tutorials are for Octane.

Greenlaw
07-28-2015, 09:40 AM
The equivalent for 'meta blobs' in Lightwave would be Hypervoxels in surface mode. For airborne blood splatters, you can certainly get away with it, but less so in slow-mo. The reason for this is HV's tendency to blob up into spherical shapes, plus the fact that you can't efficiently work with enough particles with ParticleFX to make it credible. In fast takes with motion blur, it works fine though.

I've had to create a lot of cg blood fx and most of the time I wind up using Fusion Particles or Trapcode Particular in AE and processing them with Re:VisionFX Shadeshape or AE's Glass filter--or a combination of any and all of these depending on what the shot calls for. Usually, I will mix in practical blood footage if it's available and appropriate. For blood fx , this approach is just much faster than using RealFlow to calculate a sim and often just as convincing.

Naturally, it depends on the requirements of the shot but rarely have I needed to use full liquid sims for blood fx.

If possible, it's almost always best to do blood fx as a practical effect on set.

G.

prometheus
07-28-2015, 09:55 AM
@RebelHill -
Just wish there was more training videos on LW, seems a bit sparse, and on LW most tutorials are for Octane.

That donīt seem to be right, octane?

where did you look? thereīs a lot on youtube covering a lot..and of course the newtek ftp sites or 24 hours training.

kartel1900
07-28-2015, 10:52 AM
That donīt seem to be right, octane?

where did you look? thereīs a lot on youtube covering a lot..and of course the newtek ftp sites or 24 hours training.

I don't know of these, do you have any links.

Greenlaw
07-28-2015, 10:52 AM
Yes, there should be tons of stuff on YouTube. LW3DG has a bunch of video tutorials on the Lightwave website too.

For quick start up for the essential, Dan Ablan used to offer an excellent LightWave course. I think the last one he did is on Lynda.com but I'm not sure what version that was (maybe 10?) Lynda costs $25 a month and you can suspend and start the sub anytime so it's a pretty good deal.

I use the Lynda website when I need to pick up a new skill quickly. (Most recently I had to learn Toon Boom Harmony for work.) Many of the courses are well rounded but may not necessarily go deep into advanced techniques. But the point is to get up to speed quickly so you can use the software without becoming a nuisance to your co-workers. The advanced skills will come with experience.

G.

kartel1900
07-28-2015, 11:01 AM
Yes, there should be tons of stuff on YouTube. LW3DG has a bunch of video tutorials on the Lightwave website too.

For quick start up for the essential, Dan Ablan used to offer an excellent LightWave course. I think the last one he did is on Lynda.com but I'm not sure what version that was (maybe 10?) Lynda costs $25 a month and you can suspend and start the sub anytime so it's a pretty good deal.

I use the Lynda website when I need to pick up a new skill quickly. (Most recently I had to learn Toon Boom Harmony for work.) Many of the courses are well rounded but may not necessarily go deep into advanced techniques. But the point is to get up to speed quickly so you can use the software without becoming a nuisance to your co-workers. The advanced skills will come with experience.

G.

I see Lynda has one for LW10 and DT has one for integrating helicopter.

Guess I must be looking in the wrong places.

prometheus
07-28-2015, 12:16 PM
I see Lynda has one for LW10 and DT has one for integrating helicopter.

Guess I must be looking in the wrong places.

It may of course be dependent on what you are looking for, and it could be that a certain area you are looking for may be lacking tutorials.


you got these general a bit older ones...

24 hour of training ..main site with UI search, I recomend click on the title to select vid, then click on link button above..the launch button I would recomend, that will try to play the vid directly so use the link button, you will then be presented with an almost blank page but a highlight text up in the left corner that says.."right click and download".
http://ftp.newtek.com/multimedia/movies/w3dw/WV_LightwaveTraining.html

or go direct, you can use an ftp program like the free filezilla and select all vids and download them all...
http://ftp.newtek.com/multimedia/movies/w3dw/

heres some other contributers like cageman that has some stuff up on the newtek ftp site, he also has his own ftp site which I donīt have in front of me know...heres a topic covering wakes..
http://ftp.newtek.com/multimedia/movies/Wakes/

you can jump up and down in all those ftp folders and find more stuff, some is tutorials, some is sigraph events which also covers tutorials etc.
heres some others...

http://ftp.newtek.com/multimedia/movies/LW_9/

http://ftp.newtek.com/multimedia/eyeon/

http://ftp.newtek.com/multimedia/LW8Demos/

http://ftp.newtek.com/multimedia/LW8Demos/mov/

http://ftp.newtek.com/products/LightWave/Videos/

http://ftp.newtek.com/products/LightWave/Videos/Archive/

http://ftp.newtek.com/products/LightWave/Profiles/ the nuke in 24 by jarrod Davies, general description overview, also the movie 300

http://ftp.newtek.com/products/LightWave/Trial/Videos/

http://ftp.newtek.com/multimedia/movies/LW_9/

There will be some duplicate vids here and there.

on youtube, some of what I followed...

https://www.youtube.com/user/bryphi77/videos

https://www.youtube.com/user/dwburman/videos

Top of 33 Multimedia..
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6D6iPcrcPhAb6970f7LCcw/videos



a hero unfortunatly not longer with us...
https://www.youtube.com/user/SplineGod/videos


https://www.youtube.com/user/RHLW/videos


and of course
https://www.youtube.com/user/OfficialLightWave3D/videos

and the lightwave3d collection from several users...some is also included in my previous 24 hour links from william vaughan...
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGKZoDzd1Gjw69poyNmFjJQ/videos

those are some of the free ones, and of that there is even more on youtube
also check greg sullivan on youtube, I think I posted the links before to his dynamic fx sereis, which was originally a commercial tutorial long time ago from desktop images.

kurv studios had some explosive series with battlestar galactica principles, but those went down I think.

otherwise..check liberty3d.com for more commercial tutorials and especially for fluid tutorials.

kartel1900
07-28-2015, 12:28 PM
It may of course be dependent on what you are looking for, and it could be that a certain area you are looking for may be lacking tutorials.


you got these general a bit older ones...

24 hour of training ..main site with UI search, I recomend click on the title to select vid, then click on link button above..the launch button I would recomend, that will try to play the vid directly so use the link button, you will then be presented with an almost blank page but a highlight text up in the left corner that says.."right click and download".
http://ftp.newtek.com/multimedia/movies/w3dw/WV_LightwaveTraining.html

or go direct, you can use an ftp program like the free filezilla and select all vids and download them all...
http://ftp.newtek.com/multimedia/movies/w3dw/

heres some other contributers like cageman that has some stuff up on the newtek ftp site, he also has his own ftp site which I donīt have in front of me know...heres a topic covering wakes..
http://ftp.newtek.com/multimedia/movies/Wakes/

you can jump up and down in all those ftp folders and find more stuff, some is tutorials, some is sigraph events which also covers tutorials etc.
heres some others...

http://ftp.newtek.com/multimedia/movies/LW_9/

http://ftp.newtek.com/multimedia/eyeon/

http://ftp.newtek.com/multimedia/LW8Demos/

http://ftp.newtek.com/multimedia/LW8Demos/mov/

http://ftp.newtek.com/products/LightWave/Videos/

http://ftp.newtek.com/products/LightWave/Videos/Archive/

http://ftp.newtek.com/products/LightWave/Profiles/ the nuke in 24 by jarrod Davies, general description overview, also the movie 300

http://ftp.newtek.com/products/LightWave/Trial/Videos/

http://ftp.newtek.com/multimedia/movies/LW_9/

There will be some duplicate vids here and there.

on youtube, some of what I followed...

https://www.youtube.com/user/bryphi77/videos

https://www.youtube.com/user/dwburman/videos

Top of 33 Multimedia..
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6D6iPcrcPhAb6970f7LCcw/videos



a hero unfortunatly not longer with us...
https://www.youtube.com/user/SplineGod/videos


https://www.youtube.com/user/RHLW/videos


and of course
https://www.youtube.com/user/OfficialLightWave3D/videos

and the lightwave3d collection from several users...some is also included in my previous 24 hour links from william vaughan...
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGKZoDzd1Gjw69poyNmFjJQ/videos

those are some of the free ones, and of that there is even more on youtube
also check greg sullivan on youtube, I think I posted the links before to his dynamic fx sereis, which was originally a commercial tutorial long time ago from desktop images.

kurv studios had some explosive series with battlestar galactica principles, but those went down I think.

otherwise..check liberty3d.com for more commercial tutorials and especially for fluid tutorials.



Thanks Prometheus,

That should keep me busy for a while.

I'll let you know how I get on.

prometheus
07-28-2015, 12:29 PM
some more...
mike green clothes/clothfx
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBJ50fCRdlU

and just take the habit to search youtube, and with some different search strings...paste this in to youtube search and see what you find..
"lightwave link clothfx"

I missed these...itīs a must check.
http://www.pixsim.co.uk/

ernesttx
07-28-2015, 02:07 PM
nice list of tutorials, guys. Thanks so much.

Wickedpup
07-28-2015, 03:56 PM
Speaking of tutorials for Lightwave....I don't think I've ever seen anyone mention this one, which makes me wonder if it is any good? http://en.elephorm.com/tuto-lightwave-9-complete-training-courseware.html

erikals
07-28-2015, 04:35 PM
LW tutorials >

http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?125893-LightWave-Training-just-a-list&p=1220226#post1220226

vonpietro
07-28-2015, 04:37 PM
i wonder if it would be a good idea for newtek to just make modeler a free program- with some advertising to buy lightwave 2015 =)
the influx of users would probably gain quite a few sales of lightwave

seeing how aged modelerer is - it's a good way to get a new lease on the program.

Markc
07-29-2015, 11:54 AM
I would want some money back, if they did do that :eek:
If people want free stuff, they can get Blender.

prometheus
07-29-2015, 12:15 PM
Well..itīs a question, if I reflect on it, i donīt think it would be wise, itīs like offering the front part of the pig at christmas for free, and to have it advertize the back part of the pig that would cost... Im sure the parts will taste differently...not sure it should be the other way around either to make it more attractive..:D:D

What I would like to see for free to meet the compitition, that is free student versions or free school versions..autodesk will out compete the market more and more with their recent free versions for all schools etc.

vonpietro
07-29-2015, 03:20 PM
look at blender -
its got everything, and it's constantly getting better
its got a huge user base

If they made modeler free-
would the user base swell?

would more people buy lightwave?
would the plugin market explode for lw modler then?

=)
the idea is newtek needs to get more users.
some 3d object sites dont even have lw as an option?
but blender is there. ect ect


there was a post recently on a blender blog - they were all drooling over 3rd powers metamate plugin and heatsrhink
wishing they had it =)
so that is the advantage of a paid model - some of the pluing makers are quite serious!!

hrgiger
07-29-2015, 03:27 PM
Well it probably wouldn't hurt for them to put a modeler only edition of LightWave on Steam.

robertoortiz
07-29-2015, 04:02 PM
Well it probably wouldn't hurt for them to put a modeler only edition of LightWave on Steam.
That is a good idea

Cageman
07-31-2015, 08:06 PM
Mr Cageman, thanks for letting us know about Chris zapara interview, that was really awesome.

Just one question, people seem to complain a lot about particle/hv etc in LW, there were shots from Battlestar galactica which Mr Zapara talked about. I mean they were perfect. does it mean they have used some plugins bec it was not mentioned in the interview. I am sure you know more about that.

A mix of hypervoxels and stock photage of explosions merged in the compositing process is my best guess.

These days for fire/smoke simulations you can use Turbulence FD (a third party fluid solver for fire/smoke avaliable for LW). Check it out.

https://www.jawset.com/

Cageman
07-31-2015, 08:28 PM
I am still undecided between Fusion/Nuke for compositing, as they seem so alike (I know Fusion has better 3d capabilities but nuke has better tracking and better support)

Since you are using PFTrack allready, I would say that you do not need Nuke for tracking. What I can tell you about Nuke though, is that the renderengine is extremely slow. It is probably the slowest renderengine I've ever seen. Compared to Fusion, Nuke renderspeed feels like going back 5-10 years in processor speed (on a modern processor).

That is, probably, the only bad thing I can say about Nuke.... but... lets face it...

Fusion 5 is free... or at least was free when Black Magic took it over. You can't go wrong with either of these, but... you can certanly do a lot more for the money with the free version of Fusion 5 than any version of Nuke (which do cost a lot).

Play around with them and get a feeling for the two,

kartel1900
08-04-2015, 02:55 AM
Since you are using PFTrack allready, I would say that you do not need Nuke for tracking. What I can tell you about Nuke though, is that the renderengine is extremely slow. It is probably the slowest renderengine I've ever seen. Compared to Fusion, Nuke renderspeed feels like going back 5-10 years in processor speed (on a modern processor).

That is, probably, the only bad thing I can say about Nuke.... but... lets face it...

Fusion 5 is free... or at least was free when Black Magic took it over. You can't go wrong with either of these, but... you can certanly do a lot more for the money with the free version of Fusion 5 than any version of Nuke (which do cost a lot).

Play around with them and get a feeling for the two,


Hi Cageman,

I have played with Fusion and the nuke (NC), cant say much difference, guess its down to the painting or roto'ing toolsets, as I am pretty much sold on Fusion.

Another thing, is BM resolve comparable to premier or nuke studio, or is it completely different.

Would be nice to do synthesyes/pftrack(tracking) -> Lightwave/realflow(3d/fluids/softbodies/HV) -> Fusion(comp/particles) -> Ressolve(editing)

is there a good sound editor (like audition).

Greenlaw
08-04-2015, 12:20 PM
Compared to Fusion, Nuke renderspeed feels like going back 5-10 years in processor speed (on a modern processor).

That is, probably, the only bad thing I can say about Nuke.... but... lets face it...
I use Nuke at work and I can add a few additional things I don't like. I find Nuke's UI is less polished Fusion's. I find myself doing way more clicking and dragging than I do in Fusion to perform basically the same tasks. UI consistency is another issue I have with Nuke--basic controls that should be in every node (like blend for example,) are not always there, and you need to add additional tools to get that functionality. In Fusion, at least all the basic controls are where you expect them to be.

I could probably pick at a couple more things but for the most part, not a whole lot of difference. TBH, I'm surprised Nuke gained such popularity over Fusion in recent years considering its price.

Well, maybe not. I know for me personally, Eye's switch to subscription hurt--I felt like I was paying a lot annually for very small improvements, and each time I let my subscription lapse, the penalty fee to resubscribe really hurt. In the end, I stopped upgrading our two Fusion licenses after 6.2. I still use 6.2 but also started using AE a lot since then.

But now that BlackMagic Design has taken over Fusion and done away with subscription, I'm finally thinking of upgrading to 7. As for Nuke, no interest--I mean, if I had to, I can by several Fusion licenses for the cost of one Nuke license.

G.

tyrot
08-04-2015, 05:32 PM
after seeing resolve 12 ... i think bmd will unleash hell on nuke... with fusion's new versions... ... who knows one day resolve and fusion may merge ... into one

Greenlaw
08-05-2015, 01:48 AM
For audio editing, I mostly use SoundForge Pro and a few specialty programs like RX3 and Melodyne. I do my final mixes in Sony Vegas Pro.

Sometimes I'll turn to Adobe Audition or the free Audacity if I need some feature I don't have in the other tools.

Farhad_azer
08-08-2015, 01:44 PM
I apologize Prometheus for not replying earlier bec I was far away from home.

You seem to be right and logical about the fact that absence of gravity can change the results considerably.

I really have no intention on arguing and i say it again that i am very inexperienced in dynamic/particles but this question remains unanswered for me wether particle/hv system in LW is good enough to tackle those shots are not. i mean if you review other answers then u will see some people call it useless. you say (and i am with you on this) that it is good enough. i mean if it is useless then how do people like mr Zapara can create such a great (or at least acceptable) shots? unless he has used a very expensive 3rd software which u said u are not aware.

Btw thanks so much for sharing the pop it vid. it was really amusing and informative at the same time. do you have a vid in which they discuss it in greater details? i think i can create something like that in smaller version and i have some small ideas to make it look even better.

prometheus
08-08-2015, 02:45 PM
I apologize Prometheus for not replying earlier bec I was far away from home.

You seem to be right and logical about the fact that absence of gravity can change the results considerably.

I really have no intention on arguing and i say it again that i am very inexperienced in dynamic/particles but this question remains unanswered for me wether particle/hv system in LW is good enough to tackle those shots are not. i mean if you review other answers then u will see some people call it useless. you say (and i am with you on this) that it is good enough. i mean if it is useless then how do people like mr Zapara can create such a great (or at least acceptable) shots? unless he has used a very expensive 3rd software which u said u are not aware.

Btw thanks so much for sharing the pop it vid. it was really amusing and informative at the same time. do you have a vid in which they discuss it in greater details? i think i can create something like that in smaller version and i have some small ideas to make it look even better.

No ..donīt think thereīs a more detailed mov clip on that popit, I think I also gave you the links to the newtek ftp....on the nuke in the 24 series, where jarrod davies talks briefly about how he went about that nuke..almost same principles as the popit vid..and almost same principles as I did here..except I did the mushroom object toroid rolling motion with a simple ring curve converted to skelegons then converted to bones in layout..then rotated all selected bones at the same time in the pitch angle.

The hypervoxels are attached to the torus either by using particles on it, or on itīs vertices...I could have done this sample much better..but had no time for it at that time.
volumetric light in the center..hv sprite particles for the stem.
I didnīt do any post processing or camera movements...and picked no speciola background, so it could have been made much better..depends on if someone pays you or if you have the passion to drive it further.

Mr Zapara shots? if you mean that firing rocket gun blasting off in galactica, probably photage elements with hypervoxels particles..or tweaked quite a lot in a compositing software like after effects, you can do a lot with turbulence distortions and glow effects in after effects or similar, it may even be that they used fusions particle system together with hypervoxels..or a mix with real photage, so donīt get stuck on believing it is all done with hypervoxels...in fact we do not know exactly how much is this and that.


check my last post in this thread..but on page 2 ..that tank explosion is made with particles..two emitters..one blasting of a couple of particles..maybe 10-15 particles, a child emitter (parented to the first) is set to have itīs nozzle to emitter, with no parent motion, some vibration..and only that emitter is using the Dynamite plugin..it would take a lot of gradient setting up to mimic that nice fire shader, but you could probably get something similar...and for final touch you would have to create someting more turbulent ..so I would eithe have to mix real photage or create another set of particles specially designed to have that turbulent smoke lifting going up..wich would take some time and it would be the hardest part.

The principals are the same as with the matrix truck shot when it concerns particles directions...a completly different particle engine and volumetric engine though, since they used 3dmax particles and afterburner..and I just did a simple setup in lightwave with particles and the dynamite plugin..and it took me maybe 30-50 minutes, canīt recal really..but for the matrix shot it took them several months..though it had all the other advanced dynamics to think about..while mine is static :)

http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?147273-Lightwave-for-VFX/page2

If you have the time...might check some other fiddlings with particle emitters blasting off, just fiddling and not finished shots really..collected explosion album..page 2 might be of most interest.

https://vimeo.com/album/3481335/page:2/sort:preset/format:thumbnail


https://vimeo.com/album/3481335

for something really serious though, I would recommend TurbulenceFD fluids, both in end results and in terms of getting good results quicker..the learning curve of getting particles and hypervoxels and also postprocessing to a decent level..that takes a lot of experience, and mr Zapara has probably been around for a while and using that often.

Darnit..the direct link doesnīt work when picking from vimeo album...anyway, just a wireframe of the particles on tanke explosion..if it is of interest.

https://vimeo.com/album/3481335/video/28074328

HarverdGrad
08-08-2015, 03:20 PM
for something really serious though, I would recommend TurbulenceFD fluids, both in end results and in terms of getting good results quicker..the learning curve of getting particles and hypervoxels and also postprocessing to a decent level..that takes a lot of experience, and mr Zapara has probably been around for a while and using that often.



Is this even being supported? It looks like it is for other platforms, but LW looks dead.

http://forum.jawset.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2424&sid=d158c7fbcb116cd53a1ff1081f7f9d73

prometheus
08-08-2015, 03:44 PM
check the no time limit demo versions..they are updated in september 2014, for both cinema4d and lightwave, no difference there, it may just be less activity in the lightwave forum.

turbulenceFD and cinema4d has particle advection..(pushing particles with the fluids) for lightwave...that is not possible with itīs current sdk.
and there are differences in that turbulenceFD for cinema4d has itīs own previewer specially designed withint turbulenceFD I think, for lightwave you have to go with vpr or viper..I suspect the cinema4 previewer might be better suite for preview animations..while lightwave vpr may give you a better full screen single shot more efficient...just guessing here though.

to sum it up..donīt think itīs dead..I suspect he is hard at work on it..and I hope the lw team might finds time to do something about particle sdk, and perhaps a preview system for volumetrics, if not enhancing the way replay of simulations is done.
It could have been that some issues showed up when lightwave 2015 was released, and jascha may now be hard at work on that.

Greenlaw
08-08-2015, 04:03 PM
I use Turbulence FD and it works fine in LightWave 2015. I used it for large-scale dust effects on two features earlier this year using the first release of 2015. The most recent TFD update was last December and, AFAIK, Jascha is still supporting and updating the plugin.

I think there is a lack of activity in the support forums because there really isn't much to say when the plugin is working correctly. :p

I know nothing about the Mac version issues cited in that thread though.

G.

prometheus
08-08-2015, 05:16 PM
No ..donīt think thereīs a more detailed mov clip on that popit, I think I also gave you the links to the newtek ftp....on the nuke in the 24 series, where jarrod davies talks briefly about how he went about that nuke..almost same principles as the popit vid..and almost same principles as I did here..except I did the mushroom object toroid rolling motion with a simple ring curve converted to skelegons then converted to bones in layout..then rotated all selected bones at the same time in the pitch angle.

The hypervoxels are attached to the torus either by using particles on it, or on itīs vertices...I could have done this sample much better..but had no time for it at that time.
volumetric light in the center..hv sprite particles for the stem.
I didnīt do any post processing or camera movements...and picked no speciola background, so it could have been made much better..depends on if someone pays you or if you have the passion to drive it further.



in my previous post...I forgot to link it right...sample of mushroom...as mentioned, just some basic fiddling, can improve much more..but not sure I am up to it, so long time ago I did that.



https://vimeo.com/26391236

prometheus
08-08-2015, 08:33 PM
After effects post processing
a simple little particle explosion with hypervoxels...and showcasing a little postprocessing just to show a few folks on the differences, not a finished product exactly :)
showcasing the layers on and off with turbulence distortion etc, the actual render resolution was quite low just for testing, the window to the left is the original particles with hypervoxels, it wonīt show here...but I used a collision event to hit the object, and when that happens it spawns 243 particles, and from those particles a child trail is created with a child emitter parented to the first and nozzle set to parent emitter..with much more particles, those are the ones that have hypervoxels.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUizjQ1cu7A


slightly light rays, slightly turbulence and color correction in after effects, plus copied the voxel layer and rotated and moved it in after effects to create another explosion nearby..so that is a cheap fake shot instead of using multi particle simulations :)
rendered out the bullet breaking separately, with 32tga, the same with hypervoxels in 32 tga and used the alpha cannel when loading it as straight unmatted.
just one single cloud image in the background.

so I can distort add glows and corrections on the voxel layer only without affecting anything else...thatīs one way to go about it for changing the characteristics on the explosion ..compared to original, if it looks better or worse..thatīs a question of how much work you put in to it..and what your taste is :)

I am actually overdoing the postprocessing just to showcase it more clearly.

And nevermind some errors in the object that breaks..just whipped it up for fiddling and showcase of postprocessing foremost.

Farhad_azer
08-09-2015, 08:27 AM
Actually I was confused Michael first when you said "I did this..." bec I thought you were working on pop it project but later I found your mushroom cloud. it is nice and could have had more turbulence and vibration in the top part (shaped as donut) IMO.

If I was with the pop it group (I went to their website and really liked their works) I would have added more camera shake to make explosions more real. by having jolt modifier it seems to be a piece of cake.

prometheus
08-09-2015, 09:42 AM
Actually I was confused Michael first when you said "I did this..." bec I thought you were working on pop it project but later I found your mushroom cloud. it is nice and could have had more turbulence and vibration in the top part (shaped as donut) IMO.

If I was with the pop it group (I went to their website and really liked their works) I would have added more camera shake to make explosions more real. by having jolt modifier it seems to be a piece of cake.

Oh..sorry if I confused you, I can recognize that could be easy to do, and no..I had absolutly nothing to do with the pop it effect stuff, just used similar principles..which is to use animated geometry to do the simulated motion of it all, and then apply hypervoxels on the mushroom, which the popit guys also did, jarrod davies nuke in 24 used similar principles..but instead of hypervoxels they used the dynamite plugin volumetric voxel engine because of the nice fire, and some other stuff that was good to use for it.

There was also a difference in that Jarrod Davies just used simply flat disc half parts I think, and used some kind of animation rotation controller that I donīt know for sure how he set that up.
where the popit guys and I simply used a toroid geometry, donīt know how they rotated it, I rotated it with bones..the popit guys did that for a project and certainly took some time to work on it...I myself just fiddled it up within some minutes..ergo the end result isnīt as proffesional as it could have been, I simply didnīt want to push it further at that time..and nowadays I think it might be better of to try it with fluids perhaps...but it depends on the character of the nuke.

You could go and see if you can find the 24 series episode, jack bauers worst day..and the nuke effect should be in there.

mr Rid "David Ridlen" xurgonic on youtube...has a simple fire blast rolling up in the skies, wich is very good..though it is a bit out of focus and shaky, so with camera movents depth of field perhaps, and some post processing..and comping it right..you can get quite convincing stuff, but it will take you experience and time to reach that level with voxels..so it isnīt easy exactly.

a lot of post processing of particles and hypervoxels in fusion, I suggest you check his channel on all the fire related stuff...

here is David Ridlens fire in the city, much better than my stuff..in this case he used hypervoxels.. wind forces, donut, and some others to drive the particle simulation...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-RMfc8JhqI


David Ridlens Flame thrower, only particles and hypervoxels and postprocessing in fusion ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnzfeyc-bH4

I might add that it seems that David Now has invested in turbulenceFD ..so wether or not he will ever go back to hypervoxels or not, or only in certain occasions..I donīt know.

Davids Ridlens building destruction..with turbulenceFD...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4feTdAq8EpQ


Yes I have had my complaints about hypervoxels..mostly the lack of updates that could make it better but..
Hypervoxels arenīt that bad for those who have spent years with them and know their ins and outs, but it hasnīt been updated with new stuff which could have made it much better, it is a bit behind in some areas compared to for instance afterburner..and lacks some features the dynamite plugin had for lightwave..though hypervoxels is faster and more stable than dynamite.

But neither dynamite plugin, hypervoxels,afterburner can match the dynamic realistic properties that comes with fluids, so itīs just not hypervoxels..itīs an old tech for these kind of effects ..and nowadays there are so many new fluid solutions, so only for a special type of shots hypervoxels may be useful and do the job, but for some really really realistic stuff down to earth..it wonīt reach the pro level.

Farhad_azer
08-11-2015, 01:15 PM
That is ok Michael, thank you for detailed discussion and links.

I probably am hijacking this fellow's thread but would you be interested to talk and experiment the techniques used by Mr. Jarrod Davis?

The thing is nuke is not very commonly used in everydays projects but maybe we can get sth useful out of it.

My raw guess is that he used some kind of cloth simulation going on.

The shot by Mr Ridlen is also very interesting. I assume he has used an still image and no tracking or sth.

prometheus
08-11-2015, 03:04 PM
That is ok Michael, thank you for detailed discussion and links.

I probably am hijacking this fellow's thread but would you be interested to talk and experiment the techniques used by Mr. Jarrod Davis?

The thing is nuke is not very commonly used in everydays projects but maybe we can get sth useful out of it.



My raw guess is that he used some kind of cloth simulation going on.

The shot by Mr Ridlen is also very interesting. I assume he has used an still image and no tracking or sth.

Absolutly..talking about the techniques used by mr Jarrod Davis fine with me...I might be a little occupied with some other stuff up till friday, but will check in on this from time to time..firstly we need to find the places where Jarrod himself describes the process..there were some places on the net he did that, I would have to search and link back later.

I did post the profile where Jarrod Davis did the nuke..he talks about hypervoxels and dynamite plugin for the nuke around 00:00:36 in the clip on the 24 profile vid.
http://ftp.newtek.com/products/LightWave/Profiles/ the nuke in 24 by jarrod Davies

..I reckon you did look at that, I donīt believe he used clothFx ..why should he do that, thereīs nothing in the scene that indicates that, the stem was hypervoxels and probably moving points in a morph..the mushroom was rendered with the dynamite plugin voxel ..which adapts nicely to polygonal shape sizing with itīs so called polyons, , , and also blends nicely..and with that the nice fireshader.

the movement of the rolling mushroom? in this case it seems he only used a few flat polys that was arrayed in a circle a bit, some animation controllers to make those rotate, donīt know..could be some controller connected to a null or relativity or follower...In my case, to make it simply..I made a toroid and a circle converted to bones..then selected all bones in layout and rotated them....simple as a cake..easy as a pie.

If I were to do it again(my mushroom sample that is)..I would probably still use a toroid shape or even two...but instead of applying particles or use the vertices on the object itself, I would fill the toroid with the fill solid tool, which will fill the toroid with 100 points at a time, so that would give a more filled volume rather than applying it on the surface only, rigging a toroid with bones is supereasy to convert a disc to skelegons or a spline curve circle..which then is converted to bones in layout.

Regarding Mr rids fire in the city, I think I recall him saying itīs just a still image, camera shake, some depth of field focus going on etc..which helps sell the shot, that one is particles with donut winds and some more winds..moving together with particles to maintain the movement upwards, voxels rendered not in full size as I recall, so when sizing up..it actuall helps smooth out the voxels.

prometheus
08-11-2015, 03:14 PM
found the article.. a little more detailed about the nuke...the stem shaped by the magnet tool and morphed, as I suspected...

http://www.studiodaily.com/2007/02/creating-24s-mushroom-cloud/

Farhad_azer
08-12-2015, 05:32 PM
That is great, so I will wait for you to have free time. as I said this special effect is rarely required but we might get sth technical from this discussion.

My guess is that the flat plane converted to mushroom shape was achieved by cloth effects . maybe the top and low raw of points were fixed or sth like that.

whenever you have time ,Michael, plz inform me. I would also like to ask how you did your work? bones, setup and animating the mushroom cloud.

prometheus
08-12-2015, 06:02 PM
That is great, so I will wait for you to have free time. as I said this special effect is rarely required but we might get sth technical from this discussion.

My guess is that the flat plane converted to mushroom shape was achieved by cloth effects . maybe the top and low raw of points were fixed or sth like that.

whenever you have time ,Michael, plz inform me. I would also like to ask how you did your work? bones, setup and animating the mushroom cloud.

No..as I said..no clothfx for what jarrod did..canīt get a grip on why he would use that...I could be wrong, but I just canīt see why he would resort to clothfx for the rotation.

I have describe above in my post exactly how I did my mushroom top..just rotating the bones pitc, several bones in following the inside center of the toroid..and for that I just selected all bones for the animation rotation..but first in modeler I just used a disc..seleted itīs outer points and made a closed curve circle spline, then convert the curve to skelegons in modeler...sent it to layout and once in layout convert the skelegons to bones so I got a perfect circle of bones, I am soo sleepy now that I canīt have my eyes open....see ya later.