PDA

View Full Version : Houdini VS Realflow for Lightwave



3dhotshot
08-18-2018, 01:00 PM
Which is better in terms of Simulation Speed Calculation Speed ?

erikals
08-18-2018, 02:02 PM
Realflow perhaps?

remember reading something about a new code they used to compress/speed things up. > Hybrido

can't say for sure though...

Ryan Roye
08-18-2018, 02:02 PM
Realflow

ernpchan
08-18-2018, 02:28 PM
I don't know about speed but Houdini is really popular. It is almost a necessity to learn for fx work.

erikals
08-18-2018, 05:30 PM
RealFlow perpetual versus Houdini subscription might matter to some,
Houdini Apprentice is free for testing purposes and will export obj files i believe.

both of these apps have pros / cons

nemac4
08-18-2018, 10:09 PM
I was in the same boat. I tried both but in the end I went with realflow. Primarily due the speed and ease of use. Re-learning Houdini on the rare occasion of needing dynamics outside of lightwave was a pain due to infrequent use. Realflow is fast, powerful, pretty easy to use and meets my needs. Glad I picked it up...

erikals
08-19-2018, 02:06 AM
so far i've gone the Houdini route. actually not that hard, i only focus on fluids/particle sims anyway. (for now)

didn't find any test showing how much faster (circa) RealFlow is, anyone knows?

and, there is Maya 2018 Bifröst >
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oSoX4RXXFY
it might be better to go the RealFlow / Houdini route, for speed / complexity

erikals
08-19-2018, 02:57 AM
btw, Narrow Band makes Houdini simulations much faster


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETr1Fptm6Z8

bit more info from Igor Zanic
https://vimeo.com/241301895
https://forums.odforce.net/topic/31823-houdini-165-fluid-narrowband-simulation/
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=houdini+narrow+band

prometheus
08-19-2018, 07:11 AM
so far i've gone the Houdini route. actually not that hard, i only focus on fluids/particle sims anyway. (for now)

didn't find any test showing how much faster (circa) RealFlow is, anyone knows?

and, there is Maya 2018 Bifröst >
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oSoX4RXXFY
it might be better to go the RealFlow / Houdini route, for speed / complexity

a bit off topic perhaps..maybe I should talk privately with you on that...but since you talk houdini, try the paint volume fog located under the volume tab, set projection mode to screen and paint your cloud in all 3d axis, spacebar hold and click drag viewport..then paint in another direction, shift click and drag to rezise brush, you can then simply go to the cloudfx tool menutab.. and then add the cloud light, and also the cloud noise, this will essential add the tools available as you have when you start with a cloud rig on any geometry..uber cool, and you can of course go back and continue to paint with the paint volume..and have the cloud fx noise and cloud light still active.

Also Modeling a cloud object in Lightwave or blender is nice and then you can just swap out the geometry at any time while having the noise and shadign intact from the initial cloud fx setup.

3dhotshot
08-23-2018, 01:45 PM
I must say great answers and info shedding light on this topic - awesome stuff thx :)

erikals
08-23-2018, 03:12 PM
a bit off topic perhaps..maybe I should talk privately with you on that...but since you talk houdini, try the paint volume fog located under the volume tab, set projection mode to screen and paint your cloud in all 3d axis, spacebar hold and click drag viewport..then paint in another direction, shift click and drag to resize brush, you can then simply go to the cloudfx tool menutab.. and then add the cloud light, and also the cloud noise, this will essential add the tools available as you have when you start with a cloud rig on any geometry..uber cool, and you can of course go back and continue to paint with the paint volume..and have the cloud fx noise and cloud light still active.

Also Modeling a cloud object in Lightwave or blender is nice and then you can just swap out the geometry at any time while having the noise and shading intact from the initial cloud fx setup.

a nice trick, no time now, but will keep this in mind    https://i.imgur.com/tJGL61i.png

prometheus
08-24-2018, 04:11 AM
a nice trick, no time now, but will keep this in mind    https://i.imgur.com/tJGL61i.png

Video recording is planned, but as you are familiar with so little time, I also had some issues with my recording device as well..maybe wrong resolution setting with the nvidia card recording, when that is solved it will be easier to fire up and record.
I may also have an issue with painted fog volume when it comes to correct lighting from cloud light when rendered, have to check that as well.

OFF
08-24-2018, 07:52 AM
Regardless of who prefers the package of fluids in LW, there is a thin place - there is no way to load animated Alembic files containing sequents that are not equal among each other in the number of object polygons. I asked Newtek about this and got an answer that they are working on this issue.

jwiede
08-24-2018, 09:38 PM
Regardless of who prefers the package of fluids in LW, there is a thin place - there is no way to load animated Alembic files containing sequents that are not equal among each other in the number of object polygons. I asked Newtek about this and got an answer that they are working on this issue.

Yeah, they really need to support changing poly numbers for Alembic object sequences in LW. Most other 3D pkgs have supported it for a while, and as a result, most meshers & Alembic exporters have stopped worrying about retaining the same number of polys within exported Alembic object sequences.

OFF
08-24-2018, 09:55 PM
Yep. In any program supporting this kind of Alembic sequencing you can work very easily with it. But with sequences such as sequences of Obj files, especially when each of them is 100-300 megabytes is very difficult to work with.

3dhotshot
08-26-2018, 06:15 AM
Speedtree Alembic files seem to work in 2015.3 with motion data .... but yes lw needs to talk with houdini perfectly this will be a big milestone since houdini is a big player in vfx stuff

OFF
08-26-2018, 06:19 AM
From Newtek:


Not a bug but a limitation.

Currently, imports that have changing point numbers and point orders cannot be imported.

We have it on our list to address when possible, but there are underlying systems that need to be updated to make this possible. It's not "an easy fix"

We're working on it.

Thank you for your report.
--
LightWave 3D Group Support

3dhotshot
08-27-2018, 01:55 AM
Maybe there is a workaround if you are doing final output in octane as houdini and lw should be octane 4 ready soon ...

Ztreem
08-27-2018, 03:36 AM
Maybe the flip fluids addon for Blender could be an alternative as well. Blender is also Octane ready and I think Lino said that Octane 4 will be free for Blender (using only 1 gpu or something).

Intuition
08-28-2018, 05:39 PM
Too bad Yannick decided to disappear with his Q-Solver for Realflow. There were quite a few mindblowing clips on vimeo using the Qsolver. It was the one time I was really seeing a realistic meshing of particles that didn't have that typical cg blobs or over soft/sharpened cg look. I honestly think that meshing fluids is still something no one has truly refined yet after almost twenty years of solvers and meshers. BiFrost, Realflow, Blender, and Houdini all have decent solvers for the general need but nothing was close to Yannick's particle and mesher Q Solver for Realflow.

3dhotshot
08-28-2018, 07:03 PM
http://cgpress.org/archives/q-solver-plugin-for-realflow-now-available.html


Oh my yes by far the most realistic water like simulations ... I wonder what has happened to Yannick as well


Yannik FPLUS
Joined 7 years ago|Earth
I am currently looking for investors / partners / supporters for the following project:

Building a new, massively parallel, high-performance simulation-framework for creative applications.

Key aspects:

True Multi-GPU simulation. One big sim, many GPUs. No limits. Cost effective and time saving.
Primarily particle-based for intuitive solvers and control.
Simple workflows, very high degree of automation for highest possible stability and safety in production.

Rigid, Soft, liquids, granular, volumetrics...All material types supported!

If this sounds like something you dream of or could use or would like to support...please send me a PM with a few words :)
Checkout my R&D and my solvers...all of which will be essential parts of that simulation tool :)

Job:
Fluids Artist + software-developer. Writer, director.

Contact me: [email protected]

LinkedIn:
de.linkedin.com/in/dragonsspirit3d

Tools: Intelligence, C++/python Code, Maya, Cinema 4D, Arnold, RealFlow, custom stuff.

Current developments:
Custom simulation-framework for creative applications. CUDA anyone? Join !

Recent software developments:
YSPH-solver, Sandy-Solver, Q-Solver, Surfer, O2, others.

Looking for:
Challenging projects, great stories and storytelling with depth and engaging characters. New things and ways, working with cool people and learning. Writing + directing, simulation-algorithms and Ai. Music and sound, martial arts + sports. Nature and a lot more...sunshine and a good sleep, snow + great hills.


Specialities:

FX: Maya, Cinema 4D, RealFlow, Arnold, C++ / python custom stuff.
Simulating and rendering smoke, fire, explosions, sand, liquids of any scale and anything related.

Dev: MS vStudio + others if needed.
C++ custom plugin development for RealFlow and others, simulation algorithms / solvers. Software design and development.

Familar with:
XSI, Max, some Houdini. Always learning.

ckeyes888
12-15-2018, 02:55 PM
Is RealFlow still available as a Mac plugin?

Thanks,

Carl

inkpen3d
12-16-2018, 04:25 AM
Check out the Houdini 17 What's New video - fluids are showcased starting at 5:57, but it's worth watching the whole video just to see what's available out of the box. Link: https://www.sidefx.com/products/houdini/whats-new/

jwiede
12-16-2018, 07:11 PM
Which is better in terms of Simulation Speed Calculation Speed ?

It really comes down to how much optimization you're willing to do. RealFlow will do an excellent job out of the box, but optimizations really require a fair amount of familiarity with how RealFlow works internally, and that requires experience. The same is true for Houdini, but (IME/O) the optimization workflows for it tend to be a bit more "broad-based" and thus a bit easier for someone new to the package to access and adopt. I also suspect you'll have an easier time getting info on how to optimize simulations for Houdini than for RealFlow, simply because the Houdini community seems "more open" about sharing that kind of info -- nothing against the RealFlow community, I've just found that the Houdini community is more willing to discuss such matters.

If you're fine with "out of box" simulation performance, and can get by with the tweaking and tips information provided for RealFlow, it'll probably be easier to integrate it into a Lightwave pipeline due to the existing integration plugins. Houdini can do the same, but it typically requires a bit more complex workflow to get the data into LW (though Oliver Hotz's ODTools definitely help in that regard). With Houdini, you're also more likely to have to "round-trip" back to Houdini to make adjustments, where the LW RealFlow plugins will allow you to make a decent level of adjustments right within the plugins inside LW (at least in terms of how the data is visualized -- if you have to tweak the data contents, you'll likely wind up back in RealFlow again).

Just based on my experiences, YMMV. The situation used to be much more favoring of RealFlow when you could use the RealFlow Toolkit inside LW, which allowed even making data adjustments, etc. within LW. Now in more recent versions, they've changed their integration model back to where most of the data manipulation lives inside RealFlow, and the in-LW capabilities have taken a bit of a hit as a result. That puts RealFlow on a more level playing field with Houdini in that regard.