PDA

View Full Version : Lightwave Vs. Blender



Stingslang
07-27-2006, 03:29 PM
Any thoughts?

Captain Obvious
07-27-2006, 09:12 PM
I have plenty of thoughts, and all of them tell me that it's stupid to pit the two against each other. There are obviously plenty of things Lightwave does a lot better than Blender, and I would bet the opposite is true as well. Blender will obviously give you more value for the money, what with it being free and all...

newtekker04
07-27-2006, 09:44 PM
I haven't used Blender in quite some time, but judging by what I'm seeing on the website, it's turning out to be a fabulous 3d application. On the other hand, Lightwave aint all that bad, either.:D

tonybliss
07-27-2006, 10:26 PM
doh start this sh1t!!!

Phil
07-27-2006, 11:31 PM
Only one : Blender is available on linux - LW isn't. Sad state of affairs in 2006.

colkai
07-28-2006, 03:09 AM
Not a competition, with Blender being free, I'd consider it more a tool in the box, same could be said of Wings3d.
That said, I find LW so much easier to work in.

I don't think I've opened either Wings or Blender on my PC in like, forever. I was even lucky enough to get in on the Hexagno2 for $32 deal, but again, I have to try and wrap my head around it's interface and workflow. I have always found Lw easy to follow and it 'suits' me, even though I'd love some of the tools the other packages have.

If you have no budget, get Blender AND Wings3D, it's agreat way to get into 3D for sure. Pick up the YafRay renderer whilst you're at it.
If you are thinking of buying LW or have it already, get 'em anyway.... 'cause they're free. :D

mrunion
07-28-2006, 07:35 AM
Yup, add the tools that are free. Even if you never open them. Someday, somehow you may run across something that's just so much more suited to one of those "free" packages that you use it for that task alone. And that alone is worth the download!

Celshader
07-28-2006, 08:49 AM
Any thoughts?

I think Blender's wonderful for hobbyists, kids, and anyone else interested in 3D who never plans to do 3D for a living outside of individual freelance work. With Blender, folks can learn if they like 3D or not without spending a dime, no strings attached.

However, if one hopes to someday work at an FX house, Blender may not be the best choice. I've only seen Blender used professionally in the Los Angeles area once -- on Spider-Man 2 animatics (http://www.blender3d.org/cms/Animatics_for_Motion_P.393.0.html).

No studio seems to use Blender. A friend suggested Blender to his bosses once, but they declined. They had doubts about the quality of a freeware package's customer service and technical support.

Captain Obvious
07-28-2006, 09:03 AM
Not everyone wants to work for a studio, though. I'm sure Blender can be a good choice for freelancers. And it's always good to learn how to use software. If you've only ever used Lightwave, learning (for example) Maya will be a lot more difficult than if you know Lightwave, Blender, Cinema 4D, etc, because the more applications you know, the more generalized your skills get. If you just know one application, you can get pretty good without really understanding why you should click that particular button that you should click. If you know a whole bunch of applications, you get a deeper understanding of what the different tools do.

At least, this is how I see it.

Jim_C
07-28-2006, 09:03 AM
Seems like Toaster vs Blender would be more fitting.

But we can't do that anymore either.


brought to you by Puns.... The lowest form of comedy.


8/

Matt
07-28-2006, 09:05 AM
Seems like Toaster vs Blender would be more fitting.

But we can't do that anymore either.


brought to you by Puns.... The lowest form of comedy.


8/

Oh, oh, I see what you did there! ;)

mrunion
07-28-2006, 10:56 AM
Granted production houses may be using it. But a great many of the larger production houses write their own stuff don't they? I mean, ILM has got quite a few "500lb heads" that custom-write a ton of stuff, and I believe all the other houses are similar.

Though I ENTIRELY respect the argument presented by Celshader, I must say that in the years I have used Linux/GIMP/Blender, and any other fitting Open-Source ("free as in beer") tools, they have not presented any lack of support in their communities, etc. Someone is ALWAYS willing to help, and updates are handled MUCH more efficiently and faster than any "production" software I have ever purchased. (Have you ever called MS for support?) It's just the nature of the Open Source machine.

Granted, the hardware drivers can be coming slow for things like Linux support sometimes -- but when you have tight-lipped, MS-influenced companies not telling anyone diddly squat about the hardware/driver interface layer (HAL, etc.), and somehow the community STILL gets it figured out, I'd have to say I'd take that kind of support over a "paid subscription" anytime.

That's just my $0.02, and I truly mean NO disresepct to anyone here that disagrees. I am a small fish, no need to fry me!

erikals
07-28-2006, 11:53 AM
There's one thing I'd really like to see from Blender to Lightwave,... fluid simulation. If you look around you'll see that there are some really cool fluid simulations done in Blender.

As for LW vs Blender, I'd agree with Celshader, it would be hard to use it professionally as of the management's fear of a discontinued product, bad support. I've experienced simillar comments on other software.

monovich
07-28-2006, 12:07 PM
you can bring your fluid sims from blender into LW. there was a thread on CGtalk about it a while back.

erikals
07-28-2006, 12:42 PM
Yup ;)
http://www.spinquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10042&page=1&pp=15

loki74
07-28-2006, 06:41 PM
There's one thing I'd really like to see from Blender to Lightwave,... fluid simulation. If you look around you'll see that there are some really cool fluid simulations done in Blender.

With the fluid simulation in cantarcan's Dynamite plugin... liquids are just a step away. He would have to implement a particle level-set grid plus the grids already there, and a means of rendering the surface or generating a mesh for LW to render. It is a lot to do, but really, I wouldn't put it past that guy. :)

That said, Blender's fluid would still have its place, and so would RealFlow. The methods of the three programs are so massively different, I really think that having all thee is not a bad idea... if you have the money, that is.

My biggest beef with Blender is how the view rotation works... the camera can rotate around its local z axis (ie, the "roll" axis) and I find that this makes working in a perspective viewport rather difficult. I dunno, maybe theres a way to change this, but I have not been able to find it.

papou
07-28-2006, 09:33 PM
i saw blender in action somes days ago..
unlogical and lot of strange named buttons but the openGl radiosity baking was impressive. Yaffray is very fast and nice AA. and much more..
Not a freeware quality anymore... it look advanced, and we must look at it in the future... and the future is near.

Mike_RB
07-29-2006, 01:09 AM
blender is more than a billion times cheaper

Martin Adams
07-29-2006, 01:35 AM
blender is more than a billion times cheaper

Blender is infinitely cheaper!

Blender has seen the addition of a few features which I'd love to see in LightWave (fluids (http://www.blender.org/cms/Fluids_simulation.675.0.html), hair (http://mediawiki.blender.org/index.php/Manual/PartXIII/Particle_Hair)) .

The Dynamite (http://www.cantarcan.com/v11/html/main.html) plugin is awesome and I've used the pervious verion before. I'm hoping that fluid simulation is next on their list of things to add to it as it will sell like hotcakes (http://www.fluffco.com/mexico/images/oaxaca_hotcakes2.jpg).

I've not worked on advanced stuff before in Blender but I know how the basics work. For someone just testing out if 3D is for them, definitely start with Blender, that's what I did. For commercial projects, does it really matter? Isn't it the quality of the artist that counts? If you're planning on integrating with other people in a team (e.g. studio work), then you might want to consider something that fits with their software.

I see Blender as capable as LightWave, its just the quality of the finer details that only an individual can decide what's right for them.

moremetall
07-29-2006, 08:35 AM
I did try Blender before I deside to invest in Lightwave. Did find it very hard to understand the workflow. It's nice/good that there are an open surce community out there making those programs (in may cases very impressive programs) as those will put som presure on maket to be better ...

Anti-Distinctly
07-29-2006, 05:12 PM
I've recently looked at Blender and I was very impressed indeed. It's interface is probably my favorite feature. It's very very versatile.
It has an impressive feature list and does things that LW cannot do (notably fluids for me). And as it's free it's not like you have to put any though into whether its worth it or not. Just get it.
I do find Blender's shading and texturing a bit of a nightmare. It's just introduced a node based editor, but currently the amount of nodes is quite limited and pales in comparison to LW's nodes.
While we're on nodes, and this is something I'd love to see in LW, is a node based compositor and post processing. Groovy stuff for sure.

I'm also very impressed with YafRay. It's GI seems to be very fast indeed compared to LW. I rendered a bunch of LW objects in it with 3 bounce radiosity in 800x640 in about 15 mins. I think, but dont quote me on that.
However, at this stage you'd have to go one way or another - i.e. you cannot import your LW scene into blender. you can do objects, but thats it. So after the modelling stage, you'd have to do it all in LW or Blender.

In summation, I love Blender and Lightwave.

sculptactive
07-30-2006, 03:50 AM
I used blender a lot when the availability of LW UVMap plugins were slim.
It was a great asset.

Treat blender as an addition to your LW tool set, rather than a replacement.

RedBull
07-30-2006, 04:57 AM
Something i really love about Blender is it's timeline scrubbing.... (it's not quite XSI, but it's vastly faster and better than LW) It makes LW look 30 years out of date.

I can just keep my finger on the arrowkey, and scrub from the beginning to end of the fluids simulation for example, and Blender will interactively scrub
and update the OGL viewports at lightning quick speeds, and play everyframe of the simulation in realtime.

In Layout, i can't just use an arrow key i have to press it continously for everyframe to force LW to update.

I use scripts like IL-Scrubreplace, but it's not much better, honestly looking how the cheap free blender crowed are doing it, make me think LW needs far better timeline scrubbing and playback caching.

Blender is just getting better and better, and i'd like a Collada 1.4 exporter/importer for LW to exchange data with Blender for example.
As i'm using Blender a lot more these days, as a LW plugin it's a very good one.

wavk
07-30-2006, 05:20 AM
even if blender would cost the same as lw, it still would be more advanced and capable.
i just dont like the ui and workflow.

a shame though..
and also embarrasing for lw.


mlon

Stooch
07-30-2006, 10:23 AM
hmm. i dabbled in taht program, honestly the whole notion of VS is just a waste of time. please dont make threads like that. any artist can and should use whatever tools he/she wants as long as the work gets done. if you find it easier to use blender then please go ahead! (i dont).

as far as liquids, havent really seen anything that i would consider acceptable for production. i mean its cool to play around with but not quite as robust as realflow...

erikals
07-30-2006, 10:32 AM
You could be right, but based on these examples, I feel like taking a closer look at what it's limits is.. Timeanim (http://www10.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/~sinithue/public/blender/test_timeanim.mpg) Movobjmixer (http://www10.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/~sinithue/public/blender/test_movobjmixer.mpg) Movobjshower (http://www10.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/~sinithue/public/blender/test_movobjshower.mpg)

Stooch
07-30-2006, 10:59 AM
those are great examples but i would need about 5x the resolution (number of particles for the sim) there were alot of artifacts that are symptoms of insufficient particle count and excessive range for the mesh/voxel generator.

I know realflow can crunch through MASSIVE particle counts and allows for some intelligent setup options (duplicating particle bins etc).

lilrayray77
07-30-2006, 11:11 AM
Blender is what got me into Lightwave. But once I moved to lightwave, I was very happy with my decision. It is hard for an opensource project to compete with a commercial project, although blender isnt doing a bad job.

loki74
07-30-2006, 06:43 PM
those are great examples but i would need about 5x the resolution (number of particles for the sim) there were alot of artifacts that are symptoms of insufficient particle count and excessive range for the mesh/voxel generator.

I know realflow can crunch through MASSIVE particle counts and allows for some intelligent setup options (duplicating particle bins etc).

You are right about one thing--there is WAY too little resolution in that to be considered for production level work... but not too few particles. Indeed, as far as I know, Blender's fluid sim does not use ANY particles. My understanding is that it uses a lattice-Boltzmann method. And I'm fairly certain that at a comprable resoltion, RealFlow would indeed be faster, and probably take up less RAM.

And you are right about the artifacts too--this is in fact my biggest problem with Blender's fluids: the voxel aliasing that occurs where the flow is not axis aligned (ie, not aligned with the lattice grid).

The other thing I really, REALLY like about RF is that the UI stays interactive DURING SIMULATION. It is the only dynamics system that I've ever used that does that, and it makes things so much better. (Then again, it is the only dynamics system I have used outside of those that come built into 3D apps...)

But of course, Blender is free. And really that is something impossible to argue: "well, RF may be x times better, but Blender is infinitely cheaper!" Well, Blender is free for a reason, and RF costs thousands for a reason.

Martin Adams
07-31-2006, 12:44 AM
Well, Blender is free for a reason, and RF costs thousands for a reason.

Haha, you just reminded me of a Mental Roy article in a 3D World magazine article a few months ago. He was comparing different operating systems and comes to linux. He says something to the effect, "its free, so there must be something wrong with it".

I'd love to get my hands on Real Flow, but the $2700 price tag is very much out of my price range. Shame they upped the price by about 40% when RF4 came out.

loki74
07-31-2006, 02:35 AM
you just reminded me of a Mental Roy article in a 3D World magazine article a few months ago. He was comparing different operating systems and comes to linux. He says something to the effect, "its free, so there must be something wrong with it".

And that is precisely not what I meant.

RF costs thousands because NextLimit has invested thousands in resarch and physics teams. Blender doesn't because it's made from charitable contributions.

Moeny means resources. More resources mean a more powerful app. Are you about to deny that RF is more powerful than Blender? At the same time, lack of money does not necessarily mean lack of resources (as proved by the very existence of Blender). So I suppose my real point is not "It's free, so there must be something wrong with it," but rather "It's expensive, (and selling well) so there must be something right about it."

Martin Adams
07-31-2006, 02:51 AM
hehe. I completely agree with you loki74. The statement just reminded me of the comical values of Mental Roy (for those who are familiar). Not that I agree with the statement.

You are absolutely right that more money does mean more resources. More resources does mean a better product because they can invest in both time and hire the relevant talent - something that opensource can't guarantee. A better product does mean its worth sale price.

For what I've seen, RF looks very, very powerful. If it wasn't, many studios wouldn't have used it.

WhiteBoy
07-31-2006, 03:06 AM
I use Blender and LightWave. In fact, I started in 3D using Blender. However, whenever possible, I prefer to use LightWave mainly due to its workflow, ease of use, and awesome renderer. Blender still seems a little messy to me.

RedBull
07-31-2006, 02:15 PM
While Blenders fluids are fun, and quite quick to setup and use, as well as calculate. They definately don't compare to Realflow.

For example, from my playing with Blenders fluids, you can't mix two fluids together, something realflow has done since version 1.0.... And i think there would be plenty more that makes it incapable of matching realflow in many areas. Realflow also uses multiprocessers for it's calculations.

So if we eve get LW fluids, i would like to mix a red and blue liquid together with it..... :)

Martin Adams
07-31-2006, 02:36 PM
Does anyone know what this Flood fluid dynamics (http://software.franticfilms.com/index.aspx?page=flood) is all about?

Titus
07-31-2006, 02:53 PM
I'd love to get my hands on Real Flow, but the $2700 price tag is very much out of my price range. Shame they upped the price by about 40% when RF4 came out.

You don't have to spend a penny to get your hands on Real Flow, the 30 day evaluation version is completely functional. You'll find you need many hours to make Real Flow work as you want, it needs a "make water" or "make oil" buttons. Blender's fluid system works that way, this is the reason why it doesn't compare to RF, simplicity vs complexity.

loki74
07-31-2006, 03:09 PM
Does anyone know what this Flood fluid dynamics (http://software.franticfilms.com/index.aspx?page=flood) is all about?

Yes I've seen this before... they don't give a whole lot of information. The most detailed piece of info I could find was that it used a level-set method to track the free surface. It appears to highly proprietary and very much unavailable.

How well it simulates is really difficult to tell, without any great details. If it uses just a level-set (as opposed to a particle level set) you can expect volume dissipation on coarse grids. We can tell that it is a grid based method, because the level-set method is grid based. From the examples, it would appear that the flows are very smooth, ideal for modeling laminar or viscous flows, but less so for highly inviscid flows. It is also evident that their method suffers very little voxel aliasing. (either that or all their examples use super high-resolution grids.

In any case, I doubt anyone here will be getting their hands on it soon.

Stingslang
08-13-2006, 10:21 PM
Could one bring blender animations into lightwave for rendering?

Titus
08-13-2006, 10:27 PM
Yes, you can.

erikals
08-14-2006, 02:03 AM
Could one bring blender animations into lightwave for rendering?

:) http://www.spinquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10042&page=1&pp=15

RedBull
08-14-2006, 02:23 AM
Here is compressed 4.8Mb .rar file of two different 250frame Blender fluids (.mov) that were a quick render/pipeline test for Blenders fluids 2 LW rendered (in fact one was rendered in FPrime)Only basic shading and lighting done, but it shows how fairly cool Blenders free LBM Fluids solver is and looks nicer rendered in LW it's well worth using instead of HV for many fluids typefX from now on personally. One.mov is fllling of a glass and the other of a bowl.
niether were very good, but the glass one was achieved in around 30minutes
including Blender calculations, exporting and rendering in LW. I've since become quite good with Blenders fluids, and good methods for LW integration.

Realflow is excellent, but it's nowhere near as fast or fun to setup for just
tap or faucets or pouring of simple one coloured fluids/chocolate/honey etc.
I can't wait for the next version of Blender to release thier softbody and cloth enhancements/additions.

http://freestyler.site.net.au/BlenderLW.rar

soletread
08-14-2006, 01:45 PM
This is an interesting thread. I had no idea how many LW users out there have graduated from Blender. That's exactly what I did. At that stage it wasn't very good at handling large scenes, and the layering system maxes out very early. But now, having gone back to have a look, I am totally blown away.

I love Blenders middle mouse click-turntable function. I really really miss that, and the scroll wheel zoom in and out. Man, I miss that too. I love the interface, but the scene being binary, really messes things up when there is a corrupt save. In LW just pop open notepad.

Most of the artists working on our current project are modeling in Blender. The export to LW is fantastic. So I agree, think of Blender as an extension to LW. Its also great for doing quick logos rendered out to Yafray.

----

RedBull
08-14-2006, 06:34 PM
I love Blenders middle mouse click-turntable function. I really really miss that, and the scroll wheel zoom in and out. Man, I miss that too. I love the interface, but the scene being binary, really messes things up when there is a corrupt save. In LW just pop open notepad.
----

I love the way Blender rotates/moves my perspective based on where i click my mouse cursor rather than Layout's way of only rotating around the object origin. And it's cool how you can use +/- to zoom in or out of the viewports
including the interface buttons.

Initially i looked at many versions of Blender and it didn't pass my 10min test,
due to awkard camera and scene navigation, but a few days of fluids, and i actually like many of Blenders quirks now...

I still hate the way Blender doesn't allow me to move the camera like i can it's perspective view. (that annoys me) but it definately has some cool features,
and it's growing rapidly. It does indeed make a good plugin for LW..

I hope LW gets a Blend support or Blender gets .lws support, or Collada is added to LW, this would allow me to use rigid bodies in Layout, export to Blender for fluids, and import to LW to render. Blender peoples have announced additional support for Collada1.4 since there Siggraph meetings which is good.. Now if LW could add an importer/exporter, it would make an excellent plugin for LW.

There is already a sculpting/displacement painting tool plugin available for Blender a'la Zbrush/Mudbox which should also be added to future Blender releases.

slow67
08-14-2006, 07:20 PM
blenders new bone and animation stuff isnt half bad either, My main gripe is that over half of blenders hotkeys have no menu item, So you realy have to read the documentation to feel your way around.

tischbein3
08-14-2006, 08:31 PM
Now if LW could add an importer/exporter, it would make an excellent plugin for LW.

As far as I renember this is practically impossible, because -blend files are more or less memory writeouts... (but don't nail me down on this)

BUT I think there is maybe a better / more elegant solution (finaly) comming up:

http://verse.blender.org
is now part of the cvs

Astonishing I even think some of the latest additions to the lw9 sdk might be even very helpfull to implement this seamlessly into lw.

RedBull
08-14-2006, 10:12 PM
As far as I renember this is practically impossible, because -blend files are more or less memory writeouts... (but don't nail me down on this)

BUT I think there is maybe a better / more elegant solution (finaly) comming up:

http://verse.blender.org
is now part of the cvs

Astonishing I even think some of the latest additions to the lw9 sdk might be even very helpfull to implement this seamlessly into lw.

Heheh, Sounds interesting, i would need to see some realworld results to see how effective it is, but it's something to watch... I hope you personally keep an eye on such things and their possible connection with LW. Yeah i think you are correct on the .blend problem though.

Have you managed to see if It's possible to export single point polys or particles from Blender Tishbein3? I've heard you mention it previously.

Cheers,

siproductions
08-14-2006, 10:40 PM
LOL It used to be maya vs. lightwave and now this. Oh well it will never stop I suppose. I started in Blender and it was a great package for a great price even at that time and now it's even better. It's a cool package but it's not Lw. Not yet at least, particularly in the modeling areas. But never the less it doesn't matter. They are tools, we use them, and last I heard we are supposed to be creating art. ;)

MicroMouse
08-14-2006, 10:42 PM
As far as I renember this is practically impossible, because -blend files are more or less memory writeouts... (but don't nail me down on this)


One of the blender developers told me over a year ago, that the blend file format is basically a memory dump.

Wayne

tischbein3
08-15-2006, 10:12 AM
@wayne
This is what I've also read.


I hope you personally keep an eye on such things and their possible connection with LW.

I do, and I wouldn't bet on beeing the only one doing this



Have you managed to see if It's possible to export single point polys or particles from Blender Tishbein3? I've heard you mention it previously.


access to particle information IS possible. But I'm still not sure if I'm able to build up a correct pfx file, due to the way the data is stored.
If not, I still have the option to create an own export format + lw particle-reader plugin....

Ark_of_Kaos
08-15-2006, 04:02 PM
My observations:

For Modelling:
Blender sucks, Lightwave kicks butt (better tools)

For Texturing:
Blender good, Lightwave good

For Rendering:
Blender good, Lightwave Awesome

For Rigging:
Blender a pain in the asz, Lightwave much easier

For Animating:
Blender so-so, Lightwave blows the competition

Jorel
08-15-2006, 08:34 PM
There's one big advantage that also a disadvantage that blender has over lightwave: fluid dynamics.

You can do "fluid" in lightwave, but it will only suffice on an amateurish level: It would never suffice if you were using lightwave to do something like, say, Shrek or Cars.

It is also a disadvantage because to get accurate, good looking fluid eye candy out of blender, you need a [email protected]$tload of memory. I tried working out water falling into a cup and the calc for 60 frames of animation took 4 hours on my dual-core athlon and swallowed whole a gig of memory....and it looked like crap. To get good realflow quality out of these effects, you need a [email protected] load of physical RAM and a CPU thats fast in it's own single-threaded right (I don't know if blender is dual-core fluent or not, but it didn't appear to be when I used it.) Lightwave's dual-core ready, but there are alot of things lightwave does that are only single-threaded and physics calculations is one of them, Unfortunately. So, if you're into water you can look forward to a future with long calc-times, a s&#tload of expensive RAM and CPU upgrades or both. Or just get Realflow.(hey, nobody said this hobby was cheap...)

Becasue the people who brought us the blender interface, apparently descend from those geniuses who brought us chinese water torture, I'd still rather pay the $900 admition fee to use lightwave, even without the fluid. Once I spring for realflow ($2700......UGH....) that will effectively end my blender usage.

Celshader
08-15-2006, 08:47 PM
There's one big advantage that also a disadvantage that blender has over lightwave: fluid dynamics.

You can do "fluid" in lightwave, but it will only suffice on an amateurish level: It would never suffice if you were using lightwave to do something like, say, Shrek or Cars.

It is also a disadvantage because to get accurate, good looking fluid eye candy out of blender, you need a [email protected]$tload of memory. I tried working out water falling into a cup and the calc for 60 frames of animation took 4 hours on my dual-core athlon and swallowed whole a gig of memory....and it looked like crap. To get good realflow quality out of these effects, you need a [email protected] load of physical RAM and a CPU thats fast in it's own single-threaded right (I don't know if blender is dual-core fluent or not, but it didn't appear to be when I used it.) Lightwave's dual-core ready, but there are alot of things lightwave does that are only single-threaded and physics calculations is one of them, Unfortunately. So, if you're into water you can look forward to a future with long calc-times, a s&#tload of expensive RAM and CPU upgrades or both. Or just get Realflow.(hey, nobody said this hobby was cheap...)

Becasue the people who brought us the blender interface, apparently descend from those geniuses who brought us chinese water torture, I'd still rather pay the $900 admition fee to use lightwave, even without the fluid. Once I spring for realflow ($2700......UGH....) that will effectively end my blender usage.

I installed Blender on my machine last March, but I haven't had a chance to learn it yet. It sounds like Blender's fluid solver's a lot like Dynamite, where it's not particle-based, but volume-based. Can Blender do RealFlow-style particles for its fluid dynamics, too?

Second, I had a chance to talk about RealFlow's expense with a RealFlow expert some time ago. If I remember correctly, he said Next Limit shouldn't have a problem with hobbyists using the demo version of RealFlow for non-commercial projects. Next Limit's targeting studios with their current pricing, not hobbyists.

So, if you don't need RealFlow for commercial work, try using the demo for learning/hobbyist work.

Jorel
08-15-2006, 09:03 PM
I installed Blender on my machine last March, but I haven't had a chance to learn it yet. It sounds like Blender's fluid solver's a lot like Dynamite, where it's not particle-based, but volume-based. Can Blender do RealFlow-style particles for its fluid dynamics, too?

Second, I had a chance to talk about RealFlow's expense with a RealFlow expert some time ago. If I remember correctly, he said Next Limit shouldn't have a problem with hobbyists using the demo version of RealFlow for non-commercial projects. Next Limit's targeting studios with their current pricing, not hobbyists.

So, if you don't need RealFlow for commercial work, try using the demo for learning/hobbyist work.

Except RealFlow has a thirty-day trial limit, so your learning will be cut short one way or the other. Are you sure they target studios exclusively? RealFlow is not cheap, but it's only a bit less than 3dStudioMax. Maya unlimited is targeted at the professionals and with a professional price to boot: $15,000. Even if you buy the extra command line versions for network calc, realflow isn't totally impractical for hobbyists and amatuer movie makers, considering our hobby.

Blender, from what I can see, uses volumes for it's liquids, which is probably why it takes up so much memory, relative to other particle sim systems. Good luck getting it to do something useful for you if you don't have lots-o-ram.

EDIT: tell me more of this dynamite you speak of...

Celshader
08-16-2006, 12:00 AM
Except RealFlow has a thirty-day trial limit, so your learning will be cut short one way or the other. Are you sure they target studios exclusively? RealFlow is not cheap, but it's only a bit less than 3dStudioMax. Maya unlimited is targeted at the professionals and with a professional price to boot: $15,000. Even if you buy the extra command line versions for network calc, realflow isn't totally impractical for hobbyists and amatuer movie makers, considering our hobby.

Blender, from what I can see, uses volumes for it's liquids, which is probably why it takes up so much memory, relative to other particle sim systems. Good luck getting it to do something useful for you if you don't have lots-o-ram.

EDIT: tell me more of this dynamite you speak of...

After the 30-day trial expires...can folks still use RealFlow with a 10-minute interrupt, or is it gone for good, or can folks re-install the demo?

I'm not sure that Next Limit targets studios exclusively, since any individual with $2700 to burn can still buy RealFlow. I still think $2700 prices RealFlow out of the reach of most casual 3D artists.

I think Maya Unlimited is $7500, though maybe that price changed with Maya 8.0.

-+-

Dynamite's cool. It's a fire/smoke plug-in for LightWave that costs about 1/10th of what RealFlow costs:
http://www.cantarcan.com/v11/html/main.html

It doesn't handle liquids, though.

RedBull
08-16-2006, 05:06 PM
In 2.42 a small particle inclusion was made to the LBM solver in Blenders fluids
"To help the liquid seem less lumpy, the fluid simulator can now spawn particles along with the fluid mesh, to simulate foam or small splashes."

I don't believe it's possible as yet to export the particles to LW at the current time. Although Tishbein3 has looked into the idea.

For myself for simple tap/faucet or bottle/hose type pourings Blenders results are easily the best for off the shelf style solver, i.e Maya,Max,LW,XSI,C4D.
For these style effects it's quite fast and simple to use in my opinion and the results with higher res calculations are acceptable for quite a few everyday things.

But in terms of power or versatility Realflow is far better and more capable as a CFD. There isn't much point in comparing the two, as Realflow is far more complete.

In terms of LW compatibility Realflow can import/export scene and animation data, Blender only allows object data and thus no animation import into Blender from LW, only Fluid Export to .lwo. This and quite a few other things, limit Blender for LW use at this stage in comparison.8

I can make a Blender fluid sim in a dozen or so mouseclicks, which is better than anything i would get from ParticleFX for example in LW itself, in the same time. So it's well worth using for specific things in my opinion in conjunction with LW/FPrime for rendering/surfacing/Lighting.

I really liked the idea of HVDeformer(Waterpool for LW) but i must say having all those rules and no presets, means Blenders fluids are a far more attractive idea in terms of setup speed. For free one can hardly complain about a proper 3D fluids solver that attains LW interaction quite easily.

Celshader
08-16-2006, 05:45 PM
In 2.42 a small particle inclusion was made to the LBM solver in Blenders fluids
"To help the liquid seem less lumpy, the fluid simulator can now spawn particles along with the fluid mesh, to simulate foam or small splashes."

I don't believe it's possible as yet to export the particles to LW at the current time. Although Tishbein3 has looked into the idea.

That's great! Between Blender's Python scripting and the PFX (version 3) docs (http://tinyurl.com/kslq4), it should be possible to export Blender particles in the form of a PFX (version 3) file.

:boogiedow

Bog
08-16-2006, 06:02 PM
It doesn't handle liquids, though.

*koff* As much as I hate to contradict a fellow pro, it's core functions are indeed a Computational Fluid Dynamics mode. It does indeed to liquids.

You need to futz the shaders a bit, but it does Oh My do liquids. Dynamite is deeply rocking.

ZE_COLMEIA
08-16-2006, 08:01 PM
Well, things that i want to see in lightwave since the 6th version..


Hair (good hair with shadows and reflections) that we can see at the new blender (why not use hypervoxels to do it???)

Preset dynamics

a fare particle system (fluid, fluid, fluid, why not )

a kinda coreographer system or just something like "biped system"

what i was specting to see in lw9

normal map tool ( is it much difficult?)

more than 1 undo at layout

maybe meshpaint

suport for games

hypervoxels fur and hair (it is a tendence and lw has the voxels system)


well, i am some desapointed, for me, LW 7.5 was the furthest step , i am curious about when newtek will do something about, i think that lw is the only 3d package that doesnt have n-map tooll, fur and hair tool, undo, or games suport.

jeremyhardin
08-16-2006, 08:24 PM
That's great! Between Blender's Python scripting and the PFX (version 3) docs (http://tinyurl.com/kslq4), it should be possible to export Blender particles in the form of a PFX (version 3) file.

:boogiedow

I don't think that will work as you hope. Blender's particle spawning doesn't comprise the fluid. it augments it in various places. if I'm not mistaken, it's like HV sprites generated from the mesh based on certain parameters. but the fluid is still mesh-cycling.

unless i don't understand that feature correctly (which is entirely possible).

jeremyhardin
08-16-2006, 08:37 PM
Here is compressed 4.8Mb .rar file of two different 250frame Blender fluids (.mov) that were a quick render/pipeline test for Blenders fluids 2 LW rendered (in fact one was rendered in FPrime)Only basic shading and lighting done, but it shows how fairly cool Blenders free LBM Fluids solver is and looks nicer rendered in LW it's well worth using instead of HV for many fluids typefX from now on personally. One.mov is fllling of a glass and the other of a bowl.
niether were very good, but the glass one was achieved in around 30minutes
including Blender calculations, exporting and rendering in LW. I've since become quite good with Blenders fluids, and good methods for LW integration.

Realflow is excellent, but it's nowhere near as fast or fun to setup for just
tap or faucets or pouring of simple one coloured fluids/chocolate/honey etc.
I can't wait for the next version of Blender to release thier softbody and cloth enhancements/additions.

http://freestyler.site.net.au/BlenderLW.rar
don't forget my old tests.


http://lwidof.net/jeremy/downloads/lw_blender_fluids/jh_fluids4_glass.jpg

Click for the movie... (http://lwidof.net/jeremy/downloads/lw_blender_fluids/jh_fluids4_glass.mov)or here for the openGL preview (http://lwidof.net/jeremy/downloads/lw_blender_fluids/jh_fluids4_glass_ogl.mov)

(Glass modeled in LW, used in Blender as collision, then fluid sent to LW and surfaced/rendered with FPrime.)
And since I messed with it, moving obstacles have been added. Really opens up a whole new set of options.

tischbein3
08-17-2006, 03:54 PM
it should be possible to export Blender particles in the form of a PFX (version 3) file.


Thanks Cel !
although I got the file description from another source its always motivating to see such a supportive help.

Small update on progress: Currently I can export "normal" blender particle data to pfx, although you have to take care on certain particle settings to do this correctly.
As for particle generated by fluid I do have the current problem to force blender updating the particle information to the correct frame.

@Jeremy
Particles are spawned on the mesh object, but do follow some fluidious rules, as far as I could observe.

tischbein3
08-18-2006, 11:08 AM
Ok, I've attached the script into the original blender liquid thread @ spinquad

http://www.spinquad.com/forums/showthread.php?p=146660#post146660

please also read the notes, because you have to take care of two things to get a correct pfx output

chris