View Full Version : dynamite v1.1?

08-11-2006, 04:40 AM
What do you guys think about dynamite v1.1.
I'm thinking of buying this plugin, but it seems awfully quite on these forums about it. How easy is to get nice results, and is it as slow as HV? Will I waist my money on this because it is in beta stage?

What do you think? The results on their homepage looks awesome, and really pulls me closer to swiping my C card.

08-11-2006, 04:46 AM
This frame took about two and a half minutes on my P4 3.2GHz


And this took about 10 minutes


I'd been fiddling with it for about a half-hour before figuring out how to do the computational fluid dynamics thing.

I would use words like "Easy", "Cheap", "Fun" and "Napalmlicious" to describe this software. If you do smoke, flame or small amounts of water (small as in glass of water rather than a sea, rather than only doing water rarely) then it gets four and a half boing-balls out of five from me.

08-11-2006, 04:52 AM
I love the look of it Bog! Thanks for the post.

Question: Do you have enough control over particles to do slow down and spead-up effects with the plugin?

08-11-2006, 05:10 AM
Hm. That's a tough one. While in CFD mode (as opposed to particle-driven mode), you've got a "simulation speed" control, which can be controlled with an envelope, so if you wanted to set light to something and then slow and stop the simulation, do a not-even-remotely-overused Matrix camera orbit and then bring the speed back up to full for the rest of the burn, you could do that.

You don't however, have individual point control over the CFD voulme, that's just plain simulated (as far as I can tell).

You can use Dynamite to render normal particles as voxels, but it's not as smooth and liquiddy as the CFD stuff. In particle mode, you can use your ParticleFX data as normal.

08-11-2006, 05:25 AM
Sounds cool.

as long as I can slow down and speed up the overall effect, it would be awesome. Does it come with different shader presets, or do you have to recreate from scratch?

Don't feel shy to post more images of tests you made please. I would really like to see more before I invest money in this. How about different effects...other than flames...maybe like space gass/smoke effects?

08-11-2006, 06:00 AM
I've got some other non-burny stuff that I need to get done today, but I recommend bagging the demo.

08-11-2006, 10:50 AM
Bog. I'm struggling to see how to make dynamite see collision objects, such that the smoke reacts to geometry. The docs are....well, thin would be generous. Nearly non-existant would be a better description and the example scenes are also only mildly useful.

Before I drop cash on this, I wondered if you might be able to describe how this is done, assuming you know ;)

08-11-2006, 01:30 PM
Personally, if it did fluid simulations then it would be more than worth the $240.
For smoke and fire I think $150 is more reasonable.

08-11-2006, 02:20 PM

Set Dynamite's mode to LIQUID (from Particle). Then click "Simulation Objects" - add one object for the sim volume, one for the emitter, then subsequent ones for colliders.

That should work out-of-the-box.

08-11-2006, 02:36 PM
Thanks :) Will play shortly. The developer tells me an update + new demo version is on the way in the next couple of days, with fixes for network rendering and other issues. Proper documentation with step-by-step instructions is also promised. All good, so I have confidence. :D

The setup reminds me a lot of Maya's implementation. It looks like it might be good for clouds and other such things if the simulation speed is turned all the way down. Having spent ages trying to understand Taiki, this might restore my sanity (and render before I die of old age)

08-11-2006, 04:07 PM
If you do smoke, flame or small amounts of water (small as in glass of water rather than a sea, rather than only doing water rarely) then it gets four and a half boing-balls out of five from me.

Could I see your water test?

I thought it only had a gas type shader not a solid one, but if it can do this I'll be really happy...as I just splashed the cash :)

08-11-2006, 05:27 PM
There's a broad slew of shaders availble in the surfacing panel. Flame and smoke are done with the "Fire Shader", which works on density or "temperature", and is quad-tone gradiented. Without the fire-shaders there's a Voxel-esque slew of shader panels.

08-14-2006, 04:23 AM
WOW! I'm playing with the demo at the moment. The results are just crazy! Beautiful, and really easy to set up.
I'm sold :bowdown:

This is one awesome plugin. Hats off to the developers.

08-14-2006, 04:28 AM
Yeah, I'm getting some great results and thats just with the particle stuff. The fluid sims are great. Reminds me a little of Maya fluids, but much easier to set up.

Thanks Can Tarcan! :D

08-14-2006, 08:04 AM
Definitely needs better documentation, although the developer promises that this is on the way :) It's just like an iPod purchase - you feel stupid for around 30 minutes because of the amount of money you spent and then realise that you don't regret it at all because the thing works well and does exactly what it says on the tin. :D

What I would like, though, is a bounding box, even when the OpenGL display of the smoke/fire/whatever is turned off. It would make it easier to set up interactions on slow OpenGL hardware :)

08-14-2006, 09:40 AM
Bog, Werner, stevecullum

Could you post a fluid simulation?
It suddenly sounds interesting. :D

08-14-2006, 10:35 AM
Here is a quick and dirty test I did to check movement. This is like someone moving a torch around in a cave...

08-14-2006, 11:04 AM
I actually meant a liquid/water kind of test.
Has anyone done that and got decent results?
If so, could you post a short vid of it?

thanks, :thumbsup:

08-14-2006, 11:07 AM
Its not actually meant for doing liquid fluids, just the fire/smoke ect.. type ones.

I too would like to see some liquid effect if someone knows how :)

08-14-2006, 11:23 AM
I think liquid motion is possible, but I would not know how to do the solid shading...I'll try to come up with something.

Download the demo and give it a go...I sooooo much fun it's scary.

08-19-2006, 05:22 AM
id love to see some more examples before i buy into it.


08-19-2006, 07:21 AM
What impresses me is the responsiveness of the developer. Having dropped several suggestions his way, he agreed and I'm really looking forward to seeing the changes in the next update.

08-19-2006, 02:13 PM
Regarding water simulation...

since im on the Mac I have yet to try out the demo, but from what I understand only scalar fields such as temperature and density, etc are currently being tracked (as well as their respective velocity fields), which makes fluid rendering difficult... is there a shader for it?

Typically for liquid simulations a level-set is used to track the surface. It's basically another scalar field, just like the density, except for that the liquid exists where the value is less than 0, and air exists where the value is greater than 0. Therefore, the surface is exactly where the level set is 0. (These are also called zero-sets).

One of the reasons for this is that the normal of any point on the surface can be readily calculated as the gradient at that point in the field. (basically, a vector pointing in the direction of greatest increase..thats why the liquid is negative and air is positive) Hence, the volume itself can be directly ray-traced, without any polygonization, and result in a very nice, smooth water surface.

I am fairly certain Can Tarcan is planning on implementing this sometime... d*mn i cant wait!!

08-22-2006, 11:33 AM
Is it possible to combine fire and smoke effects with this?

The fire I've seen is amazing, but clearly misses the mark on _total_ realism by not having smoke.

08-22-2006, 12:28 PM
yes its possible, depending how you set up the temprature and density.

08-22-2006, 12:34 PM
That's it. I'm sold. :)

Combined with the Fire and Smoke Generator, this should create some fantastic results. :thumbsup:


08-22-2006, 06:00 PM
Has anyone gotten collisions to work? I've added objects, increased density to 100%, but they also generate fire. Any ideas?

Also, has anyone compared this with Pyro?

08-22-2006, 06:04 PM
To obtain collisions, just add the object to the simulation and leave density and temprature at 0.

Have fun!

08-22-2006, 07:08 PM
Can anyone compare it to Napalm? Yeah, its old.

08-22-2006, 08:21 PM
Napalm is more a particle system, I thought. Does it do fire at all?

08-22-2006, 10:50 PM
Napalm is a particle system. Pyro is a closer match, but is not really the same - it is also quite slow to render. Dynamic Realities seem to be standing still so I'd also be reluctant to buy anything from them - I'm not sure you will see bug fixes or updates to their offerings. Their web site is still excited by LW 7.5, for example.

Pyro online docs : http://www.dynamic-realities.com/support/onlinedocs/pyro/
Napalm online docs : http://www.dynamic-realities.com/support/onlinedocs/napalm/

08-23-2006, 12:23 AM
Yes, it is a particle system.

It can manipulate particles in such a way as to do some fire looking stuff, and bog referred to it in a way ( "Napalmlicious") that made me think it might be comparable to Napalm (even if pyro is a better fit).

I happen to have Napalm, so it is not a decision between the two. Just curious if Dynamite is ...hmmm....what would be the description? if Dynamite would add enough toys to make it worth the upgrade price (which is hard to quantify since I do not earn a living doing this).

feel free to chime in any time Bog :)

08-23-2006, 02:32 AM
Play with the demo version. From my side, it's also looking to be a strong replacement for many uses of HV3. It also renders very quickly and, unlike HV3, looks to be actually be moving along feature-wise. HV3 hasn't had substantial feature enhancements since it first appeared with LW 6.0 back in 1999. 9.0 brought welcome bug fixes, but limited feature additions. Like Skytracer 2, it seems to be dormant at the moment.

HV3 still only supports no, one, two, or all lights - one of the biggest irritations and limitations I run into. Having support for arbitary numbers of lights from the host scene would seem to be a no-brainer feature, but 8 years down the road, we still don't have it. For really diffuse effects in complex scenes, you end up having to use all lights and then laboriously exclude unwanted lights from objects that are driving HV3, otherwise render times are excruciatingly painful. Of course, adding any new lights via load from scene, or any other actions means another trip to the objects' properties panels in order to update the exclusion and inclusion lists. This is tedious beyond all imagining and could be fixed, in one dialog, by having a sensible lighting support system in HV3.

Ugh. I feel better now, but this *sucks* in HV3. Dynamite should have this supported in an upcoming version, thankfully. One guy with his plugin does what NewTek have failed to do in 8 years, despite begging, pleading and whinging in various measures. That's worth the money to me. Can Tarcan is certainly responsive.

Note also that you have network rendering support out of the box via his cache file approach. That's also very cute. There is nothing about this plugin that I dislike.

08-27-2006, 02:57 AM
Hi everyone. Being on a Mac, I can't play with the demo. Please post some images or movies if you can. I'm DYING to see some sweetness from y'all. Thanks in advance!

Boris Goreta
08-27-2006, 03:23 AM
Has any tried to cast a shadow from a flame or a smoke onto a plane or object ? If so, how long did it take to render compared to no shadow casting.

08-27-2006, 03:32 AM
No shadow is possible with shadow map, but raytraced shadows seem to have no major impact on render time.

Boris Goreta
08-27-2006, 03:35 AM
Can you post an example because it renders forever on my machine using demo. (AMD X2)

08-27-2006, 03:42 AM
All I did was take the example scene smoke.lws and stick a plane in behind the volume. Enable raytrace shadows, adjust the camera and the light positions and render frame 118. The render took around 10 seconds on a heavily loaded machine. :)

Dynamite Pro 1.13b -slightly newer than the versions on the web site.

Boris Goreta
08-27-2006, 05:56 AM
Well, here I did the same thing. This image renders at 2.3 sec without raytraced shadows.

If I check Raytrace Shadows it doesn't manage to render one line in two minutes. Dead slow.

Anybody else has this issue ?

08-27-2006, 06:11 AM
Hmmm. I'm using older hardware so perhaps try the non SSE2 version and see if that helps?

08-27-2006, 08:34 AM
bgoreta I can confirm same. I also tried using non SSE2 version but made no difference. Non raytraced shadow frame renders in 2.1 seconds. With ray traced shadows on it effectively locks up.This is with the supllied fluid scene for smoke.

AMD 4600 X2, 2 Gig memory, XP pro.

09-01-2006, 04:08 AM
Have you guys reported this to Can Tarcan? Seeing as the product is still in Beta, now would be the time to point out any problems !

09-01-2006, 10:08 AM
Hm? What? Oh, by "napalmlicious" I just meant it was very burny. I didn't mean anything to do with the Napalm particle driver. Sorry for any misunderstanding. I haven't tried it with that (darned if I can find my licence for it, either... wasn't that an evolution of Sparks? It's that long ago....)

09-20-2006, 03:11 PM
i've also been playing with the demo. 1 thing i cant seem to figure out is if its possible to do anything dynamic with the fluid smoke/fire simulations. specificaly getting wind to affect things. i no theres wind controls in the Simulation Objects panel, but im more thinking of wind as LW handles wind, via wind objects. So i cant add a wind object, point it at the simulation (or animate the wind emitter), and have the smoke/fire get blown all around.

Has anyone achieved this yet?

11-27-2006, 01:36 PM
To obtain collisions, just add the object to the simulation and leave density and temprature at 0.

Have fun!

Is there a way of turning up the collision roughness or chance of collision? I have an object that seems to stop 90% of the fluid sim, but still lets some go through. Any ideas?


Digital Hermit
11-27-2006, 08:10 PM
Well, I have to ask... is dynamite a bust? I have not seen or heard of its use lately since its release... I hope my uncertainties about it are unsupported.

I had some lock up/crash problems with the demo but I thought it might be me or my system and not the software.

11-28-2006, 05:43 AM
UbiGuy recently got email from the developer that stated Mac and Win64 versions are (nearly) ready. There's a lot that is unclear about what is in the updates, but one of the key things (for me) is arbitrary multiple light support for scattering in the volume and also, possibly in the next update, a more tightly optimised raymarcher (UbiGuy's found a lot of edge cases when using PFX to drive Dynamite volumes, where render times for specific frames become painful).

All is not lost, but it seems that post-Win32, the development path was.....difficult.