PDA

View Full Version : Pretty cool physics simulations of fire and water.



moc
06-16-2007, 02:06 AM
http://gameplanets.blogspot.com/2007/06/physics-simulations.html

titane357
06-16-2007, 03:22 AM
" pretty cool " ????!! AMAZING !!!! :D
oooohh sh... it is not for LW 9.3.......

loki74
06-16-2007, 03:55 AM
No, you will not find such simulations in LW any time soon...That kind of coding costs a lot of money.

A little background, in case anyone's interested--

The first video is of Ron Fedkiw et al's new fire simulation technique, which achieves highly detailed turbulence by augmenting the Navier-Stokes and Level Set Equations with detonation shock dynamics equations. The results are nice, but I think the 2002 paper by Lamorlette & Foster are equally impressive. That said, this new Fedkiw paper is much easier for me to wrap my mind around. (That is to say, the extension from the standard NSE solver is much more obvious).

The second video is from the 2004 paper by Carlson et al. This is not just any fluid simulation! This "rigid fluid" method developed by Mark Carlson and his colleagues is the only one I know of that has complete two-way coupling between fluid and solid dynamics. The simulations compared well with actual lab results, from what I understand.

The third one I have not seen before, nor have I seen the paper for... In any case, it seems that it was developed by Nils Thurey--he's the guy responsible for Blender's fluid simulator. It looks like his method is particle based, which I find interesting, because his previous work as used the Lattice-Boltzmann method. In any case, if you're interested in fluid control, you should also check out Truielle et al's gradient based optimization scheme.

The last one is the oldest, and another one of Fedkiw's. The main accomplishment here was the ability to use thin (infinitesimal) boundaries without leaks. I'm sure we've all experienced particles going straight through stuff, so this is no small feat! Especially when you consider the voxelization required to solve the NSEs.



Nice vids! The closest thing LW has to this is the new voxel based solver from Can Tarcan--Dynamite. I'm not sure whether or not he plans on implementing level sets (volumetric isosurfaces), but who knows?

titane357
06-16-2007, 04:48 AM
yes, don't forget that in "Newtek" there is the "n" of "physic simulation" :D

erikals
06-16-2007, 05:07 AM
It's quite cool what they have achived. My wish is to see great flames one day though, it still doesn't look very realistic. Making 3D explosions would be so much cooler. (I'm talking 3D explosions, not the ones where you place footage in the scene, like they do now, e.g. on the 24 documentary).

Surely looks cool though, many cool new features in the 3D areana these days.

Hmm, is there such a page btw, that lists new 3D simulation technology ?

Also read a place Fedkiw wondered how to make waves hitting the beach, that'd be interesting too. No one has come too close to doing that in a realistic way. Well, off to do some modeling instead.

As far as Can Tarcan--Dynamite, no one has heard too much, but I hope to see an update from that corner. Dynamite has some very cool potential.

0scrooge0
06-16-2007, 09:34 AM
You may find this crap "cool", but not me! :)
3D touched the bottom.
Is it really necessary to clone reality ??
NO, it is NOT, for god's sake!

Matt
06-16-2007, 09:48 AM
Two words ... calculation times!

:D

Capt Lightwave
06-17-2007, 04:23 AM
Man, that's something...just look at det breaking waves in the wake of the boat in the last one. Just like the real thing.

animotion
06-17-2007, 09:20 AM
Looks way too CG for me.

boberto102
06-17-2007, 09:29 AM
kl kl

RTSchramm
06-17-2007, 12:50 PM
Does anyone know what 3D package was used in the fluid demos? I know one of the demos used Blender, but what of the others?

Rich

erikals
06-17-2007, 02:09 PM
You may find this crap "cool", but not me! :)
3D touched the bottom.
Is it really necessary to clone reality ??
NO, it is NOT, for god's sake!

Of course not, but having the ability to recreate realistic animations is something else :)

loki74
06-17-2007, 02:43 PM
Does anyone know what 3D package was used in the fluid demos? I know one of the demos used Blender, but what of the others?

Rich

3D package? none. These (as far as I know) were all made in house, coded from the bottom up solely to simulate fluid. This is research stuff--so its not really on the market, except for in the form of its appearances in feature films.



Looks way too CG for me.


Well, this is research stuff, what's important is the motion and the underlying concept. Once this stuff hits the screen its not a technical demonstration like these--its fully textured, lit, edited, and composited to mesh seamlessly with the live action footage of the film; in most cases is practically photorealistic (that is to say, during the film, most people could not tell you what parts were simulated).

chromatic
06-24-2007, 11:07 AM
You may find this crap "cool", but not me!
3D touched the bottom.
Is it really necessary to clone reality ??
NO, it is NOT, for god's sake!

Isn't that one of the purposes of 3DCGI, "cloning reality" as you call it? Sure there are dozens of different fields where 3DCGI is being used. For some of us "cloning reality" is big business as is tearing reality apart.

Just my personal opinion.

toby
06-24-2007, 04:42 PM
You may find this crap "cool", but not me! :)
3D touched the bottom.
Is it really necessary to clone reality ??
NO, it is NOT, for god's sake!
Is it bad to clone reality? How do you think we got 3D in the first place? And as far as 'touching bottom', where do you think 3D should go? Where else can it go? Look at the ship's wake again. It's aesthetically pleasing. There's only so much of that that can be done in manually, especially without taking months to do it. There's the matter of time that it takes to do things like this. These studies will make it possible for you and me to do more things, give us more tools to be creative with.

zardoz
06-25-2007, 04:18 AM
Most of those simulations are from Ron Fedkiw

http://graphics.stanford.edu/~fedkiw/

I guess he is working for ILM...

Mr Rid
06-25-2007, 05:31 AM
It's quite cool what they have achived. My wish is to see great flames one day though, it still doesn't look very realistic. Making 3D explosions would be so much cooler. (I'm talking 3D explosions, not the ones where you place footage in the scene, like they do now, e.g. on the 24 documentary).

Some examples of what can be done out of LW with some post processing but no plugins used-

Fireball (6mb
http://www.box.net/shared/static/h9az8pt8ey.mov

Fire (1mb
http://www.box.net/shared/static/bgpevfm3gx.mov

Fire 2 (2mb
http://www.box.net/shared/static/0kagmbxb8c.mov

Fire+mushroom (5mb
http://www.box.net/shared/static/0d31u277mm.mov
Wireframe (6mb
http://www.box.net/shared/static/9l01cso51s.mov

Explosion (test (1mb
http://www.box.net/shared/static/j83snbzmot.mov

Explosion (3mb
http://www.box.net/shared/static/evzkov4v04.mov

Procedurals on geometry (1.5mb
http://www.box.net/shared/static/xs0ar6ce6c.mov

Mr Rid
06-25-2007, 05:50 AM
No, you will not find such simulations in LW any time soon...


Startling FumeFX available for Max
http://www.afterworks.com/FumeFX.asp?ID=13

Afterburn
http://www.box.net/shared/static/fitq3d9um5.mov
http://www.box.net/shared/static/2n6h2m13vk.mov

Glendalough
06-25-2007, 06:17 AM
Don't know what kind of fire burns around your place, but with all due respects, that video looks totally unrealistic. Lightwave has had better fire than this for years, and I'd say even lots of 2D packages as well.

The fluid simulations are better, but still nothing great, nothing that you couldn't do say in Blender and render in something else more high end.

I really think with these physics simulations it really depends on what you are looking at in them, because one part may be very good but something else in the simulation is completely off. Like the caustics in these videos are very good but they would only appear in certain lights and if you took them out there may be little left. The fluid is really behaving like mercury not water, the droplets are way too big and uniform.

It's good people are doing this stuff and don't mean to belittle their efforts, no doubt it's good work and cutting edge stuff, but man that 'fire' is way off.

erikals
06-25-2007, 11:05 AM
Some examples of what can be done out of LW with some post processing but no plugins used-
http://www.box.net/shared/static/h9az8pt8ey.mov
http://www.box.net/shared/static/bgpevfm3gx.mov
http://www.box.net/shared/static/0kagmbxb8c.mov
http://www.box.net/shared/static/0d31u277mm.mov
http://www.box.net/shared/static/9l01cso51s.mov
http://www.box.net/shared/static/j83snbzmot.mov
http://www.box.net/shared/static/evzkov4v04.mov
http://www.box.net/shared/static/xs0ar6ce6c.mov

Neat, some of that fire is pretty cool, it is all about tweaking the settings alot I guess. Like I wrote in an earlier thread, simulating fire still has a long way to go. Those LW examples are good, close to other "high end" solutions.

What I hope for is a fire sumulation program that is more realistic, I'd pay big buck for that.

You should do a LW fire tutorial DVD or something :)

GregMalick
06-25-2007, 01:06 PM
Some examples of what can be done out of LW with some post processing but no plugins used-
Fireball (6mb
http://www.box.net/shared/static/h9az8pt8ey.mov
Fire (1mb
http://www.box.net/shared/static/bgpevfm3gx.mov
Fire 2 (2mb
http://www.box.net/shared/static/0kagmbxb8c.mov
Fire+mushroom (5mb
http://www.box.net/shared/static/0d31u277mm.mov
Wireframe (6mb
http://www.box.net/shared/static/9l01cso51s.mov
Explosion (test (1mb
http://www.box.net/shared/static/j83snbzmot.mov
Explosion (3mb
http://www.box.net/shared/static/evzkov4v04.mov
Procedurals on geometry (1.5mb
http://www.box.net/shared/static/xs0ar6ce6c.mov

OK. Who are you, Mr. Rid? :confused:
5 posts in the forum and now these great examples.
Please don't tell us you've been playing around for a couple days with LW and came up with this. That would be too depressing...:cry:


Seriously, can you talk about the wireframe example?
It looks like a couple of long thin emitters at the bottom.
Looks like a FX_Wind with "Doughnut" mode at the top.
Maybe another FX_Wind moving upward - parented to a null?

Can you shed any light on this video?
Impressive work. :thumbsup:

erikals
06-25-2007, 02:26 PM
Was thinking the same thing, where the heck did this kick___ SFX Lightwaver come from. You really should post here more :)

I find Ammo_TestExplo_023 very interesting, I'm very curious how it would look in a compo / film background.

GregMalick
06-25-2007, 08:12 PM
Mr Rid did not actually say that he made the vids.
He may just work with someone who did.

I'll wait for clarification.


BTW,
Erik, do you live in Noway or Norway?

...or Noway Norway? :confused:

zardoz
06-26-2007, 03:31 AM
well, if you search for David Ridlen in google you find a lot about him...leading artist in lots of movies...
maybe we should sign a petition for some tutorials...;)

Mr Rid
06-26-2007, 06:04 AM
Seriously, can you talk about the wireframe example?
It looks like a couple of long thin emitters at the bottom.
Looks like a FX_Wind with "Doughnut" mode at the top.
Maybe another FX_Wind moving upward - parented to a null?

Can you shed any light on this video?
Impressive work. :thumbsup:

I posted some explanation on another thread-
http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthr...342#post560342

JamesCurtis
06-26-2007, 07:28 AM
Mr Rid,

The link isn't working for some reason. I know its not yours but NT's - wonder where it is?

http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthr...342#post560342


Love the work though!!! Could've used your talent [or knowledge] for a film project a friend of mine did last year!!

Twisted_Pixel
06-26-2007, 12:13 PM
http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70370

I believe this is the thread being referred to.

ItsPete
06-26-2007, 03:23 PM
sorry - a bit off topic but may be of interest. it's not realistic but it's a pretty cool try for real time done by a self-taught 15 year old. the heat player is down. hopefully he'll put it back up. there's a screenie of it in the thread. doesn't do it justice though. there's a water one that works. you'll need to install the unity web player if you don't have it already (it'll do it for you if you don't). drive the boat around with wasd or arrows. anyway, just some cool stuff to share...

http://forum.unity3d.com/viewtopic.php?t=4685&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

erikals
06-26-2007, 04:48 PM
BTW, Erik, do you live in Noway or Norway?
...or Noway Norway? :confused:

No way I will tell ;)
Norway is the place, Oslo, 10 minutes from the King's Castle :king:
But am I rich, no, those bast***s.

Hawaii sure seems cool, one day,.. :)

loki74
06-27-2007, 03:49 AM
Startling FumeFX available for Max
http://www.afterworks.com/FumeFX.asp?ID=13

Afterburn
http://www.box.net/shared/static/fitq3d9um5.mov
http://www.box.net/shared/static/2n6h2m13vk.mov

yyyyyeaaah. Okay.

It's great that there's some physics based fluids in MAX. Notice I said LW.

The other two are fully edited, composited, etc. We really can't say how much live action, physics based, or non-physics based effects are in there.

If and when NT decides to start researching/implementing physics-based (ie, SOLVING THE NSEs--not just good looking results with normal particle systems) fluid simulations, believe me, everyone will know and we will pretty much ALL be sh!tting our pants. I'm sure the guys at NextLimit etc will be sh!tting theirs too, if said hypothetical simulator is any good and LW keeps its price point in that event.

Either way, my 2 cents is that this is very unlikely....

Mr Rid
06-28-2007, 03:09 AM
yyyyyeaaah. Okay.

It's great that there's some physics based fluids in MAX. Notice I said LW.

The other two are fully edited, composited, etc. We really can't say how much live action, physics based, or non-physics based effects are in there.

If and when NT decides to start researching/implementing physics-based (ie, SOLVING THE NSEs--

I was CG supervisor on the two shots from Sin City so I can tell you whatever you might want to know. 95% of the explosion, smoke, pyro you see were created with Afterburn by a fella at Cafe who I am now trying to remember how to spell the Polish name of... similar to 'Simon.' But a stock element is barely used for a few frames in one shot and Illusion was used for some of the tendrils.

But I am also not understanding your points. I see no technical reason to not have better physics available in LW running in NT when they are readily available in other apps.

erikals
06-28-2007, 03:53 AM
Still haven't seen Sin City, but to me Dynamite looks somewhat simillar to Afterburn.
Gotta see the movie, or Jessica Alba that is...

http://www.afterworks.com/AfterBurn.asp
http://www.cantarcan.com/v11/html/main.html

loki74
06-28-2007, 07:40 PM
But I am also not understanding your points. I see no technical reason to not have better physics available in LW running in NT when they are readily available in other apps.

oh nononononoo--thats not what I'm getting at...

I basically mean, it's great that people like you and your colleagues can make some extremely realistic stuff with what we have available now, but the fact is, the stuff that OP linked to is entirely physics-based, which makes it very different from anything we have in LW. In short, my point is that it is obvious that other apps have this, but LW does NOT. (i have nothing against LW implementing such features)

my other point is that I just don't think we'll see physics based fluid simulations shipping with LW anytime soon. And if we did, it would probably be as huge a deal as SSS, nodes, etc was when 9 came out. Dynamite is physics based, but what I'm referring to is an actual feature developed and implemented into LW by NT