Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 126

Thread: Hypervoxels VS New Volumetrics

  1. #31
    RETROGRADER prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    sweden stockholm
    Posts
    15,596
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelT View Post
    I do use procedurals.. but I tend to not rely on them so much. Like creating entire skies etc.. More the close detail things. Then I use nulls etc.. and build on them like that. So I get things like this:

    Attachment 139056
    Yes..that looks very good, especially the softness low density, It could perhaps use more texture cut in for a slight more detailed cloud, colors and lighting looks very good.
    Building several nulls is a huge render clogger, in former lightwave, two nulls overlapping..and bonk, you hit a wall, two particles..not a problem,
    so there was one huge issue with former hypervoxels that really prevented us from taking clouds to another level, and especially since you just couldnīt move around single particles,
    and I donīt think we can today in layout in a smooth way, except for some workarounds..scanning with particlefx and editFX node etc.

    But with the new system that has been taking care of, I was one of those guys asking for improvement on that,
    o adding several volumetric items in Lightwave 2018 doesnīt seem to clog the renderer, at least not vpr..so we now have the freedom to design and move volumetric items in the way we need to..
    so that was about speed and freedom of designing it.

    Then the quality of blending two nulls or particles, though I think I mentioned it earlier here, much better blend between two volumetric items,
    best seen when you have texture mode set to non pyroclastic, but without actually adding a texture, itīs a difference between that and texture mode set to none..
    so texture mode set to non pyroclastic and no texture active...make two of those and let them intersect and youīll see how much smoother the blend is compared to old hypervoxels, that is also something many of us asked for, it helps smoothing out several cloud items that intersect in the scene.

    As I think I said before..I am not that happy about how the UI for setting it up is designed, I will probably tolerate it because of all the other improvements made for a better end result,
    and will have to deal with it taking longer to set up and tweak, hypervoxels..you had one module window to see all items at once, and check and uncheck wich ones should be active or not,
    and copy and paste settings..that stuff isnīt possible now..and the copy and paste hv settings tool for this new volumetrics seems buggy and not working properly, havenīt read the manual through for using presets though..not sure how that is better or worse.

    I also do not like the fact that there is no random radius setting for the volume, unless entering nodes and dividing which nodes are needed for a proper random scale..
    even if itīs only one node ..you n eed to add it ..plug it in the right input etc..so what previously took not a second..now takes several seconds, it may not seem a big deal..
    but it makes this system really slow to tweak and use, fastest way may be to enter the particle emitter and check show size and use the -+ values of the particle emitters particle scale,
    that will propagate through and affect the volumetric scale randomly, but that is also slower and spreading out the tweaking over several other item properties that isnīt directly within the volumetric system.

    so many plus up and thumbs up for the quality in blending, softness and speed for some of the stuff in the new volumetrics, tweaking speed and ease of use..I give a thumbs down on.

    you mentioned openvdp from blender and single files from cache sims, yes..tried some blender smoke sims yesterday, quite easy to do..
    though both I and tibshien had several crashes when choosing various sequence files, both on the first, and some of the following sequence files,
    and then it could also work on the first and on the following files depending on..I think he bug reported that.

    And yes, that may be expected ..if you rename and remove the sequence number in the file extension, it treats it as one file you can use for flying through clouds,
    I will look more in to this later this week as well, turbulenceFD was just about
    to pic any cached file and load it ..no renaming there, but it doesnīt have to pass through open VDB if you got turbulenceFD.

    I need to go in to depth of shading with nodes in OpenVDB, got some interesting fire shading going on by using nodes and gradients in scattering channel,
    or you could use the blackbody radiator which has a temperature value, under node editor tools....though I yet have to learn the best settings for using that,
    not sure if I need to check something in blenders fire and smoke sim, it doesnīt provide a temp,or fire kind of channel, as I think houdini may do..if it does, then I have missed it.

    About moving clouds around mountains more physicly correct ..if not too complex for the job, one Idea would be to run a smoke simulation in blender, and simply use that openvdp,
    or if you would like to have more control on the shading, perhaps trying to import a fluid simulation from an orthographic view in blender, the sim running itīs course around a mountain dummy object,
    then try and load it in as a density map in the new volumetric system of lightwave instead of procedural textures, it may work..but it may be just as well better to just use openVDB.

    Fun to see we now have so many new options though, and the way we can produce very soft thing gas clouds or whispy thin feather cirrus clouds is nice to see,
    I have yet to post samples of that...havenīt worked on it..but based on what I found out accidently by feeding some inputs in various density channels within the new volumetric items,
    it will be able to look really really good, probably better than what you can produce with vue for those kind of thin cirrus clouds.
    And nebulas..just wait, it may be awesome once digged in to.

    Im probably not going to do any more tests today, I was up too late yesterday..so I need to catch up with some sleep, and it is also junior hockey world championships tonight which every swede is obliged to follow ..eyh.

    Ohh...just one more row of letters to say I am sorry for my lengthy replies.

  2. #32
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Stockholm
    Posts
    1,450
    Quote Originally Posted by prometheus View Post
    Yes..that looks very good, especially the softness low density, It could perhaps use more texture cut in for a slight more detailed cloud, colors and lighting looks very good.
    Building several nulls is a huge render clogger, in former lightwave, two nulls overlapping..and bonk, you hit a wall, two particles..not a problem,
    so there was one huge issue with former hypervoxels that really prevented us from taking clouds to another level, and especially since you just couldnīt move around single particles,
    and I donīt think we can today in layout in a smooth way, except for some workarounds..scanning with particlefx and editFX node etc.

    But with the new system that has been taking care of, I was one of those guys asking for improvement on that,
    o adding several volumetric items in Lightwave 2018 doesnīt seem to clog the renderer, at least not vpr..so we now have the freedom to design and move volumetric items in the way we need to..
    so that was about speed and freedom of designing it.

    Then the quality of blending two nulls or particles, though I think I mentioned it earlier here, much better blend between two volumetric items,
    best seen when you have texture mode set to non pyroclastic, but without actually adding a texture, itīs a difference between that and texture mode set to none..
    so texture mode set to non pyroclastic and no texture active...make two of those and let them intersect and youīll see how much smoother the blend is compared to old hypervoxels, that is also something many of us asked for, it helps smoothing out several cloud items that intersect in the scene.

    As I think I said before..I am not that happy about how the UI for setting it up is designed, I will probably tolerate it because of all the other improvements made for a better end result,
    and will have to deal with it taking longer to set up and tweak, hypervoxels..you had one module window to see all items at once, and check and uncheck wich ones should be active or not,
    and copy and paste settings..that stuff isnīt possible now..and the copy and paste hv settings tool for this new volumetrics seems buggy and not working properly, havenīt read the manual through for using presets though..not sure how that is better or worse.

    I also do not like the fact that there is no random radius setting for the volume, unless entering nodes and dividing which nodes are needed for a proper random scale..
    even if itīs only one node ..you n eed to add it ..plug it in the right input etc..so what previously took not a second..now takes several seconds, it may not seem a big deal..
    but it makes this system really slow to tweak and use, fastest way may be to enter the particle emitter and check show size and use the -+ values of the particle emitters particle scale,
    that will propagate through and affect the volumetric scale randomly, but that is also slower and spreading out the tweaking over several other item properties that isnīt directly within the volumetric system.

    so many plus up and thumbs up for the quality in blending, softness and speed for some of the stuff in the new volumetrics, tweaking speed and ease of use..I give a thumbs down on.

    you mentioned openvdp from blender and single files from cache sims, yes..tried some blender smoke sims yesterday, quite easy to do..
    though both I and tibshien had several crashes when choosing various sequence files, both on the first, and some of the following sequence files,
    and then it could also work on the first and on the following files depending on..I think he bug reported that.

    And yes, that may be expected ..if you rename and remove the sequence number in the file extension, it treats it as one file you can use for flying through clouds,
    I will look more in to this later this week as well, turbulenceFD was just about
    to pic any cached file and load it ..no renaming there, but it doesnīt have to pass through open VDB if you got turbulenceFD.

    I need to go in to depth of shading with nodes in OpenVDB, got some interesting fire shading going on by using nodes and gradients in scattering channel,
    or you could use the blackbody radiator which has a temperature value, under node editor tools....though I yet have to learn the best settings for using that,
    not sure if I need to check something in blenders fire and smoke sim, it doesnīt provide a temp,or fire kind of channel, as I think houdini may do..if it does, then I have missed it.

    About moving clouds around mountains more physicly correct ..if not too complex for the job, one Idea would be to run a smoke simulation in blender, and simply use that openvdp,
    or if you would like to have more control on the shading, perhaps trying to import a fluid simulation from an orthographic view in blender, the sim running itīs course around a mountain dummy object,
    then try and load it in as a density map in the new volumetric system of lightwave instead of procedural textures, it may work..but it may be just as well better to just use openVDB.

    Fun to see we now have so many new options though, and the way we can produce very soft thing gas clouds or whispy thin feather cirrus clouds is nice to see,
    I have yet to post samples of that...havenīt worked on it..but based on what I found out accidently by feeding some inputs in various density channels within the new volumetric items,
    it will be able to look really really good, probably better than what you can produce with vue for those kind of thin cirrus clouds.
    And nebulas..just wait, it may be awesome once digged in to.

    Im probably not going to do any more tests today, I was up too late yesterday..so I need to catch up with some sleep, and it is also junior hockey world championships tonight which every swede is obliged to follow ..eyh.

    Ohh...just one more row of letters to say I am sorry for my lengthy replies.
    Yeah, I've been looking at TFD. But since I already have Houdini installed (and its free + Blender) I just can't justify the cost. Especially since I don't use it often enough. Then there is also the issue about advection not being in TFD for LW.

    No need to excuse your writing.. just means you are passionate about the subject

  3. #33
    LightWave documentation BeeVee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Pessac
    Posts
    5,117
    @Prometheus and MichaelT - make sure you get Feature Requests in for the lacks you perceive in the new volumetrics. You can do it directly from inside LightWave, in the Help menu. Try to make each feature request about a single thing, rather than just piling the whole lot in a single report.

    B
    Ben Vost - NewTek LightWave 3D development
    LightWave 3D Trial Edition
    AMD Threadripper 1950X, Windows 10 Pro 64-bit, 32GB RAM, nVidia GeForce GTX 1050Ti (4GB and 768 CUDA cores) and GTX 1080 (8GB and 2560 CUDA cores) driver version 430.86
    AMD FX8350 4.2 GHz, Windows 7 SP1 Home Premium 64-bit, 16GB RAM, nVidia GeForce GTX 1050Ti (416.34, 4GB and 768 CUDA cores)
    Dell Server, Windows 10 Pro, Intel Xeon E3-1220 @3.10 GHz, 8 GB RAM, Quadro K620
    Laptop with Intel i7, nVidia Quadro 2000Mw/ 2GB (377.83 and 192 CUDA cores), Windows 10 Professional 64-bit, 8GB RAM
    Mac Mini 2.26 GHz Core 2 Duo, 4 GB RAM, 10.10.3

  4. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Stockholm
    Posts
    1,450
    Quote Originally Posted by BeeVee View Post
    @Prometheus and MichaelT - make sure you get Feature Requests in for the lacks you perceive in the new volumetrics. You can do it directly from inside LightWave, in the Help menu. Try to make each feature request about a single thing, rather than just piling the whole lot in a single report.

    B
    Got it. But I will let things sink in before making requests. So I don't end up making a oh-god-why-didn't-I-think-of-that request

  5. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Stockholm
    Posts
    1,450
    @Prometheus: I made a higher resolution one, to see how things are when resolution increases.. and it does it very well I think. The godrays in the clouds are more visible now too:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	cloudsSoft3_2560x1440.png 
Views:	243 
Size:	3.27 MB 
ID:	139133

  6. #36
    RETROGRADER prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    sweden stockholm
    Posts
    15,596
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelT View Post
    @Prometheus: I made a higher resolution one, to see how things are when resolution increases.. and it does it very well I think. The godrays in the clouds are more visible now too:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	cloudsSoft3_2560x1440.png 
Views:	243 
Size:	3.27 MB 
ID:	139133
    Looking darn good Michael, much much better, resolution? you mean step size or something else I missed.


    The shading luminosity, color and fine detail is looking just great..as well as the softer parts of the clouds, though the larger scope of the clouds, the main shape seem a bit too stiff, could use a reshape perhaps.
    More shadow depth in there in this one, makes it look better I think.
    But anyway ...good job there.

    I Can not see godrays really in the image though.

  7. #37
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Stockholm
    Posts
    1,450
    You can see the rays in the softer parts of the clouds. But I still have a bit of a problem making them visible. But I'm sure I'll find out the solution soon enough I rendered the image as 4K. The image here is downsized to about 2K. I also used the full precision and exported EXR, then processed the image in Photoshop. So a bit of exposure control etc.. was needed to bring the details out. As soon as I solve the godrays issue, so I can make them more clear in the atmosphere, I'll move on to see if I can get the light spectrum coloration that should appear near softer areas.

  8. #38
    Bara bra! These clouds look great. I had less luck with openvdb fire from Blender.

  9. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Stockholm
    Posts
    1,450
    Thanks .. I've only played with OpenVDB once in LW so far... but I'll get around to it.

  10. #40
    RETROGRADER prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    sweden stockholm
    Posts
    15,596
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelT View Post
    You can see the rays in the softer parts of the clouds. But I still have a bit of a problem making them visible. But I'm sure I'll find out the solution soon enough I rendered the image as 4K. The image here is downsized to about 2K. I also used the full precision and exported EXR, then processed the image in Photoshop. So a bit of exposure control etc.. was needed to bring the details out. As soon as I solve the godrays issue, so I can make them more clear in the atmosphere, I'll move on to see if I can get the light spectrum coloration that should appear near softer areas.
    Great..do that, I am too tired when I get home right now, so it will probably not be until friday when I can continue testing the new volumetrics, I was trying to use distant light as volumetric..and I thought it could be activated as the others, but it doesnīt seem to be possible, so you would have to go with a point light ..which I think you did here, it is a bit harder to set properly and you have to eyeball it in to match a decent result..but it is sort of a hack.

    I tested the lw 2018 content and the forrest scene, check that one, and perhaps play around with scattering asymmetry in the volumetric tab/volumetric intergrator, small values only ranging between 0-0,6 perhaps...and also..increase the lights volumetric density.

    Since the distant light canīt be volumetric in lw 2015 nor here in 2018 as I know off, and if I do not want the point light, I tried the volumetric trick of simply adding a volumetric primitive to serve as fog, and let it pick up godrays projected trough a cloudplane and transparency, ive done that before with ordinary old hypervoxels, and it works here too with the new volumetric primitive..though you need to set a very very low density...this way the distant light can be made sort of volumetric, but this is the kind of thing I thought the new volumetric intergrator should take care of..so we donīt have to go that route of setting all that up, I will demonstrate that at the end of the weekend I think, though I am doubtful if I would try and use both a cloud volumetric primitive as well as mixing it with a volumetric primitive as fog, I will check..it may be acceptable since we know now that you can add several volumetric primitives unlike hypervoxels without slowing it down too much.

    The advantage of using that technique may be that you can gett better control over fog, and increase or decrease godrays in a more flexible way, as well as adding actual various density textures to that fog.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by bazsa73 View Post
    Bara bra! These clouds look great. I had less luck with openvdb fire from Blender.
    Fine Fine
    what was the problem with blender fire?

  11. #41
    RETROGRADER prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    sweden stockholm
    Posts
    15,596
    Darn it ...should be in bed now.

    Anyway..since we mentioned godray here, well...distant light doesnīt seem to be able to work as volumetric light, and using a point light poses difficulties of posing it right in distance behind clouds etc, and also getting good density ..scattering, itīs not that easy and really not that realistic either, and sunspot modifier doesnīt seem to work on the point light, and manually moving it down and left etc is a mess, thatīs why I wanted the distant light or sk sun to work...Besides..I also feel the volumetric sunllight is too slow to iterate render in VPR when mixing with volumetric clouds.

    So what to do, well..I resorted to the volumetric item trick again, simply adding a volumetric primitive and make that a fog with proper density, so now I can use distant light as casting godrays, and it actually also seem Faster than the volumetric point light, so no volumetric light here..just the volumetric item as fog.

    What is also cool about it..that is I can control height..like in vue sort of, and thickness etc, density in ways I do not see possible with using volumetric scattering, maybe if I go nodal in there.

    So a sneak image, nevermind I havenīt really tweaked the clouds to look the way I want to here, just testing the godray stuff...itīs not perfect, and I think the rays may cut off to fast before finnishing itīs ray length so to speak.

    Garnder clouds only available in standard texture layers, so add a scalar layer in node editor and add it from there, nodal wont work.
    right cloud also put a scalar value on texture density to test smoothness, and the left is a bit harder in edges.

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	godrays_Prom_volumeFog_Item.jpeg 
Views:	1256 
Size:	239.7 KB 
ID:	139143  

  12. #42
    LightWave documentation BeeVee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Pessac
    Posts
    5,117
    That's lovely! Reminds me of Miyazaki.

    B
    Ben Vost - NewTek LightWave 3D development
    LightWave 3D Trial Edition
    AMD Threadripper 1950X, Windows 10 Pro 64-bit, 32GB RAM, nVidia GeForce GTX 1050Ti (4GB and 768 CUDA cores) and GTX 1080 (8GB and 2560 CUDA cores) driver version 430.86
    AMD FX8350 4.2 GHz, Windows 7 SP1 Home Premium 64-bit, 16GB RAM, nVidia GeForce GTX 1050Ti (416.34, 4GB and 768 CUDA cores)
    Dell Server, Windows 10 Pro, Intel Xeon E3-1220 @3.10 GHz, 8 GB RAM, Quadro K620
    Laptop with Intel i7, nVidia Quadro 2000Mw/ 2GB (377.83 and 192 CUDA cores), Windows 10 Professional 64-bit, 8GB RAM
    Mac Mini 2.26 GHz Core 2 Duo, 4 GB RAM, 10.10.3

  13. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by prometheus View Post
    Fine Fine
    what was the problem with blender fire?
    If I'd known I can succesfully set up fire and smoke in Blender/Cycles but the new LW engine is full of mistery.
    It just doesn't look right. Need more tweaking, fine tuning I guess on my behalf.

  14. #44
    RETROGRADER prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    sweden stockholm
    Posts
    15,596
    Quote Originally Posted by bazsa73 View Post
    If I'd known I can succesfully set up fire and smoke in Blender/Cycles but the new LW engine is full of mistery.
    It just doesn't look right. Need more tweaking, fine tuning I guess on my behalf.
    When you say set up fire and smoke setup, you do mean also the shading with nodes, absorbtion, scatter nodes, multiply nodes, emission nodes etc? just wondering.

    my first try with some additional scatter data gradient, theres a blackbody radiator node in lw 2018, but I need more time to learn how to use it...Properly that is, to much artifacts or too low resolution somehwere as well.



    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 01-02-18 at 02.39 AM.jpg 
Views:	679 
Size:	222.9 KB 
ID:	139174

  15. #45
    RETROGRADER prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    sweden stockholm
    Posts
    15,596
    Since the thread is hypervoxels VS the new volumetrics, I will try and post samples of how the blending looks like in the new system, and in the old hypervoxels etc.

    but for now, just an old lightwave 2015 image of a single null, single voxel to work as a cloud, flat bottom with gradients in node editor, as you can see the edge softness isnīt anywhere near the edge softness you can get with the new volumetric system, neither is the lighting and shading as realistic as the new system is, but it has it charm and it was easy to set up and tweak (for me anyway) and quite easy to control detail, while I find that more tricky and taking longer time in the new volumetric system.

    The feather clouds here in this hv image could also be made much better with the new volumetric system, thanks to itīs much better softness, yet being able to keep a kind of depth of shading..if needed.


Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •