Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19

Thread: Deep Rising Fx UI Workflow Rewrite?

  1. #1
    Registered User darkChief's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Global
    Posts
    675

    Deep Rising Fx UI Workflow Rewrite?

    Dear Esteemed Users,


    Now that the final feature release is out for Deep Rising v2.0 series it is time to look at the future. My original plan was to release bug updates for v2.0 in parallel with v3.0 development. However I keep getting the same concerns and criticisms surrounding the UI and workflow. The way the current workflow is setup is greatly misunderstood. While I find it intuitive many do not, so I am willing to part with the current design in favor of something that has better approval. This would also save me time not fixing bugs on a workflow that will be replaced.

    The current solvers will change little when v3.0 comes out, I will be focusing on a gas solver for that release, and if there's time maybe a shallow water solver or ocean solver. I was planing to use the same workflow for the gas solver (with the domain at the center), however as stated the current workflow isn't for everyone, so I would like to change that.

    The word I keep on hearing is simplicity, which can be relative and depend on experience, so I would like people to tell me what they want. Examples of interfaces or workflows, or mock ups if necessary. The workflow rewrite would be available as a free update to existing users, since it is not the focus of v3.0, and v3.0 will be based on top of it. However be aware that some features (probably small ones) would be dropped and included at a later date due to time.

    Also old scene files will probably become obsolete if this rewrite happens.

    I wanted to keep this thread separate from the default one to focus exclusively on this, also makes it easier to reference when developing the features.

    The more people who contribute the better.

    And if no one wants anything to change, let me know.

    Oh and OpenCL may disappear for a while in the future, may also get a rewrite, but people can always use the older version if they are benefiting from the current implementation.
    System: AMD Ryzen 2700, 16GB, RX 570 x2, Win 10

    https://www.deepfxworld.com

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    8
    Hi, I have three major problems with the software, which prevented me from using it:
    1. Lack of documentation, especially for the new features of version 2.5. In the initial 2.5 release there was not even a Menu-config for Lightwave, so I had to add the necessary components by using a screenshot you posted somewhere.
    I think this problem can be fixed easily.

    2. Major instability. Because of the missing documentation one must try out many things. But the software nearly crashes at each area, whatever I try. The more complex a scene gets, the more likely is a crash. I did not get any usable result out of it yet and uninstalled it.
    It is also very slow, but this is not my concern. I can live with it, taking a lot of time. But, I can not live with crashing all the time and erasing my scene files.
    So my main wish for workflows: make it stable like a rock, so that users can try out things to find their workflow.

    3. Incomplete save of all settings to scene-files. It is somehow over-complex to use all features (fluid + spray + moving solids). The movement of solids is not saved automatically and you must take care to export them somehow. Also using a memory-cache from a memory-cache for calculating spray is somewhat complicated. But it really becomes a pain when not everthing is saved in the scene-file and you must remember to adjust certain thing when loading a scene-file.
    So my wish is to have a complete restore of all settings. So that I can continue what I have done before. And currently, because of the many crashes, a scene file has to be loaded very often.

    Cheers!

    Andreas

  3. #3
    Registered User darkChief's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Global
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by thargor6 View Post
    It is also very slow, but this is not my concern. I can live with it, taking a lot of time. But, I can not live with crashing all the time and erasing my scene files.
    Thanks for the response, all suggestions have been noted.

    I am just curious about about speed. Could you please give a comparison to another simulator for reference (similar particle count etc) for the CPU, what sort of times were you getting per frame. Would like a point of reference, could be settings related or just different expectations.
    System: AMD Ryzen 2700, 16GB, RX 570 x2, Win 10

    https://www.deepfxworld.com

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by darkChief View Post
    I am just curious about about speed. Could you please give a comparison to another simulator for reference (similar particle count etc) for the CPU, what sort of times were you getting per frame. Would like a point of reference, could be settings related or just different expectations.
    Sorry, that I can not give you exact numbers.
    I'm using the UP-plugin inside of Lightwave which works almost in realtime because it uses GPU (which even works with high particle counts and interacting with other objects). I'm not expecting this speed in a CPU solver, of course. It is only nice to see that it is possible.
    On the other side, I did some simulation work in Houdini some years ago (using CPU). I remember it was slow, but it was OK. So maybe this would make a reference?

    But again, for me is speed not the major concern because there are ways to work with this (decrease particle count for preview etc.). The OpenVDB-stuff inside of Lightwave is also very slow, but you can work with it.
    Maybe this makes another reference point. A little faster than OpenVDB in LW would be nice.

    Cheers!

    Andreas

  5. #5
    Not so newbie member lardbros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    England
    Posts
    5,857
    Sorry to bust in on this thread, but even Realflow, or the fluids now put into 3dsmax do not simulate very quickly! It's a difficult thing to simulate, and although visually the UP plugin from Steve Hurley is awesome, it's not true fluid simulation, it's just blobby physics made to act a bit like fluid.
    I think your experience would be better if you tried a fluid sim program like Realflow or 3dsmax to see how slow it is in reality. Even the Blender fluids is slow and that it all brand new.
    LairdSquared | 3D Design & Animation

    Desk Work:
    HP Z840, Dual Xeon E5-2690 v2, 32GB RAM, Quadro K5000 4GB
    Desk Home:
    HP Z620, Dual Xeon E5-2680, 80GB RAM, Geforce 1050 Ti 4GB

  6. #6
    Registered User darkChief's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Global
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by thargor6 View Post
    Sorry, that I can not give you exact numbers.
    I'm using the UP-plugin inside of Lightwave which works almost in realtime because it uses GPU (which even works with high particle counts and interacting with other objects). I'm not expecting this speed in a CPU solver, of course. It is only nice to see that it is possible.
    On the other side, I did some simulation work in Houdini some years ago (using CPU). I remember it was slow, but it was OK. So maybe this would make a reference?

    But again, for me is speed not the major concern because there are ways to work with this (decrease particle count for preview etc.). The OpenVDB-stuff inside of Lightwave is also very slow, but you can work with it.
    Maybe this makes another reference point. A little faster than OpenVDB in LW would be nice.

    Cheers!

    Andreas
    okay understood
    System: AMD Ryzen 2700, 16GB, RX 570 x2, Win 10

    https://www.deepfxworld.com

  7. #7
    pass:sword OFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    1,015
    The user interface is less of a concern to me - you can get used to any interface sooner or later. But to a greater extent, I feel a lack of tools - for example, the ability to let particles go along the path, along the spline. There is a sharp lack of documentation, especially with the latest versions.
    Of course, I would be very glad to see tools for creating gaseous substances in the plug-in. But it seems to me more important to bring the current stage of development to a very reliable and efficient state. Since having a large list of features that are not well implemented in practice is worse than having a limited list of features but with a guarantee of stable operation.

  8. #8
    Super Member Qexit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Warrington, UK
    Posts
    1,087
    Right now, I would like to see a couple of things happen before any changes or further development takes place:

    1. Documentation for the features that arrived with Deep Rising 2.5. Without some kind of reference to work with, they are hard to understand

    2. Pretty much in line with 1., please supply downloadable copies of the scenes you posted on YouTube that show off some of the new features

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quVVpd0kQVU

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7nH6AzPyuc

    In the absence of documentation, it would help a lot to see working scenes that demonstrate the new features so users can pick them apart and play with them to work things out.
    Kevin F Stubbs

    Remember...one size does NOT fit all

  9. #9
    Registered User ianr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Chiltern Riviera
    Posts
    1,404
    MOTION BLUR Mambo is essential....................

  10. #10
    Registered User darkChief's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Global
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by OFF View Post
    The user interface is less of a concern to me - you can get used to any interface sooner or later. But to a greater extent, I feel a lack of tools - for example, the ability to let particles go along the path, along the spline. There is a sharp lack of documentation, especially with the latest versions.
    Of course, I would be very glad to see tools for creating gaseous substances in the plug-in. But it seems to me more important to bring the current stage of development to a very reliable and efficient state. Since having a large list of features that are not well implemented in practice is worse than having a limited list of features but with a guarantee of stable operation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Qexit View Post
    Right now, I would like to see a couple of things happen before any changes or further development takes place:

    1. Documentation for the features that arrived with Deep Rising 2.5. Without some kind of reference to work with, they are hard to understand

    2. Pretty much in line with 1., please supply downloadable copies of the scenes you posted on YouTube that show off some of the new features

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quVVpd0kQVU

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7nH6AzPyuc

    In the absence of documentation, it would help a lot to see working scenes that demonstrate the new features so users can pick them apart and play with them to work things out.
    Quote Originally Posted by ianr View Post
    MOTION BLUR Mambo is essential....................

    Thanks for the feedback and suggestions
    System: AMD Ryzen 2700, 16GB, RX 570 x2, Win 10

    https://www.deepfxworld.com

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by lardbros View Post
    And although visually the UP plugin from Steve Hurley is awesome, it's not true fluid simulation, it's just blobby physics made to act a bit like fluid.
    ... Even the Blender fluids is slow and that it all brand new.
    You are absolutely right regarding results. UP has absolutely poor physics, but it is one of the rare LW plugins in this field which can deliver at least ANY result in a productive way. It is fun to play with it.
    Blender FLIP fluids are awesome and I even wrote a plugin to convert it's results to Lightwave objects. But, it really sucks in terms of a complete workflow (I just can not get into the UI of Blender, and converting lots of files just sucks, even if the results would be great).

    But, you did get me wrong: I absolutely did not complain about speed of DeepFX. But, it should start to deliver anything. It is not really fun to play with (complicated workflow)i, does not deliver any result to me (crashes all the time), and has a price tag above the one of UP.

    Cheers!

    Andreas

  12. #12
    I had invested in UP, but that unfortunately hasn't seen an update for more than a year, I think! Anyhow, I do think that your plugin is a bit steep on price. My funds are extremely limited now that I'm more or less retired these days due to some difficult to fight medical issues.

    I do find the workflow of the demo, a bit daunting. Also maybe consider a higher particle limit and frame limit for the demo. It's hard to get a feel for how it works with these so low!

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    442
    Hey.... not a rep for Deep Rising FX in any way, but saw on the Support Group that there had been chat that things had been quiet on the Deep Rising development front.

    Just wanted to say, check the development update on the Deep Rising YouTube page https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO-hx2eYiXo

    It might provide more information on where the work is going and the development effort.

    Sorry, it would probably be more convenient to post this to the support group, but I don't use Facebook at all. Just a lurker on the Support Group

  14. #14
    Super Member Qexit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Warrington, UK
    Posts
    1,087
    Quote Originally Posted by RPSchmidt View Post
    Hey.... not a rep for Deep Rising FX in any way, but saw on the Support Group that there had been chat that things had been quiet on the Deep Rising development front.

    Just wanted to say, check the development update on the Deep Rising YouTube page https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO-hx2eYiXo

    It might provide more information on where the work is going and the development effort.

    Sorry, it would probably be more convenient to post this to the support group, but I don't use Facebook at all. Just a lurker on the Support Group
    Interesting video but it is for the stand alone Deep FX Studio product rather than the Deep Rising FX Plugin but it does explain why everything has been so quiet for a while. Doing a complete rewrite takes a lot of time and effort
    Kevin F Stubbs

    Remember...one size does NOT fit all

  15. #15
    Electron wrangler jwiede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    6,567
    Add my voice to the list asking for more/better docs, as well as more example content (introducing areas of the system, YouTube examples, and so forth).
    John W.
    LW2015.3UB/2019.1.4 on MacPro(12C/24T/10.13.6),32GB RAM, NV 980ti

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •