View Poll Results: Turbulence 2 - VDB

Voters
18. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes, please make Turbulence 2 import VDB in LW11

    2 11.11%
  • yes, please make Turbulence 2 import VDB in LW2015

    7 38.89%
  • nah, don't care

    9 50.00%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 67

Thread: LW11 - Turbulence 2

  1. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    1,979
    For anyone who wants to purchase Gaea and doesn't like online activation / checks I recommend getting Gaea Enterprise which works completely offline.

    Be aware that the Indie version doesn't have some features like Build Mutations or Mesh Optimisation and is limited to 4k maps. However the prices for all versions are very fair.

  2. #17

    Build Mutations = Randomize Map
    Mesh Optimization = Reduce Polys perhaps ?

    4K seems low, but maybe it can be up-resed in PhotoShop or such... (with a so-so result)

    Online activation, not ideal, but i take it this only needs to be done once ?
    https://quadspinner.com/Compare

    However the prices for all versions are very fair.
    agree, seems alright.
    LW vidz   DPont donate   LW Facebook   IKBooster   My vidz

  3. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    1,979
    Quote Originally Posted by erikals View Post
    Build Mutations = Randomize Map
    Mesh Optimization = Reduce Polys perhaps ?

    4K seems low, but maybe it can be up-resed in PhotoShop or such... (with a so-so result)

    Online activation, not ideal, but i take it this only needs to be done once ?
    https://quadspinner.com/Compare


    agree, seems alright.
    Yes, Mesh Optimization is great for generating variations, outputs with different seed values. Haven't used the mesh optimization as I usually work with height maps.

    Yes, for me 4k maps are too low quality except for background terrains. Photoshop upscaling I don't think so as you will miss additional fractal details.

    Online activation and period online check (re-activation) every 30 days except with the Enterprise version.

  4. #19

    period online check (re-activation) every 30 days
    ah... hm... no fan of that...

    will have to see then.
    LW vidz   DPont donate   LW Facebook   IKBooster   My vidz

  5. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    1,979
    Quote Originally Posted by erikals View Post

    ah... hm... no fan of that...

    will have to see then.
    Yep me too, that's why I got the Enterprise Edition, no hassle like that.

    Well even if they didn't offer that option I would have purchased Gaea, it's too good to miss out. But this way it's perfect.
    Last edited by Marander; 12-05-2020 at 04:08 PM.

  6. #21
    RETROGRADER prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    sweden stockholm
    Posts
    17,788
    Perhaps a bit off topic, slightly related with vdb and import to lightwave from blender.
    Was messing with the mesh to volume modifier in blender ( similar to mesh to volume nodal vdb function in lightwave 2019 and up) but it has also has the volume displace which is quite nice for fast displacing the actual volume result compared to injecting velocity displace in Lightwave VDB to distort a volume.

    Thought I could go in and export that result out from blender, but seemingly, there is no option yet to export that result, unlike Lightwave where you just add a saver node and save it out as VDB, for import to blender should I choose to go that route.

    Blenders build with this mesh to volume and volume displace is so horribly unstable though, thatīs why I hoped to play more in Lightwave with the created result, and also to take use of that fast workflow and combining with the more standard volume clouds I got.

    I raised a question about it in blenderartist.org but I do not think the feature is there..yet.

  7. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Wickedpup View Post
    I am in the "donīt care" category, for the same reason I never bothered to invest in several other LW plugins (like Kray). The development/developer never came of as "stable" for a lack of better words. Or to rephrase, I was never confident enough that the development would continue, so I chose not to buy. Simple as that.
    Exactly these arguments do not apply to TurbulenceFD. TurbulenceFD was very stable from the beginning and had only a few bugs, which were usually fixed quickly. It was immediately ready for production.

    In general, I cannot understand this argument. We use the software that suits us best. If we decide for a software, it has to do what we need, right now, not at any time. On the other hand, if it works, it does not matter if and when the next Verion comes out.
    For TurbulenceFD: It’s expensive to learn fluid simulations, but when you understand the basics, it’s not hard to use TurbulenceFD. That’s why it doesn’t matter what the future brings. Use it now!

    Also in the discussion about Lightwave the argument comes again and again: I will not upgrade because no one knows if there will be a next version. If it suits your needs use it now!

    ciao
    Thomas
    Web: www.dieleinwandhelden.com

    I use two pieces of the three-piece application with mocap module.

  8. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by jwiede View Post
    ...Those limitations are also a big part of the reason why LW TFD lags so far behind C4D TFD -- the existing LWSDK APIs didn't practically allow for features like advection, etc. unlike C4D SDK, so C4D TFD received features that LW TFD couldn't implement...
    Hi John,
    I do not use C4D, so I do not know much about the features of TurbulenceFD for C4D (aside from particle advection). But it might be interesting as it might bring us new. So can you please tell us the features that TurbulenceFD for Lightwaves lags so far behind?

    ciao
    Thomas
    Web: www.dieleinwandhelden.com

    I use two pieces of the three-piece application with mocap module.

  9. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    1,979
    Quote Originally Posted by prometheus View Post
    Perhaps a bit off topic, slightly related with vdb and import to lightwave from blender.
    Was messing with the mesh to volume modifier in blender ( similar to mesh to volume nodal vdb function in lightwave 2019 and up) but it has also has the volume displace which is quite nice for fast displacing the actual volume result compared to injecting velocity displace in Lightwave VDB to distort a volume.

    Thought I could go in and export that result out from blender, but seemingly, there is no option yet to export that result, unlike Lightwave where you just add a saver node and save it out as VDB, for import to blender should I choose to go that route.

    Blenders build with this mesh to volume and volume displace is so horribly unstable though, thatīs why I hoped to play more in Lightwave with the created result, and also to take use of that fast workflow and combining with the more standard volume clouds I got.

    I raised a question about it in blenderartist.org but I do not think the feature is there..yet.
    No there seems to be no VDB Export in Blender yet.

    Otherwise VDB and Volumes work well in Blender from what I've tested, it's not unstable for me at all

    What version of Blender are you using? You mention "Blenders build with this mesh to volume", are you using a separate fork? VDB works well in 2.91 final and 2.92 alpha for me (except the missing export).

    What works is a Volume to Mesh and export as Alembic. The exported Alembic file can be imported in another application that supports it (not LightWave obviously since it's Alembic import is broken since forever). But for rendering smoke and fire that's not a useful approach of course.

    Currently I don't have much use of Blenders and LightWave's VDB tools, only for testing and comparing.

    It's much easier in Cinema with full VDB Import and Export capabilities (as well as the brilliant Alembic workflow) and rendering with Redshift and other engines. Houdini would be another option of course but I don't see a reason to rent it currently.

  10. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    1,979
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Leitner View Post
    Hi John,
    I do not use C4D, so I do not know much about the features of TurbulenceFD for C4D (aside from particle advection). But it might be interesting as it might bring us new. So can you please tell us the features that TurbulenceFD for Lightwaves lags so far behind?

    ciao
    Thomas
    Hello Thomas

    These are additional settings in TFD for C4D compared to the LW version:

    - Particle Velocity Scale
    - Shader Display Color
    - Surface Texture Channels
    - Use Vertex Maps (for example Weight Maps)
    - Particle emission intensity (Age, Size, Mass, Velocity)
    - Emitter Velocity Scale

    In the Cinema Render Settings there are additional options for TFD:

    - Adaptive Step Size
    - Noise Threshold
    - Fluid Motion Blur and Sub-Steps
    - network rendering settings

    So most of the additional stuff is used for Particle Advection, Weight Maps and Motion Blur.

    I would say the use of Vertex / Weight Maps is the most useful additional feature. WeightMaps are very powerful in Cinema (using Fields or other parametric options), besides simple weight painting.

    The possibilities when using Fields (in this example to control weight maps) are endless, for example you could control the TFD emission with sound, particle impacts, object collisions, time, splines, growth effects (fire spread for example), even Python code and much more.

    The overall usage in Cinema seems easier to me (for example by simply adding TFD tags to objects to use as Emitter or Collision object) and the scene overview is much better, but that's due to the architectural differences in the two applications. In Cinema, no render changes are required unlike in LW2018+ (Legacy Volumetrics) but that's a minor thing. Also, TFD for Cinema has a separate render preview function but I never use that. Also notable is that X-Particles, Cycles4D and Redshift support TFD objects and channels.

    Simple TFD scene with a Plane and a painted WeightMap:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	C4D_TFD_Weights.png 
Views:	15 
Size:	597.7 KB 
ID:	149136

    TFD scene with a couple of Fields to control the WeightMap:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	C4D_TFD_Weights_Fields.png 
Views:	14 
Size:	789.0 KB 
ID:	149137
    Last edited by Marander; 12-06-2020 at 08:58 AM.

  11. #26
    RETROGRADER prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    sweden stockholm
    Posts
    17,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Marander View Post
    No there seems to be no VDB Export in Blender yet.

    Otherwise VDB and Volumes work well in Blender from what I've tested, it's not unstable for me at all

    What version of Blender are you using? You mention "Blenders build with this mesh to volume", are you using a separate fork? VDB works well in 2.91 final and 2.92 alpha for me (except the missing export).

    What works is a Volume to Mesh and export as Alembic. The exported Alembic file can be imported in another application that supports it (not LightWave obviously since it's Alembic import is broken since forever). But for rendering smoke and fire that's not a useful approach of course.

    Currently I don't have much use of Blenders and LightWave's VDB tools, only for testing and comparing.

    It's much easier in Cinema with full VDB Import and Export capabilities (as well as the brilliant Alembic workflow) and rendering with Redshift and other engines. Houdini would be another option of course but I don't see a reason to rent it currently.
    version: 2.91.0 Alpha, branch: master, commit date: 2020-10-17 21:36, hash: f425f40c4e17, type: Release
    build date: 2020-10-17, 23:08:35

    Cinema4D weight paint, yes..seem powerful, not sure about audio weight paint?
    You have dynamic paint in blender that I think can do a lot as well, then apply the fluids to that.

    No..this build is extremely unstable, shuts down blender when trying to change viewport display, changing parameters in shader editor and more, canīt use it for more than minutes at a time.

    I just mentioned blenders build with mesh to volume, itīs just that what I ment, it is included in that build, not a special fork.

    but perhaps they sorted that unstable version out with the final as you say.
    I will have to download that of course...rather than complaining so good of you to give some feedback on how stable it is for you.

    As for VDB, well..we have to say that VDB fluids is exportable, but not the volume to mesh to avoid confusion I think.

    So..Have to delete this build of blender and install a newer one I guess.

    Cinema4D is out of my range, and houdini may be a future option, but I still want to learn more with the apprentice versions before I invest, and I need to get the latest build there as well.

    For Lightwave the tool is called Weight pain, not weight paint.

  12. #27
    RETROGRADER prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    sweden stockholm
    Posts
    17,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Leitner View Post
    Also in the discussion about Lightwave the argument comes again and again: I will not upgrade because no one knows if there will be a next version. If it suits your needs use it now!

    ciao
    Thomas
    Thatīs the nutshell, and thoses two lines are a combinated decision, it surely doesnīt suit my needs, and for it to suit my need..it also needs to show it will be a development, a next version..both for tfd and lightwave.
    As for tfd, production ready? depends on what you need it to be entirely, even blender does that, otherwise we need to define what production ready is, quality, performance, options etc.

    I want weigh map emission, I want a full fire and smoke display, blender has that, TFD doesnīt. (currently testing Native vdb weight emission, there are no such gradients in the gas solvers main panel, it may work with nodal control but you need to set that up properly, havenīt got it to work yet..so itīs uncertain.

    I want full syncronization between fluid and bullet forces, TFD canīt use either the legacy winds, nor bullet forces, blender uses the same forces overall, so any bullet fractured piece that is blown away, by a wind force will also affect the fluids exactly the same.
    I want particle advection, in blender that is smoke flow, particles are following the velocithy of the fluid field, to my knowledge that is not possible in TFD, as for lightwaveīs vdb tools, there was something done for particle advection..which I havenīt tested, and if that is something that Jascha can utilize for TFD, do not know..I got fed up asking on those matters when I didnīt get any replies on the TFD forums, that and many other issues.

    I want a proper pbr volume model.
    I want a proper volume bounce multiple scatter model

    That is 6 features in the fluids where blender can handle it and TFD not, apart from that, tweaking blender fire shader with curves is smooth and fast, while TFD either crashes or is slow as hell.

    Then again, I am not using it in production, you are..and you only do as much as you need to, and in such case..it may not be necessary to have these features and performance demands I would like to see(for guys like you ), for my future ideas that I want to work with.
    Perspective is surely one part of it, but for me that isnīt making it more attractive.

    for blender, there is an issue, I donīt like mantaflow at all for fire and smoke, which leaves me with using the ol 2.73, and saving out to vdb anyway and import to 2.83 for faster rendering of the volumes, and I need to renambe batch convert each vdb file, since 2.73 isnīt properly sequence indexing it for the later versions to read it properly.

    Had I a decent fortune, decent job and salery..and still the interest to go deeper with 3D, I think Cinema4D would actually be on my list.

  13. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    1,979
    @Prometheus, yes definitely use 2.91 final. I only use the alpha to see new features. The betas (and final) are usually quite stable.

    Emission controlled via sound, yes I wouldn't see a use case for me but the possibility is there. Emission via object collision, particles or growth effects definitively. This Field technology can be used almost everywhere in Cinema, not just for Weight Maps (for example for Fracture control), all in realtime.
    Last edited by Marander; 12-06-2020 at 09:40 AM.

  14. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Marander View Post
    These are additional settings in TFD for C4D compared to the LW version:

    - Particle Velocity Scale
    - Shader Display Color
    - Surface Texture Channels
    - Use Vertex Maps (for example Weight Maps)
    - Particle emission intensity (Age, Size, Mass, Velocity)
    - Emitter Velocity Scale

    In the Cinema Render Settings there are additional options for TFD:

    - Adaptive Step Size
    - Noise Threshold
    - Fluid Motion Blur and Sub-Steps
    - network rendering settings

    ....
    - Particle Velocity Scale - This is the particle advection thing, or?

    - Shader Display Color - seems to miss in LW, what is the benefit?

    - Surface Texture Channels - LW version has "Surface Texture" to control intensity of the emission across the surface of the emitter. Is this the same?

    - Use Vertex Maps (for example Weight Maps) - should work in all places where texture is available. Not tested.

    - Particle emission intensity (Age, Size, Mass, Velocity) - LW version has it too.

    - Emitter Velocity Scale - Does what?


    - Adaptive Step Size - LW version has it too.

    - Noise Threshold - LW version has it too.

    - Fluid Motion Blur and Sub-Steps - LW version has it too.

    - network rendering settings - Does what?


    Quote Originally Posted by Marander View Post
    ...The overall usage in Cinema seems easier to me (for example by simply adding TFD tags to objects to use as Emitter or Collision object) and the scene overview is much better, but that's due to the architectural differences in the two applications. In Cinema, no render changes are required unlike in LW2018+ (Legacy Volumetrics) but that's a minor thing. Also, TFD for Cinema has a separate render preview function but I never use that. Also notable is that X-Particles, Cycles4D and Redshift support TFD objects and channels....
    This is a Lightwave thing. If you like C4D UI more than use it! BTW, adding a emitter is one click (make emitter) in Lightwave.

    How should TurbulenceFD for Lightwave support X-Particles, Cycles4D and Redshift? That seems weird to me.

    It doesn't seem to me that TFD for Lightwave is that far behind.

    ciao
    Thomas
    Web: www.dieleinwandhelden.com

    I use two pieces of the three-piece application with mocap module.

  15. #30
    RETROGRADER prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    sweden stockholm
    Posts
    17,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Leitner View Post
    - Particle Velocity Scale - This is the particle advection thing, or?

    - Shader Display Color - seems to miss in LW, what is the benefit?

    - Surface Texture Channels - LW version has "Surface Texture" to control intensity of the emission across the surface of the emitter. Is this the same?

    - Use Vertex Maps (for example Weight Maps) - should work in all places where texture is available. Not tested.

    ciao
    Thomas
    I donīt believe particle velocity scale is the same as particle advection...perhaps?


    Shader display? not sure if he ment the opengl display and coloring with a ramp, as I said, blender shows both fire and smoke, tfd can only in lightwave show either fire, or smoke..not both at the same time, which makes it harder to get a decent feel directly in openFL for the final fire, though I guess for some itīs not important when they straight on activate vpr, but I donīt like having to activate the render for that.

    vertex maps, weight maps, No I donīt belive that has been adressed to work in Lightwave yet..I could be wrong, you are using it in production and have the latest versions, how come you havenīt tried that yet?

    Surface texturing? the emission is set by textures, yes..itīs there as in this sample below to determine a fractal map emission, what was great in TFD here, and lightwaves texturing system, that is that I could use additional fractals set o alpha or various modes on top of the first fractal map, and when the fluids are raised in bouyancy, it raises the fluids uneven based on those fractals..and as a result you get varied heights in clouds for instance.

    This feature is something I really miss in blender though.

    Surface texturing works in Lightwave vdb gas solver as well.

    Had I this way of creating the main fluids, then actually rendering it in blender..I now I could create quite decent cloud sets, alternatively I would need to buy TFD, export to blender, or invest in octane as well instead for rendering In Lightwave.

    Video, cloud fractal texture map density emission..Sorry for the crappy resolution over there, I though I had a larger resolution that year..quite a long time ago since that was made.
    https://vimeo.com/38310716

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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
  •