Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: FiberFX Density, Scale and Clump inconveniences or am I missing an option?

  1. #1
    Code Muppet evenflcw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    2,642

    FiberFX Density, Scale and Clump inconveniences or am I missing an option?

    If you have a 1x1m plane and a 2x2m plane, both with fiber Density set to 10%, they will be given the same amount of fibers, 1000! The 2x2m plane however covers an area that is 4 times as large! With the same amount of fibers on both, the actual density is much lower on the larger plane. Furthermore, with scale set to 100% on both planes, the fibers on the 2x2m plane will actually be about 4 times as long compared to the fibers on the 1x1m plane.

    Not considering the misuse of the term "density", this is not a good implementation! It makes creating and using presets very inconvenient:


    Consider that a artist on one project has to cover a landscape with grass. He uses FiberFX and manages to get it just right! The grass has the perfect height, the perfect density. It's looks nice and lush! The project is a success! Then comes along another project where a landscape needs to be covered with grass. The artist naturally loads the setting from the previous project. It looked so good last it should look just as good this time. But it doesn't! The grass is short and stubby! Not at all as lush as last time. What happened!? Did the saved settings get corrupted? No, the reason is simply that the surface area of the new landscape is smaller than the previous one.

    See attached image. The same setting gives very different results only because the surface areas covered are not comparable in size.


    Consider again the artist. This time he needs to cover a teddy in fur. But to save time (when doing test renders) he decides to start with just doing an ear. He figures if he gets the fur right on that part he can then copy the values onto all other parts. So he goes ahead and tweaks the values to perfection, as usual! That ear is looking so fuzzy and soft he is almost giggling, and he's not very ticklish at all! But when he copies the settings over to the other parts they don't look the same. The ears look as they should, but the rest looks like it belonged to a frakking wookie!? Again... the reason is that the surface areas are not comparable.


    Similarly, fibers clump is based on the underlying polygons. I can acknowledge that this can be a very usefull and provide a good amount of control. I think we've seen some good examples of that already! But if you want a uniform fur across a character it can work against you, as any halfdecent mesh will have polygons that differ greatly in size.

    See attached image. There are 3 separate planes. The leftmost is a single polygon, the middle 4 polygons, the rightmost 8 polygons.


    Have I overlooked a setting maybe? Could these issues be solved by using guides (kinda tedious if all you want is uniform short fur)?

    Either way, the way "Density" and "Scale" and "Clump" (and perhaps other attribute aswell) works by default is not the best if you want reusable presets nor if you start work on limited regions. These values should not be relative to the surface area they need to cover or size of polygons of the underlying mesh. They should be relative to a fixed area (1x1m?). This way the Density attribute would rightly correspond to fiber density rather than quantity. The Scale (renamed to Length) would correspond to the length of fibers in a common unit of length (meters or other). Clump could use another value (Clump Size!?) that could set the size of clumps or amount of fibers in each clump so it can be controlled independent of how the mesh is constructed. Imho this would make these attributes much less arbitrary and easier to control AND it would make the creation and use of presets viable.

    But, as I acknowledged earlier I can appreciate how the way things work now can be very useful. So make it optional! (Ie. don't flame me for thinking out loud and having an opinion.)

    *Sorry for the chequered images.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	FiberFX Density and Scale inconveniences.jpg 
Views:	431 
Size:	245.3 KB 
ID:	63960   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	FiberFX Clumping By Polygon.jpg 
Views:	385 
Size:	140.1 KB 
ID:	63963  

  2. #2
    I completely agree. It would be ridiculous if we have to depend on the number/size of polygons and polyflow. Let's hope it's just a temporary limitation that will be fixed. Thanks for this thread.

  3. #3
    Super Member Red_Oddity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    A thousand years from here
    Posts
    3,352
    Yes, this has been driving me nuts for quite a while now, and the FFX implementation isn't even that old yet.
    I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious. - Albert Einstein
    visit my company site : House of Secrets
    visit my personal site : svenneve.com

  4. #4
    Floating member Traveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    375
    I'm currently still trying to get decent looking grass (viewed from a distance) and this is exactly the thing I'm fighting at the moment.
    I'm now trying a setup with cloned planes, so I can have a larger area of grass, without having to redo all the settings.

  5. #5
    Dreamer Ztreem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,126
    It's a bit limited that FFX depends on the polys of the mesh, but at the same time it gives very much control. I don't want to miss this feature in terms of the other one, but I wouldn't mind having both options.

  6. #6
    Cow Orker cagey5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Manchester UK
    Posts
    3,273
    OT. Shouldn't all those members with cat avatars have FFX equivelents by now?
    Forum Tips
    If English is your first language, you should know it's 'losing' and not 'loosing'!

  7. #7
    Super Member Red_Oddity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    A thousand years from here
    Posts
    3,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Traveler View Post
    I'm currently still trying to get decent looking grass (viewed from a distance) and this is exactly the thing I'm fighting at the moment.
    I'm now trying a setup with cloned planes, so I can have a larger area of grass, without having to redo all the settings.
    I gave up on that, the fact you can't actually give fibers any real width (besides dumping out a complete mesh in modeler) makes this plugin rather useless (in its current incarnation) when ever you need anything closeup, or in a dynamic scene (as in a camera move that brings the subject with he fur applies closer to the camera)

    In that regard Sasqutach is by far a the superior product.
    I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious. - Albert Einstein
    visit my company site : House of Secrets
    visit my personal site : svenneve.com

  8. #8
    Super Member simpfendoerfer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    413
    I also agree with evenflcw.
    www.coherentimages.com

    Mac 2 x 3GHz Quad Core Intel
    4GB RAM
    NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT
    OS X 10.6.4

    Power Book
    Intel Core i7 2.66 GHz
    NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M
    OS X 10.6.4

  9. #9
    Code Muppet evenflcw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    2,642
    Very happy so many responded and voiced the same concerns! (I'm not alone!)

    It's good to be able to work with what you got. But while you work you think about the what-ifs and why-nots that could save you all the extra work fiddling about.

  10. #10
    I'm posting here just to show my agreement. I also would not mind to have both options available.
    Why is it clumping to the side of the polygon and not the center, or any other position?

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    162
    I'm in on this too. It's a little frustrating that it is poly density Dependant.

  12. #12
    Michael Nicholson zapper1998's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    spokane washington usa
    Posts
    4,663
    Blog Entries
    1
    me to...
    Intel Core i7-980, OC 4.7ghz water cooled.
    Gigabyte x58-UD3R with an Intell SSD 180GIG
    RamCorsair-DDR3-1600-32GIG
    Nvidia Titan Z, x 2 And 1 GTX-1080 by Gigabyte.
    4xEnterprise/WDVelociRaptorŪ300gig

  13. #13
    Member zatara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    brazil
    Posts
    224
    Me too, I think for grass, Sasquatch does the job very fast. But I think Newtek now about this!

  14. #14
    Almost newbie Cageman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Malmö, SWEDEN
    Posts
    7,639
    Hmm...

    Could this issue be solved by an Object Size parameter for X/Y/Z?

    So, lets say a preset is made based on an sphere that is 1x1x1m and you apply it to an object that is roughly 32x16x100m... instead of tweaking each parameter to fit the new size, you simply set the Object Size parameter to the same size you have on the object, and FiberFX will then recaluclate all values to fit this new size?

    Maybe I'm totaly in the forest with a sailingboat with this suggestion though. *lol*
    Senior Technical Supervisor
    Cinematics Department
    Massive - A Ubisoft Studio
    -----
    Intel Core i7-4790K @ 4GHz
    16GB Ram
    GeForce GTX 1080 8GB
    Windows 10 Pro x64

  15. #15
    _
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    moravia
    Posts
    1,017
    There might be a workaround that (if it actually worked) could work either for or against you.

    The original post said that, "The same setting gives very different results only because the surface areas covered are not comparable in size."

    At first, this seemed to be the case but actually when the area covered is identical but the object's surface area is different, I get different results as well.

    For example, say you have a hairless chicken in Layer1 and a scarf that's going to be furry all by itself in layer 4.

    You turn on FiberFX and by the magic of this implementation, it looks just right on the scarf almost from the start. With just a couple of adjustments, the fur follows the contours of the scarf, showing all the bends and creases in the model.

    You're happy with it but the character is ready so you put everything in a single layer with the skelegons. (That is, now the chicken and the scarf are in the same layer) Even if you activate the fur on the scarf only, and set identical settings to what you had before, the fibers are now so much longer that the scarf looks completely smooth, without any contours at all. This, because the settings are affected by all the non-covered area of the rest of the chicken.

    SO, where is the workaround?

    If you put the scarf and the chicken together and activate FiberFX, the fibers will be too long. If you cut out the chicken and leave only the scarf, the fibers will still remain just as long.

    Even if you deactivate the layer, activate it again, and set the settings back in, there will be no change; it will still be too long. You need to remove FiberFX from the filters and add it again so that the fiber size will be just right again.

    That means that, in theory, if you put your original landscape in a layer and applied your FiberFX grass preset and then deleted that landscape and pasted the new one, FiberFX should not re-calculate the surface area and everything should look just like it did in the original. So, the preset would work as intended. (Or something completely unexpected could happen :P )

    The downside is, or course, that if you activate one layer with some extra geometry, you will have to remove FiberFX and re-set-up every single object/layer with hair in order to recalculate that single layer.

    I'm not making any sense, am I?

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
  •