I'm currently working on a simulation where a ship sails through a stormy ocean.
And I'd like to kill particles that go into a specific object in the scene.

So waves are crashing on the ship and water goes on and IN the ship. Since the water inside the ship doesn't need to be simulated I made a seperate geo inside the ship that I used in the popkill node as a Bounding Object. The popkill itself is attached to the last input of the flipsolver.

It seems to be working since I can see the geo via the guide in the popkill node and the particles inside the geo get the attribute dead attached to them.
However it doesn't kill them. They are still being calculated and displayed and used in the particlefluidsurface. But I want them to be gone as soon as they go inside the bounding object.

Perhaps consider converting that bounding box into a sink? Which will remove the liquid from the simulation. Another approach is to group the particles (instead of killing them) and remove them after the simulation (this may be easier)

You have to turn ON “Reap Particles” under Particle Motion > Behavior on your Flip Solver for using a POP Kill or anything which sets @dead = 1 to delete the particles

Thanks for your replies. Sorry for being a complete asshole by being quiet for so long, but it actually took the mods so long to verify my topic that I completely forgot that I posted it in the first place.

The problem is long gone of course, I solved it before my topic even went online.
I used a bounding volume insted of a bounding object and not use a pop kill but an geowrangle with removepoint on a specific group I made with the popgroup.
I think I used an boudning volume because for some reason a bounding object didn't work. My geo, which I created in C4D and exported/imported as obj via the file node didn't work for some reason, but an in houdini generated object would.
I ran into similar problems on other projects maybe someone can shine some light into this mistery, or maybe I'm imaging old long gone problems right now.

Anyway, this sounds like more ore less what you suggested @Enivob?

@David Krepelka
Your solution maybe would have worked, because in fact that is not checked but I tought I tried that. But that's so long ago, I can't remember.