Hi,
does bullet solver detects/recognize mask fields used with gravity for example? when used with RBD solver it works ok but it`s slow. thanks!
cheers
Found 7 posts.
Search results Show results as topic list.
Houdini Lounge » Bullet solver and mask fields
- zs2010
- 7 posts
- Offline
Houdini Lounge » Pile of particles
- zs2010
- 7 posts
- Offline
Houdini Lounge » Pile of particles
- zs2010
- 7 posts
- Offline
thanks guys for reply, yes I think FLIP should be closer to what I`m looking for. I need particles because I need goal (follow) behavior. Maybe I could redefine my question, is it possible to COPY geometry on particles and then apply RBD collision on top of that via DOP`s?
thanks!
thanks!
Houdini Lounge » Pile of particles
- zs2010
- 7 posts
- Offline
Hi,
I`m coming from maya/max background and I`m wondering what would be the best way to make a pile of particles (or instances). I know it`s quickly doable with RBD but I`m interested in particles approach.
I tried POP network with INTERACT node inside and then COPY to geometry but I`m not getting realistic behavior. Thanks!
p.s.
here is a quick test I did in maya with nParticles and instances, I`m trying to get something like that in Houdini
I`m coming from maya/max background and I`m wondering what would be the best way to make a pile of particles (or instances). I know it`s quickly doable with RBD but I`m interested in particles approach.
I tried POP network with INTERACT node inside and then COPY to geometry but I`m not getting realistic behavior. Thanks!
p.s.
here is a quick test I did in maya with nParticles and instances, I`m trying to get something like that in Houdini
Houdini Lounge » Destruction &Fracture: Houdini OR Max+Volumebreaker&
- zs2010
- 7 posts
- Offline
Thanks Igor and Rudi,
but :roll: they all use expressions as well. point here is to have universal activator or unglue or similar nodes for all kind of situations with custom inputs so we could use geo or volume to activate or unglue pieces and avoid writing expressions.
but :roll: they all use expressions as well. point here is to have universal activator or unglue or similar nodes for all kind of situations with custom inputs so we could use geo or volume to activate or unglue pieces and avoid writing expressions.
Houdini Lounge » Destruction &Fracture: Houdini OR Max+Volumebreaker&
- zs2010
- 7 posts
- Offline
jeff
Btw the Cebas Thinking Particles Huntsmen testimonial looks to be pulled from their web site.
nope, it`s there:
http://www.cebas.com/index.php?pid=testimonial&tid=84 [cebas.com]
your example is really good, except that long and complicated expression understandable only by programmers or similar. also it works in that particular case only, meaning, if you change something you have to rewrite expression. funny thing is that expensive software like houdini should have nodes prepared for us for everything, instead we are forced to learn programming every time we have to write expression or similar that means some nodes are missing. we need universal solution like unglue node with custom inputs or activator node or so.
here is example how you could activate objects once they reach specified distance from activator node. basically once activator node come close pieces are transferred into active group influenced by gravity. so you just wire distance node and that`s it. this question is asked 20 times already and still no solid solution. I just hope we will get solution soon and I`m also a bit worried knowing that we waited 2 years to reach fume fx quality.
Houdini Lounge » Destruction &Fracture: Houdini OR Max+Volumebreaker&
- zs2010
- 7 posts
- Offline
MADjestic
gerd
You should ask yourself a few questions:
1) Are you intending to use pre-built solutions or build tools yourself? What are your turn-around times? (i.e. can you afford building tools and how much time do you want to dedicate to that?)
2) If you are going to build tools - what is your resource budget? (man-hours; are you going to create tools alone or with more people?), what is your starting point? Does your facility already have a basic toolset or are you starting from scratch?
Depending on your answers, the solution may be of the the kind that Ratmann suggested, or the complete opposite
Houdini framework allows, no-doubt, realize one's wildest dreams… there is a chance of going bankrupt and dying of hunger in the process though
Good luck either way.
Totally agree. Side Effects should talk talk and listen average customers as well not only programmers and coders from big studios. Some times I think they purposely keep thing complicated (maybe some1 is trying to keep his job .
Typical example are Thinking particles, showing that it`s possible to have very easy rbd activating, ungluing and fracturing. In Houdini fracturing is very easy and good but to activate pieces or unglue them, you have to write code. Imagine that you try to create event which will transfer particles in another group - code again. Things like that you could achieve just by simply wiring few nodes in TP! Yes we should have one button solution (coders hate that and at the same time ability to code on top of that if you want. I don`t think that any1 will complain on that.
Like pclaes wrote, slightly off topic, on “H is taking over vfx jobs”, “but here are a few reasons that you may want to consider” simplifying Houdini workflow:
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=59&t=1054227 [forums.cgsociety.org]
It shows how far you could go when you provide solid, easy to use, RBD system.
Don`t get me wrong, but I just don`t understand how possible it is to have situation when external plugin provides that much comparing with serious tool like Houdini.
-
- Quick Links