MagnusL3D
Nov. 22, 2010 16:14:29
I just had to test out that advection thing with tons of particles, and here is what I got so far.
http://vimeo.com/17095369 [
vimeo.com]
Big thanks to Peter Quint and his tutorials on Vimeo !
/M
live_fx
April 2, 2011 08:42:48
great look)
indrikov
April 30, 2011 03:02:34
looks great
hardware configuration, simulation/rendering time, if I could ask?
old_school
May 1, 2011 10:42:42
I saw your comment in the vimeo list about accurate births being the longest compute component in your particle simulation.
Have you tried the now-common technique of taking your input geometry and using the Time Shift SOP in combination with a For Loop SOP to create multiple copies of the geometry in-between frames and birth from that?
I have my own asset that I use all the time now. Dead simple. The Time Shift SOP even supports re-timing of volume primitives, so anything input goes.
See the attached example file to pick up the asset. I rarely use accurate births any more.
10M particles? I did a quick 10 wedge pass at 3M advected particles per pass across 240 frames (30M particles) in 2 hours then rendered with each pass as a geometry delay load procedural in Mantra render as points in another 3 hours and with 12Gb of memory. Left a LOT on the table to go much higher.
I'll be showing this workflow setup from scratch (of course) along with a few others at the FMX masterclass on simulations this week. I try not to pluck through pre-built scene files when it's just as fast to construct the network and show the steps.
circusmonkey
May 1, 2011 21:10:53
Jeff ,
is the master class going to be recorded ?
Rob
sanostol
May 2, 2011 03:17:14
MagnusL3D
May 2, 2011 16:22:24
Cool ! defently something I will be using instead of accurate birth.
BTW this is a 5 old month post, since then I did a 25mil test aswell here:
http://vimeo.com/17234865 [
vimeo.com]
MagnusL3D
May 2, 2011 17:07:13
I compared these solutions, here is a file showing the result. Maybe I did something wrong but the last solution posted held up better in my test.
tamte
May 2, 2011 17:32:03
it's because you are using $F in your expression for sphere movement (in all sturb() expressions)
and therefore the interframe interpolation is stepped resulting in incontinuous particle emissions
just make sure to use $FF in your expressions
MagnusL3D
May 2, 2011 17:43:55
Aha yes, worked much better with $FF, and around subframes 35+ i starts to be hard to tell the 2 solutions apart.
claudio_101
May 10, 2011 11:09:21
Hey guy's great stuff, thanks for sharing.