Jump to content

xpOpenVDBMesher - Transfer Foam - Sneak Peek


Guest Igor

Recommended Posts

 

Coming soon to X-Particles! xpOpenVDBMesher - Transfer Foam Create dynamic foam maps using the new Transfer Foam feature within the xpOpenVDBMesher. Physically accurate data generated by the xpFoam modifier is transfered to the xpOpenVDBMesher and displayed via an animated vertex map. Adjust the foam map characteristics with artist-friendly controls for Fade, Multiply and Mapping. 

Link to comment

I'm holding my breath for an announcement of a massive, magical performance increase utilizing GPU...

 

The feature previews are nice so far, but whatever I start in X-Particles, soon ends in a cache-fest 🙂

Link to comment

If they didn't announced it so far, I am not sure it will come for this release. You can still see how slow it can become very quickly, hopefully I am wrong.

Link to comment

Well.....the next release is expected in the summer...according to their web-site.  Now the summer technically extends until September 22....more than enough time for them to still be beta testing a GPU version. Now, GPU acceleration will be at the core of their code base and therefore all new features will be built off of that -- so if it is to be part of this release then it is probably already well down the beta test path.

 

But don't expect to see it announced just yet.


Insydium tends to orchestrate how they release their sneak peeks so that they build to create excitement.  Each new peek tends to eclipsing the one before it in terms of "wow" impact.    Pretty confident that this is both marketing and that the more complex (and thereby the more impressive new features) take more time to beta test to a point where they feel comfortable enough to announce it -- so their announcements naturally come at the end.  

 

Either way, GPU acceleration would be huge!  An absolute game changer that would really get their competitors (like EmberGen) to stand up and take notice.

 

As such, if it is to happen, don't expect to see it announced until right before it is released as it will be the climatic conclusion to their sneak peek release videos.

 

Dave

Sorry...but I simply do not have enough faith to be an atheist.

Link to comment

I prefer TurbulenceFD for fire and smoke over x-Particles. TFD is GPU accelerated, and if anything looks bit better than XP's fire/smoke sims. And I am not at all a fan of x-Particles fluids. For syrup or oil or highly viscous fluids it's fine, but for water it doesn't look nearly as believable as RealFlow or Houdini. XP's fluid solver technology just isn't there. 

 

xParticles is great for it's original intent.... particles... and does have wide feature set. Insydium's development does seem a bit stalled right now, IMO.

 

For insanely fast fire/smoke EmberGen is amazing. It isn't as feature rich for interactions with geometry, but if you just want an explosion or fire...hard to beat.

Link to comment

Maxon really has it together. This am they came out with Redshift 3.045 which allows me to do both C4D and Redshift in native M1 without Rosetta and no Security nightmares on startup. I can't wait to do speed tests. Why can't Insydium do as well? It is extremely frustrating because I am hooked on XP and Cycles and currently I can use neither.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, teknow said:

Maxon really has it together. This am they came out with Redshift 3.045 which allows me to do both C4D and Redshift in native M1 without Rosetta and no Security nightmares on startup. I can't wait to do speed tests. Why can't Insydium do as well? It is extremely frustrating because I am hooked on XP and Cycles and currently I can use neither.

Probably because its not that easy as you might think. It takes time, it takes resources and who knows what was their long term plan. M1's are how old, a year?

Link to comment

I would not count out X-Particles just yet. When you compare TFD to XP in terms of rendering fire and smoke you have to ask what renderer is being used for XP.  Is it Cycles, Redshift or Octane?  What makes XP infinitely better than TFD (IMHO) is the ability create VDB files for rendering in 3rd party programs like Octane, Redshift, etc.  You now have more power/control to render fire and smoke than using TFD's built in rendering solution.  For example, the ability for me to control the amount of fire and smoke in a simulation is a lot easier to control in Redshift than in TFD....or even Cycles for that matter as I find that method a bit too complex.

 

Now TFD does not create VDB files by default but its own BCF format and to get VDB output from TFD you need to run bcf2vdb from the COMMAND line prompt.  Why so difficult?  Why can't it just be an option within the program?  Not sure. 

 

Another thing I love about XP is that it is a multi-physics simulation solution.  Water can push cloth.  Water can catch on fire.  You have flow fields that can then impact volume breaking.  You have grains that can be impacted by advection.  Just a whole host of solutions.

 

Now you do have multi-physics in Realflow, but Realflow is engineering grade - and really slow - and expensive.  Every particle carries a ton of information and the file sizes are huge.   It is GPU accelerated which helps, but all that aside, the maintenance/upgrade costs are still too high for me (close to 50% of the purchase price).

 

Now, every fluid simulation solution out there is GPU accelerated except XP....so it stands to reason that XP needs to incorporate GPU acceleration to stay competitive.  I have confidence that they will do it.  Once they do, then (again in my humble opinion) they become the most versatile, powerful, easy to use solution out there that can produce amazing results when paired with a 3rd party rendering solution for the money.

 

Dave

 

 

 

 

Sorry...but I simply do not have enough faith to be an atheist.

Link to comment

Here are some initial speed results: C4D loads in 2 seconds, the attached file using Redshift renders in 2:22, the Grapes file from the content browser renders to the Picture Viewer using the built-in Physical Renderer in 4:34 and it took 9:20 on my iMac with i7 Intel Quad 4.0 GHz chip, and now I need some other file or benchmark to test. This is fun.RailMaterial_Finish.c4d

Link to comment
11 hours ago, 3D-Pangel said:

Another thing I love about XP is that it is a multi-physics simulation solution.  Water can push cloth.  Water can catch on fire.  You have flow fields that can then impact volume breaking.  You have grains that can be impacted by advection.  Just a whole host of solutions.

 

I agree on the value of physics interplay.

 

I find it astounding that Jawset has supported my TurbulenceFD purchase with a bazillion updates, over ten years, and never charged for an upgrade, even for the jump to GPU simming. I get the sense the dev is so bright that the software is for him just a minor side hobby. 

Link to comment

@3D-PangelI go nuts over XP and Cycles and it will really bother me to do without till the next update but I'm using only M1 native apps and it is so fast and rock solid. Even all the Adobe Creative Suite run perfectly and fly on my new M1 machine even though Photoshop is the only one native M1 so far. I have even been helping out on questions over at the Discord site. Nathan Page at Insydium has been doing backflips to try and get my XP working but it requires I use Rosetta when I run C4D S24 and I am not willing to do that because of the drop in performance. It is absolutely amazing in native M1 format.

 So I will just need to be patient and have my fun with XP again a little later.

 

I am very excited to see how XP and Cycles will perform in native M1 format.

Link to comment
×
×
  • Create New...

Copyright Core 4D © 2023 Powered by Invision Community