markeh
-
Posts
220 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by markeh
-
-
Dynamic wave generation will be awesome! Thankyou for the very timely information (even if it can't be done in the crazy way I was trying). I think what I will do for a work around is blow up these old and splintering logs whose bark and wood will splinter as a flood comes crashing onto them.
-
When you had this as a "work in progress", you had actual voice and it was hilarious. Now, you've just plain scared the macabre out of me.
I'm going back to church! -
It could be that one of my problems is that I probably need to add newton groups to the logs perhaps? The normals are suppose to be upward, right? If I simulate further they do seem to come to a equilibrium float but well above the water model.
I know I'm trying to use it in a fasion that it is not meant so if it's not possible, it's still a great plugin. Here is the simplified project file.
-
openexr plugin for saving and opening in photoshop 7 here.
-
In this case set "Use calculatet worldsize" to ON
Ah good. Thankyou.
I had a little question and maybe I'm trying to break the laws of newton physics but.....
I've been playing with the flotation properties. In the ball.mov example, it works great although I should have put some damping on.
What I'm trying to do in the logs.mov example is have a flood (model) come down a river and wash away a dam. The object moving horizontally is the flood water and I have it set as "static fluid surface" and I changed no settings. The logs that end up moving vertically up are set to be "Dynamic object" and I changed the density to .7. The logs are suppose to become somewhat immersed in the moving water model and then float within it but they just float straight up. Am I breaking the law or is there some other setting I should be considering.
Thankyou for all the plugins you've created by the way.
-
I think if there's going to be interaction with specifically a terrain, you're still going to need a semi dense mesh to get trees on it and to constrain objects to its surface. But with pixel displacement, you can get rocks and crags like never before. Pixel grass?
On the right is with displacement set to 0 and the cactus are where they should be.
On theleft has lots of displacement and the cactus have no home. This cactus is from a hair material.
-
One thing I've found is that the newton dynamics doesn't affect objects that are 10000 cm away in either the x, y, or z but not cummulative. In other words you can have a sphere with translate y = 9000, x=9000, z=9000 and it works on that object but move any one of those values past 10000 cm and the sphere won't be acted on. This is not a problem in my eyes but just pointing it out just in case someone gets frustrated. But then I'm probably the only one that puts objects 10 trillion miles away.
-
Ctrl+D to toggle decals
Good grief - all this time without knowing this. I've been progressive rendering all this time to see my displacement.
Edit: Oh but it doesn't work obviously on a material with a displacement percentage. But still good to know.
Is there another Ctrl+something that does that too?
-
Martin explains some here:
http://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=155031
That might be a fellows only link I wonder. The link was broken for lowly me.
-
Ok I've jumped up and down enough. Am I to understand that with pixel displacement the renderer pays attention to how close you are to the mapping as far as how much detail you can get from the displacement? This sounds similar to what terragen does if that's right. In any case it's very cool just wanted the specifics. Not that it matters but just curious if there is a render hit as well?
-
Doggone I'm poor as all heck and now I'm forced to upgrade! Doggone!!!
-
Thanks for all the compliments. Here is a .....eh hem.....a watered down version of the project for those who are interested.
Animated distortion - yes once I wrap my head around that it would make things tons easier to improve on. This was a semi starting point as I didn't know if it would be somewhat convincing. So I plan on taking all suggestions and hopefully implementing them (including the doggone dam - Thankyou Vern for taking the heat on the correct phrasing). I'll update when I have a chance.
-
How exactly are you doing it?
Here's my water model. I just mozy it on down the canyon. The water model has a gradient material with one side a cell turb where the water starts to pour down and the other is a fractal turbulance but I probably could have made the whole thing a cell turb. I gave that a dispacement percentage and keyframed, in this case, the x and y translate values of the cell turb and fractal turb translate values over time. The canyon walls do a great job of hiding its simplicity and imperfections.
My wife wants it to bank on the corners and I explained to her that it isn't fluid dynamics and while you could bone the water model into a snake to get the bank effect, that would be to much like........like..........animating and that just hurts my mouse pointin' index finger.
-
This will be part of a project that breaks a dam although I don't even think you'll see the darn dam breaking.
-
I have an older brother who has subjected me to these kinds of creatures all my life. These are my demons. These are what I'm comfortable with. Your models and their movements are fantabulous (that's in my dictionary).
-
and okay at animating
How about exceptional, Mr. humble!
-
So I guess that is something to keep in mind using that technique that you will have to groom the trees
Ah yes, the grooming of the trees - I guess I haven't read that New York best seller quite yet.
Is it applied to the whole surface as tiled maps or as a big decal?In this case it is several stamps just because I had more control on the resolution. But experimentation would be good on different resolutions to be applied as an image because that would make things more easy in the long run (I probably stamped only about 10% of of my entire mountain mesh).
Thankyou for the praises.
-
I'm glad you wrote something funny. My wife called me a dufus for writing a subtitle like that.I was so busy trying to be funny that I didn't even ask if you would let us know how you did that?Anders wrote a plugin with excellent instructions and there are several examples of normal maps here
Will Sutton also pointed out this website that has a photoshop plugin that you can change regular photos into normal maps.
Thank goodness there really is a Molly's nipple in southern Utah. Good grief I've forgotten her last name though.
-
normal map test
-
Your trailer didn't do this justice. There were alot of interesting and funny nuances put into this to make it come out very colorful. It was very enjoyable to watch! Your animation skills seemed to get better by every minute of the movie. Ok so the characters weren't moving like Shrek but if you had everything moving like your "Toto", it might have given it a run for the money.
-
Ah, the ole' send the girls back to 1846 trick. I like your landscape. Looks like it has a lot of depth to it. 14 minutes is a lot work done on pure animation. I know I 've topped out at 2 or 3 minutes being frazzled. One thing about those girls, they need to be skipping to my lou......a little hop to their step. Also, when they turn their heads they seem to abrubtly stop. Otherwise the scenery looks great and sounds like an interesting story. Oh yeah, one more thing. Get that girl to belt out her line. She's weilding a sword for pete sake.....she's dangerous......she means it!!!!!!
-
Whoops I was wrong to say that motion blur doesn't affect particles. Although, I think if I hadn't put in multi levels to the model, the separation in particles would have still been apparent. In both mov examples, there are multi levels. What would be cool is if each sprite emitter had it's own way of turning on and off collision detection and bounce in addition to the parent sprite system. I wouldn't want my mist to bounce off anything. I suppose I could have two totally separate sprite systems as a work around. (that was 9 passes on the one with blur)
-
regular interval that they are emitted
That's something that was bothering me as well. But having a variation on the initial velocity, rate of emission, and setting max distance per emit doesn't seem to cure it. I know I've experimented with rendering in passes with little blur and lots of blur in the past. It seemed like the sprites weren't affected by the blur. But it gives me an idea of having a multi leveled surface to emit from to make things look more random......
-
What was the render time?
When I had done the bellagio fountains, I think the highest time it got to was around 15 minutes per frame at 4 passes (or maybe it was abuffered rendering can't remember) 640x480. Most of the frames were more in the 8 or 9 minute time. There were quite a few sprites moving around on that.
In the A:M world it gets up to 30 feet. But it looks to be the consensus that it appears much higher than this. I think 50 or 60 feet would be tops before air resistance takes its toll. Plus with the technology of the TWO characters, it's amazing they knew about water pressure at all. Is it the fattening of the mist or the speed at which everthing travels that makes it look 50+ feet? Or is it that it doesn't slow down enough close to its apogee? Is that what you were referring to Anders?
Flood final
in Work In Progress / Sweatbox
Posted
You finish these things and then say to yourself, "this is wrong and why didn't I pay more attention to this over here...etc", but I've done put a fork in it.
1.6 mb
Flash FLood