Welcome to od|forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

ParticleSkull

Members
  • Content count

    258
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

24 Excellent

1 Follower

About ParticleSkull

  • Rank
    Illusionist

Personal Information

  • Name Alvaro
  • Location Brazil

Recent Profile Visitors

1,769 profile views
  1. Thx for he file, @loudsubs!! It helped me a lot
  2. Maybe you can use this energy attribute to give more stiffness or drag to those "energized" areas. I think just a multiplication could work. Can't make tests on ir right now but I'll give it a try asap
  3. Hey @Pancho, maybe using the Energy or Quality attributes?
  4. Cool! Yeah, we did something similar at the creation frame parameter as well. Let me know if you achieve something with pop. Cheers, Alvaro
  5. Yeah and, even though the solvers are not seamlessly integrated, i think you can always find a way to "fake" this interaction. On 3ds Max, for example, I don't even have a fluid solver to fake an interaction with a fem solver.
  6. And that's what the tetrahedralize's 2nd input does! I was curious about that input for some time
  7. Thx, i'll update it
  8. Damn dude, are you with verion 16.0.619? Your scene here:
  9. hahahaha I will! In fact the weather is crazy here. It was kinda rainy when I started the sim and sunny at the end... The temperature should have influenced it. Serious now, the file you submitted is really working? Btw, I've decreased the Scale Time to 0.1, increased to 30 substeps (at the dop node, it looks diferent from the fem solver one) + ABE2 and 3 collision passes and it worked! Now i'll dig on it to see if I can improve the simulation tim (it took like 4 hours)
  10. @Farmfield, idk man, there might be something wrong with my houdini. I've downloaded your scene, put it to simulate and got a couple of interpenetrations (horrible ones!) edit: Love the @Alpha = 0.1; thing at flask
  11. Hey Steve, there's some stuff that don't interact natively (like FEM and FLIP for example) but I guess you can only find a way to make it work (because Houdini) In this case I got a "fake interaction" by adding the near particles speed to the fem tets, check it out: I guess every solver/combination does have its own idiosyncrasies and, in some cases, I think it's better to even make diferent simulations for each component.
  12. That's some really useful information! I'm still getting some spheres merging into each other btw, even using your settings. It's looking much better than what I had before though, I think I can solve it increasing the mesh resolution, collision passes or substeps.. and now the overlaping at the creation!
  13. Alright, hahaha substeps at 1 and collision to 3? now I got it! I don't mind about the overlapping when they are created. This should be out of the screen on my final scene
  14. Alright With 1 substep I got the interpenetrations. Now I'm simulating it with 3 substeps + tetrahedralize Sop. Again, thank you very much, Marty. You saved me hours of tests and research that could lead to nothing
  15. Hey Noobini, yes, I did tried the Collision Passes but it didn't help. Thx though Marty, thank you very much! I'm running a sim right now with ABE2 to see how it goes. I wasn't really aware of this. For some reason it was completelly out of my sight! Have you increased the substeps or collision passes?