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.

rbowden

Members
  • Content count

    196
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

40 Excellent

4 Followers

About rbowden

  • Rank
    Initiate
  • Birthday 02/28/1985

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://ryanbowden.com

Personal Information

  • Name
    Ryan
  • Location
    Dallas, TX

Recent Profile Visitors

3,140 profile views
  1. If this is just smoke and you are using the fluid source and source volume DOP, just name your densities something different (densityCold and densityWarm for example). Do your simulation and then use 2 DOP I/O nodes to bring in each density separate. From there you should be able to write out the VDBs separate like you want.
  2. That definitely looks suspect. Can you upload the file or even a simplified version with the problem?
  3. If using the shelf tools (which I assume you are), I would change the size value of the particle fluid tank. If you do that, you are lowering the upper bounds of your domain also which means that you will have to do more readjusting. I would instead raise the center Y value if you want to make the fluid thinner. If you do it like this, the domain size will remain the same.
  4. @art3mis If you are doing a SOP based approach, what is stopping you from using the Boolean SOP to make cuts? You can use proxy geo for your simulation and then replace the proxy geo with your high res geo post sim. Unless you are specifically tied to voronoi for some reason?
  5. Using divergence in a sim is pretty straightforward. You can add a divergence attribute in a wrangle in sops or use a gas field wrangle in dops to do so. The only gotcha is that you have to enable divergence on the FLIP object (under the initial data tab). I am attaching a basic file that use a gas field wrangle dop with some notes that should help. divergence.hip
  6. You don't need to do a iso offset before the points from volume. The pointsFromVolume will convert your geo to a a volume for you.
  7. The reason why your vdb isn't looking right is because of the way your ship was modeled. It is not a water tight mesh which, is what you need to get a solid vdb. The model has a bunch of intersections and overlapping polygons in it and is probably making the PolyFill SOP confused. If you are just doing this for practice, I would find another ship to download and use that instead. You will have plenty of time to fix other dept mistakes in your career. If this is for a paid project though, you are going to have to spend the time cleaning this mesh up.
  8. Its because your dop IO in your pyro_import is still pointing towards /obj/Dust_Simulation/pyro1 instead of /obj/Dust_Simulation/pyro This is why having multiple pyro setups in one dopnet can be bad idea. Things can start getting confusing pretty quick.
  9. Do you have Stick on Collision turned on in the fluid solver? Its located under Volume Motion---Collisions Once you turn that on, it should open up some options for you to control the sticking a bit more.
  10. I am trying to understand what you are going for here. You are keying the waterline parameter up so the water level will raise higher and lower? Maybe posting a sample file of what you are experiencing would help more in this case.
  11. Feedback scale is a tricky parameter to get right. You change one thing with the object you are trying to float (density, scale, etc.) it is going to screw that number up. Alot of times you can get away with a value of 1-5 but, I have had to do it in a scale of 100 before. I couldn't get it working in the file you posted for some reason and if I can't get it working in the first ten minutes, I just remake the scene. That is exactly what I did and feedback scale is working like it should. I will leave it up to you to figure out the sinking part...Off the top of my head though, I would probably time a velocity field that pushes down at a certain time and randomize it per packed object you have. Attached is a working feedback scale file. Swirl_03_RB.hip
  12. I would add some jitter to your inital flip points. That should get rid of the banding. I am attaching a file with the changes. You will still need to mess with the smoothing and such in the particle fluid surface to make the surface not as flickery but, it gives you a starting place. You are also going to have a grand time dealing with UVs if you plan on transferring them to the particle fluid surface (which it looks like you want to....Take a look at the uvquickproject node to see why). I'm curious on why time stretching would get rid of banding artifacts like this? MyHead_v07_RB.hipnc
  13. Could be a couple of things happening but, hard to pinpoint without having a hip file to debug. Can you post your file or recreate a simple example with this happening?
  14. If you want to use RBDs, you need to change the drop down on the rigid body solver from bullet to RBD. Since it is set to bullet, it is creating a convex hull across to connect each box.
  15. I am a little confused. To make sure I have this right, you already did a water explosion and now you want to take that result and have that collide with another tank? Or did you make the water explosion in just a popnet (non flip)? Basically are you creating something like this? https://vimeo.com/106930270 Or are you trying to emit flip particles from an actual mesh?