Solitude Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 (edited) Pretty impressive.... edit: I still have to wonder what kind of sim times they're getting... Edited July 20, 2010 by Solitude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_slab Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 ahh you beat me to it, i would say awesomeness is an understatement, this stuff is f*n amazing i also wonder about the sim times, from what i can see on some of the stuff I'm guessing it's probably pretty decent i'll try find out jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunker Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 It's so awesome ! amazing ! can that be re-written for Houdini ? Pretty impressive.... edit: I still have to wonder what kind of sim times they're getting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Netvudu Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 Whoa, that´s pretty cool. The chunks of ground simulation at the beginning really blew my mind, but everything was quite impressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
symek Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 Another, after Maya's nParticles, fully particle based physics engine. Massive integrator work but easy rules. I wonder if SESI has ever seen this as an option to dops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macha Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 (edited) It's very amazing of course but my Houdinibrain is wondering whether we couldn't replicate some of these things with velfield advected particles and stickyness attributes based on a voronoi noise or something. Edited July 20, 2010 by Macha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisux Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 It's very amazing of course but my Houdinibrain is wondering whether we couldn't replicate some of these things with velfield advected particles and stickyness attributes based on a voronoi noise or something. But before doing the advection you need a good solver, and this is what Lagoa is doing really well. the thing that really amaze me is that applications that compete with Houdini got most of their good stuff from 3rd party developers. Many of the best stuff in ICE is done by other people not autodesk, same for 3DStudio Max. BTW this video is trully impressive, and let you think if Houdini can compete with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratman Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 It's so awesome ! amazing ! can that be re-written for Houdini ? I'd say, not right now. Not because it's not capable, but it just couldn't compete with the speed. ICE was written from the ground up to be fast, like 8-12 months of dev of just optimized code. But yeah, I was quite impressed when I saw how far Thiago had taken this, this was originally the SPH solver. Then taken to a way different level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisux Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 I'd say, not right now. Not because it's not capable, but it just couldn't compete with the speed. ICE was written from the ground up to be fast, like 8-12 months of dev of just optimized code. Why not? This is a solver written for ICE, not ICE. You can write you own fluid solver, based on SPH, complitelly multithreading and using GPU in Houdini. It could be as fast as the stuff from Thiago. My only concern is why Houdini still don't have a fluid solver much faster that the current ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Netvudu Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 (edited) I also find moderately interesting that a big portion of Softimage´s user base (or maybe just the forums user base) are complaining about ICE being too technical and not artist-friendly...which was something to expect if you think about it. Imagine not being used to Houdini and starting out with VOPs...not the simplest way, methinks As a consequence it looks like ICE is starting to be regarded as a tool for the "big-boys" as opposed to the commmon user. Edited July 20, 2010 by Netvudu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiaranM Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 Why not? This is a solver written for ICE, not ICE. You can write you own fluid solver, based on SPH, complitelly multithreading and using GPU in Houdini. It could be as fast as the stuff from Thiago. My only concern is why Houdini still don't have a fluid solver much faster that the current ones. I would like to think so too. But, also might there be some bottlenecks going into or out of the solver node if the entire simulation architecture is not multithreaded etc? Also, his original version of SPH used only factory nodes AFAIK. Who knows how much of this relies on custom stuff? I think ICE has some long way to go to match the scope of Houdini, but it sure is easy to use for solving certain tasks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiaranM Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 As a consequence it looks like ICE is starting to be regarded as a tool for the "big-boys" as opposed to the commmon user. And also has piqued interest in users (like me) for Houdini... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntmonkey Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 I also find moderately interesting that a big portion of Softimage´s user base (or maybe just the forums user base) are complaining about ICE being too technical and not artist-friendly...which was something to expect if you think about it. Imagine not being used to Houdini and starting out with VOPs...not the simplest way, methinks As a consequence it looks like ICE is starting to be regarded as a tool for the "big-boys" as opposed to the commmon user. But not every "artist" develops tools. Just not how things work in production. What is more common is someone smart makes a great tool, like Lagoa, and with minimal training, someone can roll out shots. ICE lets you do this and adapt it to your shot. Wasn't this easy ages ago. In fact, it's not all that unusual in houdini-land. Someone sets up the networks, and someone else takes over with little understanding and is able to roll out shots. Not every warm body has to be able to write SPH solvers. Seem like a bit of jealousy and trying to knock dicks in the dirt. Brilliant dev work is brilliant dev work. -Lu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisux Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 I would like to think so too. But, also might there be some bottlenecks going into or out of the solver node if the entire simulation architecture is not multithreaded etc? Also, his original version of SPH used only factory nodes AFAIK. Who knows how much of this relies on custom stuff? I think ICE has some long way to go to match the scope of Houdini, but it sure is easy to use for solving certain tasks. If you implement it in DOPs definitely you will need to deal with some DOPS bottlenecks. I dont know what these bottlenecks could be. But my idea is to develop entirely in SOPs. You just read geo and solve it, just it. It is how many studios are developing their own solvers. And here you dont have bottlenecks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
symek Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 If you implement it in DOPs definitely you will need to deal with some DOPS bottlenecks. I suspect the biggest bottleneck of DOPs are POPs. Look at Flip Solver in H11. All particles origin in POPs and after that are send to the solver. I tend to assume this alone makes Houdini's life harder in multi-million particles simulations. The magic here is pure point-based environment. Such homogeneous world allows for many optimization. Everything is a point or a spring force . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Netvudu Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 ok Symek...eagerly awating for your Houdini version of this tool how long will it take, a week, a week and a half? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macha Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 ok Symek...eagerly awating for your Houdini version of this tool how long will it take, a week, a week and a half? Really? He's gonna do that tool for us? Wow, Symek! Such a kind soul! Take two weeks if you must! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisux Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 I suspect the biggest bottleneck of DOPs are POPs. Look at Flip Solver in H11. All particles origin in POPs and after that are send to the solver. I tend to assume this alone makes Houdini's life harder in multi-million particles simulations. The magic here is pure point-based environment. Such homogeneous world allows for many optimization. Everything is a point or a spring force . Well I said that you probably will have bottlenecks, but just guessing I dont know DOP too much to be sure about that. But I am sure you can make fluid solver complitelly in SOPs where you sacrify flexibility to get total control of data management and get speed. And talking about the point based solvers, is interesting how things are evolving, all the new stuff from maya is based on particle solvers, ncloth, nparticles, this amazing solvers from thiago the same, seems technology i tuning towards particle based solvers ... Ans yes, still not having multithreading in POP for H11 is something I am really missing in the new release. I would be happy with a new release if it will just add multithreading POPs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ykcosmo Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 So many alien on the earth... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 And talking about the point based solvers, is interesting how things are evolving, all the new stuff from maya is based on particle solvers, ncloth, nparticles, this amazing solvers from thiago the same, seems technology i tuning towards particle based solvers ... I say we just skip particles and go directly to Superstrings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.