Rafal123 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 I just wonder maybe some of U tried to do stuff like in Star Wars? The scene with the racers, U know all those big jet engines connected together with "lighting stuff" and then broke down in the crash. p.s many views and no answers, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anakin78z Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 no, but it sounds like fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafal123 Posted March 14, 2006 Author Share Posted March 14, 2006 whooaahh man, it doesn't explain anything but... beer for U coz the first answer in this topic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stu Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 When breaking stuff up in DOPs, I found that the most time consuming part was actually pre-dissecting the geometry into what would eventually become the individual pieces upon destruction. I also found it convenient to do a switch right before the moment of destruction between the intact geometry and the dissected geometry in order to speed up the simulation time (if there is simulation taking place before the collision) and to avoid any rendering artifacts introduced by the cracks in the geometry. One of the great thing about DOPs is that you can control the timing of when things fall apart by setting an activation keyframe and by controlling how strong the "glue" is between the pieces. In a case like the Star Wars pod racers, I'd probably tackle just the larger pieces with physical simulation and spew a much simpler particle system for the smaller bits in order to fill out the effect, using the bigger pieces as the source. And then there's the pyro, which is a whole other story... ps. Can I have a beer too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thekenny Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Stu, you left out the bit about using a cloth system with higher stiffness settings to get the crumpled metal look. then you do the pyro -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafal123 Posted March 14, 2006 Author Share Posted March 14, 2006 aaaaaaaa... beer for everyone, thanks for info Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stu Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Stu,you left out the bit about using a cloth system with higher stiffness settings to get the crumpled metal look. then you do the pyro -k 25634[/snapback] Oh yeah...isn't there a demo somewhere with a DOPs simulation that has the pieces getting deformed upon impact? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Oh yeah...isn't there a demo somewhere with a DOPs simulation that has the pieces getting deformed upon impact? 25637[/snapback] If you look at the helpcard for the SOP Solver, there is an example of using particles to dent geometry. The POP Solver helpcard has an example of using the POP shapematch DOP to do a squishy object. There are no Star Wars examples, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thekenny Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Oh yeah...isn't there a demo somewhere with a DOPs simulation that has the pieces getting deformed upon impact? 25637[/snapback] don't know, but if you watch the extra disk in Episode I ( I refuse to call it by the other name ) You will see some crash example and workups froM ILM and it looks like a cloth sim to me -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peship Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 it's softbody + springs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thekenny Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 it's softbody + springs 25646[/snapback] isn't that just another name for cloth :whistling: -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peship Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 yes with few differences The softbody+springs thing is focused on PP control over the geometry and springs can "undeform" it back to the initial position, or make it dynamicly fallow deforming rest geometry. cloth is focused on ... cloth simulation. actually the latest version of syflex brings some of the best features from both worlds - using magnet constraint one can make clothGeo to fallow deforming rest geo, etc. - the best feature of Syflex . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafal123 Posted March 15, 2006 Author Share Posted March 15, 2006 whoosssaaa, I think U people really like beer Many infos here, so it's time to crash something 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.