Flood Or Underground Explosion???

[cherm]

Hi to all,

The thing is that I am now trying to sort out my ideas for my Master Project, and I have two main ideas in mind. One is to do the flood heavily rushing in the underground tunnel, and two is to make the road (or whatever) explode, which is caused by underground explosions. For my master project, I have to use the computer with Houdini 8.2 in the Uni's lab, and its CPU is not that super powerful, so I am quite worried about simulating particles for the flood with the time contraint given by my tutors. The point here is that if I go ahead with my flood project.....Do any of you guys think it's a wise idea to do it with Houdini 8.2 and not super powerful computer? Please give me some suggestions. By the way, both ideas, there are some dynamics involved as well.

thanks in advance to all

cherm

[Vormav]

Hi to all,

The thing is that I am now trying to sort out my ideas for my Master Project, and I have two main ideas in mind. One is to do the flood heavily rushing in the underground tunnel, and two is to make the road (or whatever) explode, which is caused by underground explosions. For my master project, I have to use the computer with Houdini 8.2 in the Uni's lab, and its CPU is not that super powerful, so I am quite worried about simulating particles for the flood with the time contraint given by my tutors. The point here is that if I go ahead with my flood project.....Do any of you guys think it's a wise idea to do it with Houdini 8.2 and not super powerful computer? Please give me some suggestions. By the way, both ideas, there are some dynamics involved as well.

thanks in advance to all

cherm

Personally, I wouldn't do the flood. CPU power is only half the problem. As of 8.2, Houdini just isn't well equipped for that sort of simulation, especially if you're hoping to get fine details. I think it will be a different story come H9, but that's kind of the way things stand right now. You can do it: There are lots of hacks for pulling off fluid shots without full-blown fluid dynamics. But it would be a very painful process.

The other project sounds like it fits into the current Houdini toolset much better. And I think it also sounds like it could also lend itself to more procedural approaches, which I think you want if you're going to be showing off Houdini work.

Just my $.02

Edited June 23, 2007 by Vormav

[cherm]

Personally, I wouldn't do the flood. CPU power is only half the problem. As of 8.2, Houdini just isn't well equipped for that sort of simulation, especially if you're hoping to get fine details. I think it will be a different story come H9, but that's kind of the way things stand right now. You can do it: There are lots of hacks for pulling off fluid shots without full-blown fluid dynamics. But it would be a very painful process.

The other project sounds like it fits into the current Houdini toolset much better. And I think it also sounds like it could also lend itself to more procedural approaches, which I think you want if you're going to be showing off Houdini work.

Just my $.02

Thanks for the input. I totally agree with you.

By the way, just out of a pure curiosity, how would you pull off fluid shots with H 8.2?

[Vormav]

I think I'd try animating a simple surface moving down the tunnel using a combination of keyframing and expressions. Then I'd emit as many particles from that surface as my machine could handle, probably varying emission rates according to the velocity of the emission surface. There would probably need to be several layers of particles for additional effects like mist. But the idea would be that in a fast, heavy flood in a confined area like a tunnel, the water is flowing so quick and chaotically that the overall motion of the underlying mesh isn't too important; it's just there to drive the emission of the particle layer that gives the fluid that frothy, turbulent look.

Or maybe I'd try using the Interact POP to create the main surface, instead of hand animating it. It'd probably need to be run with a really low resolution, but it'd just be used to get a main surface that behaves just a bit more like a fluid. I'd then bake out a mesh from that, and keep adding layers and layers of particles on top of it as before.

[cherm]

I think I'd try animating a simple surface moving down the tunnel using a combination of keyframing and expressions. Then I'd emit as many particles from that surface as my machine could handle, probably varying emission rates according to the velocity of the emission surface. There would probably need to be several layers of particles for additional effects like mist. But the idea would be that in a fast, heavy flood in a confined area like a tunnel, the water is flowing so quick and chaotically that the overall motion of the underlying mesh isn't too important; it's just there to drive the emission of the particle layer that gives the fluid that frothy, turbulent look.

Or maybe I'd try using the Interact POP to create the main surface, instead of hand animating it. It'd probably need to be run with a really low resolution, but it'd just be used to get a main surface that behaves just a bit more like a fluid. I'd then bake out a mesh from that, and keep adding layers and layers of particles on top of it as before.

You're so smart man!. I used to do some water simuation in RealFlow before, but I have never done the photo-realistic flood before. I might need more advices from you if I decide to do the flood. Thanks once again.