You're blocking ads, which pay for BlenderNation. Read about other ways to support us.

69 Comments

  1. ok any on tell me how he did that? not the smoke the explosion, did he use explode modifier which only turns mesh into scraps of 2d triangles for me or did he "glue" together those individual objects? and use the trajecytory script on each one?

  2. Wow!!! Next to the new architecture, additions like these will make Blender truly compete with its commercial alternatives. I'm really curious how Blender's future from 2010 and onward will look like! Keep 'em coming!

  3. what if Roswell alien technology DNA was added to bender code development.Wow! ---------------------Nah..
    Pps. smoke only work on better graphic card instead of cheap graphic card.

  4. I know what you mean, we've been looking at how to scale up houdini's simulation resolutions over our farm and blender just 'does' it!!! Wow. :D

  5. myselfhimself on

    @random
    you can make such an object explosion (not for the smoke) with a mix of explode modifier + particle modifier with some option. This is probably what he did. Lookup the Internet for a tutorial on that.

  6. myselfhimself THANKS

    even though i got to do a little research that's the best answer i've received. appreciated :)

  7. WOW, so is this for sure going to be implemented in 2.5 or is this just one of those crazy custom builds put up on the SVN? Please do something like this for fire!!!!

  8. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

    This was one thing stopping me from using Blender in production.

    --
    Kevin

  9. Greatness added upon excellency. Now if they would just make a simple script that would allow one to define units better... to make import/export to other apps more accurate/easy/efficient.

    And an october release for first version of the new system is quicker than I anticipated. Thanks Team!

  10. Very awesome!

    Now my only question is "How long did it take for the to calculate the simulation for that smoke?" If it is anywhere as slow/memory intensive as water it will require an impressive studio computer to make any use out of it.

  11. @wispyred
    What kind of hardware is required?? navidia Quadro??
    I have an nvidia 9800gt- Q9300 OC 2.7- RAM 8gb 1066- I reach real time but much les resolution.
    ------
    other thing, those are particles? I mean the debris. . . because dont cross the floor (no se como decir atraviesan o rtaspasan) or are rigid bodies?

  12. @random-
    To me it looks like he's done a physics sim using separate objects, using the game engine and an initial velocity to calculate them. An explode modifier wouldn't be able to get the bits rolling around on the floor right, and it would also tend to make the inside edges look a bit funny. Of course, he could also have done it entirely manually if he had enough time on his hands- which I certainly don't- and going by how you expect the internet to jump at your command and answer all your questions instantaneously neither do you. Seriously, we're too busy drooling at this new functionality to notice or even care about some random who can't even take the time to use basics like spelling or grammar...

    Marbar, crusader for the English language

  13. It's looks nice but what I would love to know is :

    - how long did it take to bake, then render

    - if it really is realtime and depend on the hardware, how restrictive is the hardware requirement ?

    - is it something that can be unified with other volumetric projects from Blender ? (because that would be awesome)

    - is it available for testing and where can I find a test .blend ?!!!!!! :D (omg I peed myself gotta clean up)

  14. @aws357:

    1. There's currently no caching/baking for the smoke simulator, but I'm guessing for the ~125 frames in this simulation he averaged somewhere around or slightly below 1 fps (I can't say for sure though). What the artist did was capture every frame in the viewport and then compose it into a realtime video. And this is not rendered, it is a viewport preview that allows you to rotate around the volume like any other model.

    2. It is not realtime, but most people are getting decent framerates depending on their hardware and the complexity of the simulations. You'll need some pretty nice hardware if you want fast results (more than 2 gb RAM, greater than 2 GHz processor), but the developer, Daniel Genrich, recently posted a 400% speed improvement.

    3. Yes. The sim_physics branch with volumetric rendering hasn't been merged with 2.5 yet but will be down the road. Otherwise there would be no point to this :)

    4. Yep. Get the latest 2.5 build at http://www.graphicall.org, and you can find a sample file at http://www.wxtools.com/wp/

  15. Today my screen was scratched, sob sob...but this puts awsomeness back into my day!!! thanks!

    You hear realtime and you think, hmm... a supercomputer could run Lux in real time... what hardware is this going to cost me?.. but shock on me!
    excellent stuff!
    __________________________________________________

    paypal is as illeagal in my country as what your granny takes on a sunday afternoon!

  16. Very interesting stuff. One thing that Blender has an advantage over Houdini is the simulation feedback speed. Dont know the accuracy for this smoke and how well it works with other dynamic effects but many times speed is the key and exact realism comes second. Alos really interesting to see that everything has gone so well when looking back one year. It seems it was planned all along to be apart of Durian. Cool!

    http://www.blendernation.com/realistic-smoke-coming-to-blender/

  17. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

  18. O.0 that was so AWEsome. Never seen anthing like it. Daniel is a very great programmer. I like to grow up to be like him.

  19. Wow.. Seeing the video is one thing, but getting the current svn build and seeing the example file is completely awesome !
    Hardware requirements seem to be surprisingy reasonable: Animation preview with calculated smoke movement is still fast enough for a preview, on low smoke resolutions, and graphics hardware isn't an issue: a gf8800 is able to draws the smoke in the viewport in realtime.

  20. hmmm I noticed after a while, the speed comes down and blender gets bogged down even with no animation going... bug it seems. animation starts of at about 10~15fps then after a few animation runs you cant even get 1fps. I know it's beta so I'm not suprised just mentioning.
    ____
    Vista32 ATI:3200HD build:22326

  21. Wow, that was amazing. I can't wait for it to be released! I think 2.5 could finally push Blender into the mainstream, and a direct competitor with the big names. Keep those features coming!

  22. @hitechboy722:
    I've noticed it aswell. however this seams normal. Every fluid/gas simulation gets slower after it gets more complex. Realflow has the exact same thing :) If u have 200 particles generated over time it gets slower.

    I hope we can cache it all some time soon :D

  23. Nice But...

    As a casual observer and not an expert in Blender not 3d animation, I do see an an issue with the way the smoke is generated. The smoke appears to be generated or at least tied to three shell fragments after the initial explosion. For me, this looks as though the fragments are the source of the explosion and not just the results of one. Wouldn't it be better for the smoke to originate and act independently of the shell fragments? In real life, the smoke is from the burning of the explosive material and not from the encapsulating material, unless that material also caught on fire.

    Just my observations.

  24. @John:

    Theoretically you could tie the smoke to invisible empties. I think that perhaps the reason why it is tied to the fragment is that the fragment pulls the smoke along after it because moving things create a low pressure vortex behind them.

    But you are right.

    It doesn't look quite realistic. I'm sure that better results can be obtained though with a little more tweaking.

  25. Sounds to me that Blender needs an "Atmosphere" object that is basically unbound in which physical properties can be varied throughout. An example is varrying air pressure in different quadrants to create air currents. This would allow collisions to act on objects like making trees move instead of moving the tree to make it look like there is wind.

    Also, in an explosion, pressure behind an object is greator that pressure in front of it so it's not really possible to to "draw" smoke with it on it's path.

Leave A Reply

To add a profile picture to your message, register your email address with Gravatar.com. To protect your email address, create an account on BlenderNation and log in when posting a message.