Realflow Cliff Waves test

Airman note. This was originally posted by by Jared Magneson Today at 4:13 pm on the Possible Charged Particle Field thread. I moved it here.

Airman wrote.

https://vimeo.com/302801955

Photon_Gravity Demo. https://vimeo.com/277391470. This vimeo shows photons– with differing spin directions - traveling side by side, brought together – collisions - by gravity – definitely worth studying.

PhotonStory (A1, X1, Z1, Y1 spins) Pt3_trails_web. https://vimeo.com/276665562 . I like your photon trails.

CO2_Vectors_PB1. https://vimeo.com/221169462. Very interesting. CO2 migration above the planet? Care to elaborate?

Thanks Jared. Nevyn must speak for himself, I'm happy with it. I’m sure our possible charge field particle engine (CPIM) progress isn’t keeping many readers on the edge of their seats. The addition of a cyclic polygon to a particle engine is of questionable value. Your positive feedback is greatly appreciated, feel free to be more critical.
 
For example, I'd say you're learning, don't be so modest. Your Realflow Cliff Waves test is quite nice. The physics of water flow is - I assume - ridiculously complicated. I can see the volume of water released onto the shore, unseen barrier walls prevents any water from escaping in any direction other than to the right. The water distribution is very convincing, the varying water colors definitely make the water easier to see. Please excuse my critical presumption, if you can, expand your coding skills a bit, try turning the promontory rock formation into the prow of a trireme ship; see if you can get the water to lift the ship.

///////////////////////////////////// Jared's reply follows.

LongtimeAirman wrote:I recall asking if you had any scenario ideas that we might include in CPIM - I’m greatly tempted to turn your Photon_Gravity Demo vimeo into a new CPIM scenario. If you don’t object, please share your technical details.

No problem, I believe we made that one together (Nevyn, you guys) here on another thread but I'm not certain. I may have made it specifically for a certain debate; I can't recall right now. But it seems like something I would have needed Nevyn for, in terms of theory (and Miles too obviously). I'm not always very good at that stuff and get stuck a lot.

I pulled up the file. If I recall, we were trying to show that even if two photons traveled side-by-side due to gravity at the very quantum level, their tangential velocities could prevent them from ever "sticking" together, or accreting. Once contact is made, their spins (even only at the A1 axial level) would launch them apart quite rapidly, if not immediately upon contact with each other. I'm not sure how useful it actually is, just a concept diagrammed into motion for further analysis.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Your Realflow Cliff Waves test is quite nice. The physics of water flow is - I assume - ridiculously complicated. I can see the volume of water released onto the shore, unseen barrier walls prevents any water from escaping in any direction other than to the right. The water distribution is very convincing, the varying water colors definitely make the water easier to see. Please excuse my critical presumption, if you can, expand your coding skills a bit,

Indeed, that's how the simulator works. You give it an invisible "kill volume" shape, such as a large box or cylinder, where the liquid particles live inside and won't escape, and then import the various meshes for collision (shoreline, rocks, spire). The shape in that video is a collision mesh I sculpted based on my final, detailed mesh for the scene, and then I run the simulation and cache the fluids/liquids, import them into the main scene in Maya, and render the shit out of it:



It's just a personal art scene, and the scale of the water simulation is still way off to create some nice rolling waves and foam and spray. A long way to go, but you can see how the water simulation in Realflow ends up looking in Maya, after I shade it and apply various particle shaders and metaball the entire thing into a mesh as well. And in that older Work-in-Progess I didn't like the castle so I started modeling a new one:



Four or five more unique structures like this and I'll get back to working on the Realflow water simlation, finish this picture up!

Maybe I should just start another thread to discuss the other videos more? Maybe just a repository thread for such discussions, so I don't pollute this thread further?

.
That's beyootiful. A tower is way more complex than a silly old prow. Apparently one climbed the tower by the exterior spiraling steps - many of which have been lost due to time and waves. Need more structures eh? Pollution - nonsense.

Yep, this needs its own thread. I'll try moving it.

Success.
.

.
Sorry Jared, that was more messy than seamless.

Back to the subject, great renderings. I repeat, it's beyootiful.

The Realflow Cliff Waves test shows realistic storm wave/cliff behavior. Then you incorporated it into your personal art scene. What is the extent of your art scene? Does it run in Maya, I don't recall seeing any vimeos like the scenes above, or the excavation site uncovering the giant holding the crystal globe. Are the cliff structures, tower, sea and sky just still images. I hope you don't mind my asking, are you making a game world?
.

LongtimeAirman wrote:.
Sorry Jared, that was more messy than seamless.

Back to the subject, great renderings. I repeat, it's beyootiful.

The Realflow Cliff Waves test shows realistic storm wave/cliff behavior. Then you incorporated it into your personal art scene. What is the extent of your art scene? Does it run in Maya, I don't recall seeing any vimeos like the scenes above, or the excavation site uncovering the giant holding the crystal globe. Are the cliff structures, tower, sea and sky just still images. I hope you don't mind my asking, are you making a game world?
.

Thank you for the compliments! I didn't intend to drop my artwork here or promote myself in that way at all, but don't mind the discussion for what it's worth on its own.

All of that was rendered and modeled in Maya, except for the wave-flow simulation which was done in Realflow after I exported a lower-poly "base mesh" from Maya for the fluid/particle sim to collide with in Realflow. You know, so it would cloer match the final scene when I re-imported the fluid/particle sim back into Maya for rendering.

You won't see any of that on Vimeo, however, since animations are VERY taxing. It takes about 2 hours on an 8-core PC to render the main image above, still nowhere near finished. So to do an animation like that at 30 frames-per-second (FPS) would take 60 hours (2.5 days) for each second of animation. Not feasible at all. If I piled all my computers together for network-rendering it would still take at least 15 hours per second, and my electricity bill would spike heavily as well.

All of my animations for physics and whatnot are rendered using Maya's Viewport tech instead of the full, "photoreal" raytracing engines I use (V-ray and mental ray), so those render in realtime effectively once the particle or fluid simulation is cached. So a 30-second animation outputs in about 30 seconds, which is much more like a video game. Currently, video game engines don't use anything close to raytraced rendering tech (even the newest cards are only barely doing raytraced reflections, and cost $1K and more to be effective), though many of them look really good. It's not the same monster though. It's the difference between film and video games, basically, and Maya is used extensively in every special-effect you've seen on the screen for about 20 years now.

Here are a couple more examples of the artwork I do with Maya:






That last one was an attempt to recreate a painting I own, using Maya instead. An exercise. Using instancing techniques I was able to push some 50 billion polygons through the rendering engine, and back then that was a pretty big jump forward, and the technique was very useful in my more modern works. I don't know why but I tend to just do landscapes and pretty flowers and stuff in my art, despite my world being very far from peaceful.

None of what you see is pre-made in any way. I model everything myself, and texture them using photographs I take myself, and sometimes it gets very tedious. Some of those pictures took my years to create. Slow going. Thank you again for the compliments, now it's time to get back to work!

Hey Jared....really nice work! I'm in awe. It really stands out. Impressive in fact.

Btw, I could imagine the "frustration-wait" for renderings to finish on a slower machine.

Thanks, Cr6! Yes, it's quite tedious at times, but I've mitigated render-times considerably using a new rendering engine called Vray. Previously, I used mental ray exclusively (both are plug-ins for Maya itself). Vray has a nice "progressive mode" where you just give it a timeframe, say 10 minutes for a test or 60 minutes for a deeper render, and then it brute-forces the rendering for that amount of time and you get better results faster. So my prototyping is much quicker now. Here's an example rendering of an upcoming nuclear-test fake animation, part of an essay I'm writing on how they faked those nuclear test videos: