Smoke Simulator support for emitting from Particle Children and Trail #30013

Closed
opened 2012-01-28 22:11:19 +01:00 by Kai Kostack · 11 comments

%%%This patch fixes ignoring of particle settings like children and trail by smoke emitters. I think it's necessary to support those for serious special effects work to get rid of those smoke "bubbles" produced each frame by very fast moving objects like rockets and explosion debris, especially in highres domains. Currently only the key position of a particle is used for smoke emitting and this only per cell not even taking into account the particle's radius.

I threw some heavy scenes at it and it seems to be stable. I have also added a patch for children support only, since it's much less invasive than the trail code and therefor should be easier to review and can serve as alternative.

A simple test scene and screenshot is added as well.%%%

%%%This patch fixes ignoring of particle settings like children and trail by smoke emitters. I think it's necessary to support those for serious special effects work to get rid of those smoke "bubbles" produced each frame by very fast moving objects like rockets and explosion debris, especially in highres domains. Currently only the key position of a particle is used for smoke emitting and this only per cell not even taking into account the particle's radius. I threw some heavy scenes at it and it seems to be stable. I have also added a patch for children support only, since it's much less invasive than the trail code and therefor should be easier to review and can serve as alternative. A simple test scene and screenshot is added as well.%%%
Author

Changed status to: 'Open'

Changed status to: 'Open'

%%%Assigning to Daniel. :) The screenshot looks promising, thanks for that Kai! %%%

%%%Assigning to Daniel. :) The screenshot looks promising, thanks for that Kai! %%%
Member

%%%Looks nice.

Just one thing: You're mentioning that Smoke is not even taking the particle radius into account. This is correct. But your statement sounds like you have a patch to fix that, too? :-) Otherwise, I would add that code.

Thanks for the patch, very usefull indeed.
Will apply after review.%%%

%%%Looks nice. Just one thing: You're mentioning that Smoke is not even taking the particle radius into account. This is correct. But your statement sounds like you have a patch to fix that, too? :-) Otherwise, I would add that code. Thanks for the patch, very usefull indeed. Will apply after review.%%%
Author

%%%No, I'm afraid I have no further code for particle size. I just hope performance won't suffer to much from filling in spherical volumes like this in highres domains. Although I think it's something expected to be implemented. So, thanks in advance to you too. :)%%%

%%%No, I'm afraid I have no further code for particle size. I just hope performance won't suffer to much from filling in spherical volumes like this in highres domains. Although I think it's something expected to be implemented. So, thanks in advance to you too. :)%%%
Member

%%%Will have to re-check this patch before commit since at least "trails" make no sense and are also buggy ("ChildParticle *cpa= &psys->child[p-totpart];" results in a negative index).
I am also unsure if trails make any sense since "trails" mean that you are actually rendering the particles. So if you are drawing the particles in the render, why do you need smoke? Smoke uses particles only to determine where to emit smoke. And using "trails" acutally mean that you end up with halos from the rendered particles in addition to the simulated smoke.

Stil have to review the child particle patch.

%%%

%%%Will have to re-check this patch before commit since at least "trails" make no sense and are also buggy ("ChildParticle *cpa= &psys->child[p-totpart];" results in a negative index). I am also unsure if trails make any sense since "trails" mean that you are actually rendering the particles. So if you are drawing the particles in the render, why do you need smoke? Smoke uses particles _only_ to determine where to emit smoke. And using "trails" acutally mean that you end up with halos from the rendered particles in addition to the simulated smoke. Stil have to review the child particle patch. %%%
Member

%%%@ Kai: I just commited the child particles potion of this patch. Thank you very much!%%%

%%%@ Kai: I just commited the child particles potion of this patch. Thank you very much!%%%
Author

%%%I'm unsure about the bug at the moment too, since I didn't look at the code again. But I can show you an example where emitting smoke from trailing particles can be useful. Check the bubble-example image I attached, that might illustrate my first explanation better.

I didn't care to much about the halos since I always ended up having halos there when I set up a new particle system for a smoke simulation. I get used to the habit to just put the particle system in a different layer to get rid of the halos. But I think you are right about the fact that the way how particle render/display options work with the patch is quite confusing. My suggestion would be to make the option for particle trails also available when the render option is set to none. That way you can use it just like single particles as smoke emitter and the UI would make sense again. And most importantly you can easily disable halo rendering again, of course.

I'm still convinced that they would be a useful additon. They are like motion blur for smoke.%%%

%%%I'm unsure about the bug at the moment too, since I didn't look at the code again. But I can show you an example where emitting smoke from trailing particles can be useful. Check the bubble-example image I attached, that might illustrate my first explanation better. I didn't care to much about the halos since I always ended up having halos there when I set up a new particle system for a smoke simulation. I get used to the habit to just put the particle system in a different layer to get rid of the halos. But I think you are right about the fact that the way how particle render/display options work with the patch is quite confusing. My suggestion would be to make the option for particle trails also available when the render option is set to none. That way you can use it just like single particles as smoke emitter and the UI would make sense again. And most importantly you can easily disable halo rendering again, of course. I'm still convinced that they would be a useful additon. They are like motion blur for smoke.%%%
Member

%%%Hello Kai,

I didn't want to be blund :) And I can see your reasoning now. I love the idea of having the possibility of trails without rendering them. Will have to check with jahka though. %%%

%%%Hello Kai, I didn't want to be blund :) And I can see your reasoning now. I love the idea of having the possibility of trails without rendering them. Will have to check with jahka though. %%%

Added subscriber: @dfelinto

Added subscriber: @dfelinto

Changed status from 'Confirmed' to: 'Archived'

Changed status from 'Confirmed' to: 'Archived'

Hi, thanks for your patch.

We are undergoing a Tracker Curfew where we are automatically closing old patches.

If you think the patch is still relevant please update and re-submit it. For new features make sure there is a clear design from the user level perspective.

Hi, thanks for your patch. We are undergoing a [Tracker Curfew ](https://code.blender.org/?p=3861) where we are automatically closing old patches. If you think the patch is still relevant please update and re-submit it. For new features make sure there is a clear design from the user level perspective.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Label
Interest
Alembic
Interest
Animation & Rigging
Interest
Asset Browser
Interest
Asset Browser Project Overview
Interest
Audio
Interest
Automated Testing
Interest
Blender Asset Bundle
Interest
BlendFile
Interest
Collada
Interest
Compatibility
Interest
Compositing
Interest
Core
Interest
Cycles
Interest
Dependency Graph
Interest
Development Management
Interest
EEVEE
Interest
EEVEE & Viewport
Interest
Freestyle
Interest
Geometry Nodes
Interest
Grease Pencil
Interest
ID Management
Interest
Images & Movies
Interest
Import Export
Interest
Line Art
Interest
Masking
Interest
Metal
Interest
Modeling
Interest
Modifiers
Interest
Motion Tracking
Interest
Nodes & Physics
Interest
OpenGL
Interest
Overlay
Interest
Overrides
Interest
Performance
Interest
Physics
Interest
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Interest
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Interest
Python API
Interest
Render & Cycles
Interest
Render Pipeline
Interest
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Interest
Text Editor
Interest
Translations
Interest
Triaging
Interest
Undo
Interest
USD
Interest
User Interface
Interest
UV Editing
Interest
VFX & Video
Interest
Video Sequencer
Interest
Virtual Reality
Interest
Vulkan
Interest
Wayland
Interest
Workbench
Legacy
Blender 2.8 Project
Legacy
Milestone 1: Basic, Local Asset Browser
Legacy
OpenGL Error
Meta
Good First Issue
Meta
Papercut
Meta
Retrospective
Meta
Security
Module
Animation & Rigging
Module
Core
Module
Development Management
Module
EEVEE & Viewport
Module
Grease Pencil
Module
Modeling
Module
Nodes & Physics
Module
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Module
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Module
Python API
Module
Render & Cycles
Module
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Module
Triaging
Module
User Interface
Module
VFX & Video
Platform
FreeBSD
Platform
Linux
Platform
macOS
Platform
Windows
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Normal
Priority
Unbreak Now!
Status
Archived
Status
Confirmed
Status
Duplicate
Status
Needs Info from Developers
Status
Needs Information from User
Status
Needs Triage
Status
Resolved
Type
Bug
Type
Design
Type
Known Issue
Type
Patch
Type
Report
Type
To Do
No Milestone
No project
No Assignees
4 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: blender/blender#30013
No description provided.