Particle Random distribution changed between 2.74 and newer versions #46484

Closed
opened 2015-10-14 17:56:48 +02:00 by Antonio Buch · 12 comments

System Information
Windows 8.1
GeForce GTX TITAN Black
(Tested in other computer too)

Blender Version
Broken: 2.76 44f7dd6 (or 2.75)

Short description of error
When you open a 2.74 file in a newer version (2.75 or 2.76) the random distribution of the particles on a system change. So if you re-render an older project to add another view (I mean stereoscopic, as my case) the new render will have the particles in another position.

Steps for others to reproduce the error
Open and compare the attached file in 2.74 and newer versions or follow the steps to recreate the bug.

Particle_bug.blend

  • Open a new file with 2.74
  • Add a Particle System to the default cube
  • Set the number of particles low (5-10 particles), set the end of emission at 1.00. At Physics select No
  • Save the .blend file
  • Open the file in a newer Blender version and compare the distribution of the particles (Easier from camera view with wireframe display)
**System Information** Windows 8.1 GeForce GTX TITAN Black (Tested in other computer too) **Blender Version** Broken: 2.76 44f7dd6 (or 2.75) **Short description of error** When you open a 2.74 file in a newer version (2.75 or 2.76) the random distribution of the particles on a system change. So if you re-render an older project to add another view (I mean stereoscopic, as my case) the new render will have the particles in another position. **Steps for others to reproduce the error** Open and compare the attached file in 2.74 and newer versions or follow the steps to recreate the bug. [Particle_bug.blend](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F244954/Particle_bug.blend) * Open a new file with 2.74 * Add a Particle System to the default cube * Set the number of particles low (5-10 particles), set the end of emission at 1.00. At Physics select No * Save the .blend file * Open the file in a newer Blender version and compare the distribution of the particles (Easier from camera view with wireframe display)
Author

Changed status to: 'Open'

Changed status to: 'Open'
Author

Added subscriber: @antoniobuch1

Added subscriber: @antoniobuch1

Added subscribers: @LukasTonne, @Sergey, @mont29

Added subscribers: @LukasTonne, @Sergey, @mont29

AFAIK this is known and expected - we have issues with our random generator and threaded processes, and went through several steps and hacks (and even now not sure situation is totally under control)… @Sergey or @LukasTonne should know more about this?

AFAIK this is known and expected - we have issues with our random generator and threaded processes, and went through several steps and hacks (and even now not sure situation is totally under control)… @Sergey or @LukasTonne should know more about this?
Author

Known and expected... I hope we can find a solution. I have to render about 2500 frames that takes 20 minutes each for one eye and I already have the other eye rendered. Don't wont to render both views. And is for a commercial project, with deadlines.

If there's no fix to this, is there any build with Multiview but without this issue?

Known and expected... I hope we can find a solution. I have to render about 2500 frames that takes 20 minutes each for one eye and I already have the other eye rendered. Don't wont to render both views. And is for a commercial project, with deadlines. If there's no fix to this, is there any build with Multiview but without this issue?

Patching 2.74 codebase with multiview would be rather hard imho (though probably possible using git history), but as of finding some multiview build based on 2.74…

What you should be able to do, though, is rendering the other 'eye' in 2.74 (by adding yourself a second camera and all), and then use 2.76 to import both views and composite them?

Patching 2.74 codebase with multiview would be rather hard imho (though probably possible using git history), but as of finding some multiview build based on 2.74… What you should be able to do, though, is rendering the other 'eye' in 2.74 (by adding yourself a second camera and all), and then use 2.76 to import both views and composite them?
Author

That solution might be the only one... But the 3D camera has the Convergence Plane and the Interocular Distance animated through the hole scene. Replicating this with a second camera is tough but not impossible I think.

That solution might be the only one... But the 3D camera has the Convergence Plane and the Interocular Distance animated through the hole scene. Replicating this with a second camera is tough but not impossible I think.

Added subscriber: @brecht

Added subscriber: @brecht

It was probably this commit that changed the distribution: 86f80c481c.

If you can make your own build, removing that one line of code will probably give you the same distribution as 2.74, though I'm not 100% sure since there might have been other changes that affect your scene.

It was probably this commit that changed the distribution: 86f80c481c. If you can make your own build, removing that one line of code will probably give you the same distribution as 2.74, though I'm not 100% sure since there might have been other changes that affect your scene.

To be clear, we should not revert that commit. It changes the distribution back to what it was in 2.73, since the one in 2.74 was quite broken and generating overlapping particles / hairs.

To be clear, we should not revert that commit. It changes the distribution back to what it was in 2.73, since the one in 2.74 was quite broken and generating overlapping particles / hairs.

Changed status from 'Open' to: 'Archived'

Changed status from 'Open' to: 'Archived'
Sergey Sharybin self-assigned this 2016-01-26 16:01:08 +01:00

There were indeed some unavoidable changes in patterns which we needed to do in order to solve some other issues. Not much we can do for this one here actually.

Thanks for the report, but it was just relying on some broken logic of particles.. Closing now.

There were indeed some unavoidable changes in patterns which we needed to do in order to solve some other issues. Not much we can do for this one here actually. Thanks for the report, but it was just relying on some broken logic of particles.. Closing now.
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
Interest: X11
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#46484
No description provided.