Meshing of fluid particle system doesnt appear to capture cavities properly on a plunging wave. #73447

Closed
opened 2020-01-28 04:18:02 +01:00 by Nicholas Hemsley · 21 comments

System Information
Operating system: Linux-5.3.0-26-generic-x86_64-with-Ubuntu-19.10-eoan 64 Bits
Graphics card: GeForce GTX 1070/PCIe/SSE2 NVIDIA Corporation 4.5.0 NVIDIA 435.21

Blender Version
Broken: version: 2.83 (sub 1), branch: master, commit date: 2020-01-27 06:02, hash: 65e42d7b32
Worked: (optional)

Short description of error
Meshing of fluid particle system doesnt appear to capture cavities properly on a plunging wave.

Exact steps for others to reproduce the error
Open the attached wavepool.blend. Bake Data in the domain object.
You will see the particles appear to break in a plunging fashion, indicating a cavity in the particle system, where the wave is breaking.

Click on Bake Mesh. The baked mesh appears to 'join' from the crest of the wave, to the particles adjacent in the z dimension.

Not sure if this is possible, but it would be nice.

**System Information** Operating system: Linux-5.3.0-26-generic-x86_64-with-Ubuntu-19.10-eoan 64 Bits Graphics card: GeForce GTX 1070/PCIe/SSE2 NVIDIA Corporation 4.5.0 NVIDIA 435.21 **Blender Version** Broken: version: 2.83 (sub 1), branch: master, commit date: 2020-01-27 06:02, hash: `65e42d7b32` Worked: (optional) **Short description of error** Meshing of fluid particle system doesnt appear to capture cavities properly on a plunging wave. **Exact steps for others to reproduce the error** Open the attached wavepool.blend. Bake Data in the domain object. You will see the particles appear to break in a plunging fashion, indicating a cavity in the particle system, where the wave is breaking. Click on Bake Mesh. The baked mesh appears to 'join' from the crest of the wave, to the particles adjacent in the z dimension. Not sure if this is possible, but it would be nice.

Added subscriber: @rezu

Added subscriber: @rezu
Sebastián Barschkis was assigned by Nicholas Hemsley 2020-01-28 04:22:27 +01:00

particles.png
Particles only.

mesh.png

results of meshing view. Note Particle radius of 0.01 (1cm?), Cavity upper of 0.5

![particles.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F8306809/particles.png) Particles only. ![mesh.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F8306810/mesh.png) results of meshing view. Note Particle radius of 0.01 (1cm?), Cavity upper of 0.5

Screenshot from 2020-01-28 14-25-58.png

Cavity lower/upper of 0.01 & .015

![Screenshot from 2020-01-28 14-25-58.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F8306816/Screenshot_from_2020-01-28_14-25-58.png) Cavity lower/upper of 0.01 & .015

This comment was removed by @rezu

*This comment was removed by @rezu*

This comment was removed by @rezu

*This comment was removed by @rezu*

wavepool.blend

Test case blender file

[wavepool.blend](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F8306917/wavepool.blend) Test case blender file
Member

Added subscriber: @JacquesLucke

Added subscriber: @JacquesLucke
Member

Changed status from 'Needs Triage' to: 'Needs User Info'

Changed status from 'Needs Triage' to: 'Needs User Info'
Member

It looks like the resolution of the mesh is simply not large enough to capture this kind of detail. You might also want to plain with the Particle Radius property.

image.png

Please check if a higher resolution mesh solves this issue.

It looks like the resolution of the mesh is simply not large enough to capture this kind of detail. You might also want to plain with the `Particle Radius` property. ![image.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F8307153/image.png) Please check if a higher resolution mesh solves this issue.

Thanks.

I will look at this tonight.

Thanks. I will look at this tonight.

I have a feeling this is a wontfix, however:

I think what is happening is that the velocity of the particles up the face of the wave, cause a gap in the particle grid. This may be excacerbated by the particle grid size.

I will test with a smaller domain with more packed particles, (at the moment it is at 256 particles for the domain over 30m(?) )

Attached are screenshots illustrating the gap in the particle field under a cresting wave. This is looking out from within the fluid, through the face of the breaking wave. You will notice to the left of these images, where the crest has not yet broken, the particle field is not broken.

Thanks!

Screenshot from 2020-02-01 20-49-33.png

Screenshot from 2020-02-01 20-49-51.png

Screenshot from 2020-02-01 20-50-16.png

Screenshot from 2020-02-01 20-49-55.png

Screenshot from 2020-02-01 20-49-12.png

I have a feeling this is a wontfix, however: I think what is happening is that the velocity of the particles up the face of the wave, cause a gap in the particle grid. This may be excacerbated by the particle grid size. I will test with a smaller domain with more packed particles, (at the moment it is at 256 particles for the domain over 30m(?) ) Attached are screenshots illustrating the gap in the particle field under a cresting wave. This is looking out from within the fluid, through the face of the breaking wave. You will notice to the left of these images, where the crest has not yet broken, the particle field is not broken. Thanks! ![Screenshot from 2020-02-01 20-49-33.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F8315646/Screenshot_from_2020-02-01_20-49-33.png) ![Screenshot from 2020-02-01 20-49-51.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F8315645/Screenshot_from_2020-02-01_20-49-51.png) ![Screenshot from 2020-02-01 20-50-16.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F8315644/Screenshot_from_2020-02-01_20-50-16.png) ![Screenshot from 2020-02-01 20-49-55.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F8315643/Screenshot_from_2020-02-01_20-49-55.png) ![Screenshot from 2020-02-01 20-49-12.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F8315642/Screenshot_from_2020-02-01_20-49-12.png)

Added subscriber: @ideasman42

Added subscriber: @ideasman42

@sebbas could you confirm if this should be considered a bug or not?

@sebbas could you confirm if this should be considered a bug or not?

Changed status from 'Needs User Info' to: 'Needs Developer To Reproduce'

Changed status from 'Needs User Info' to: 'Needs Developer To Reproduce'

Changed status from 'Needs Developer To Reproduce' to: 'Needs User Info'

Changed status from 'Needs Developer To Reproduce' to: 'Needs User Info'

@rezu Would like to check if this is still an issue. Not sure if the attached file is the correct one - the "Generator" object was not doing any movements for me.
Can you try to reproduce the issue with the latest master?

@rezu Would like to check if this is still an issue. Not sure if the attached file is the correct one - the "Generator" object was not doing any movements for me. Can you try to reproduce the issue with the latest master?

I'll have a look at this within the next few days.

Just gotta dust off my desktop machine.

I'll have a look at this within the next few days. Just gotta dust off my desktop machine.

There is no generator per-se, just an inflow which is a body of water which falls.

There is no generator per-se, just an inflow which is a body of water which falls.

Trying this with blender-2.91.0-7cd2c1fd2e7a

I cannot get plunging wave mechanics with my existing files.

Perhaps a config change, that affects something like viscosity/mass & causing it to not behave the same. Clutching at straws here though..

I will try to recreate the file, but this may be in a while, if you want to close this, do so. I can re-open if this is still the case.

Thanks

Trying this with blender-2.91.0-7cd2c1fd2e7a I cannot get plunging wave mechanics with my existing files. Perhaps a config change, that affects something like viscosity/mass & causing it to not behave the same. Clutching at straws here though.. I will try to recreate the file, but this may be in a while, if you want to close this, do so. I can re-open if this is still the case. Thanks

Changed status from 'Needs User Info' to: 'Resolved'

Changed status from 'Needs User Info' to: 'Resolved'

Mmh, interesting. It could be because there were some changes to gravities in 2.90.
Will try to recreate the scene too and reopen if I find something odd. Thanks!

Mmh, interesting. It could be because there were some changes to gravities in 2.90. Will try to recreate the scene too and reopen if I find something odd. Thanks!
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
5 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#73447
No description provided.