Archived post by SniperJake945

you can get some neat effects by adjusting the above code too, like a weighted max, with just a constant y value for the gradient can give you this like pillars rising up effect: “`c vector g = volumegradient(1, 0, @P); //taking the gradient from the second input,
float intensity = ch(“intensity”); float dx = length(v@dPdx); //voxel size; g *= dx; //scale our vector by voxel size float samples = chi(“samples”); float out_val = @density; float weights = 1.0; for(int i = 0; i <= samples; i++){ float u = i / float(samples); //0 -> 1 vector sample_p = v@P + g * u * intensity; float value = volumesample(0, 0, sample_p); float w = smooth(-.1, 1, 1 – u); //in theory this should be a gaussian, because its a better falloff, but yolo out_val = max(out_val,value * w); //weighted max
} @density = out_val;// / weights; “`

Attachments in this post:
http://fx-td.com/houdiniandchill/wp-content/uploads/discord/20222908/22/22/unknown.png

Archived post by will

Here is another go a squash and stretch, I calculated the distance between two points and then scaled a joint in-between.

I have added some shape controls on the rig vop, something to play with

Attachments in this post:
http://fx-td.com/houdiniandchill/wp-content/uploads/discord/20220908/11/22/2022-08-11_09-30-05.mp4
http://fx-td.com/houdiniandchill/wp-content/uploads/discord/20220908/11/22/squash_and_stretch.hiplc

Archived post by Peter Sanitra

Re, the difference in volume look on Karma vs Karma XPU. XPU renders at 0.25 step rate by default, and there is no control for it on the ROP, unlike regular Karma CPU. So if you have Regular Karma, have switched volume step rate to 1 on ROP, then your XPU volumes gonna looks “shitty”, compare to that. Way to get nice crisps volumes on XPU is to drop Render geometry settings node and set step rate manually to 1. I`ve seen lot of post about how XPU volumes are ugly, compare to “their engine”, how they lack detail. Yep, they do , when you render at 1/4 res…

Archived post by Lorne

friends can I get a sanity check on ocean toolkit workflow? I’m doing a guided ocean tank style thing here, simming a chunk of ocean around a ship, meshing and extending the geo to render with the ocean spectrum…I’ve written out my spectrum.bgeo file along with my spectrum_mask.$F4.bgeo files and yet I still get double displacement happening in the simmed region

I may actually see where I’m going wrong here, one sec

ok yay

in case anyone is up against this I’ll add some search tags here: ocean spectrum toolkit displacement mask double guided tank simulation sim
the tools will initialize your ocean spectrum setup looking like this and asks you to write out the single frame master .bgeo file that contains the spectrum data, you DONT want this one if you’re simming a chunk inside the spectrum
what you need to do is resave the spectrum again from the nodes that get created to import and mesh the simmed ocean slice…I had stupidly assumed this spectrum was no different, but it is

Attachments in this post:
http://fx-td.com/houdiniandchill/wp-content/uploads/discord/20221606/12/22/unknown.png