I've been thinking about cg artist as RPG characters. Where people are at a level, and can level up with time or study. Each artist gets good at what they are mostly asked to do. Creature modelers get better at creatures, Lighters get better/level up with the renderer they use day to day.
In FX its interesting. There are specialties within the specialty of FX. I think of it as a mage character. You get to a certain point in the game and you can choose a more specific specialty. Dark, Light, Fire, Ice Mage whatever, something. FX is kinda like that. There are Particle specialist, Shader specialist, Fluid, Fire, Liquid, Deformation, Destruction etc. FX artist will learn in these and other categories. From time to time be further into one than another. Not that we can't do them all but people's experience make some a better fit for some jobs than others, "Specialists". Maybe its more like a thief character where we keep adding to our ability %'s.
I think about how you can keep pushing in one area but your improvement slows, like each level is double the current exp points. I think that is fairly accurate from games to real life "levels". hah NERD ALERT!!!
Indie Game Development & Tutorials. Primarily Maya and UE4. Now with a hint of Chinese 5 spice!
Fire test 1
Fire Test from destruct007 on Vimeo.
Test fire render. Just messing around, trying some things. This has no fluid texturing, and not even the best settings for the fluid sim. What seems to be working is that the fire looks good/sharp & soft w/o turning into smoke. Its got a good speed for film, not too fast but fast enough to feel more "real". Fire is also not that hard when its on a static object. I'm able to focus my resolution to only where its needed (300x200x80) and maximize its use.
Anyway I'm going to move away from the techniques I used to make this so I thought I'd share it as it stands now. I want to push the sim to be better, and. add more detail with adding texture coordinates... we'll see.
The compression really hurts it, lose a lot of the details. I tried this and another version to keep the detail. The glow looks like crap when compressed, I'll see if I can figure out a better way. Anyway here it us for now.
New demo reel!
demo reel, spring 2010 from destruct007 on Vimeo.
Its in HD so you can full screen it!
Extended Break Down (simple one is on the Vimeo)
2012: Josh Hatton & I did the Fluid sims, Chris Haney - Particles
Transformers 2: I dev the Meteors Apirak Kamjan and I implemented, Tank explosion was me & Talented Mark Renton in Comp.
Pirates 3: Maelstrom Lead Joakim Arnesson, Water Lead Paul Sharpe. I was under Paul, helped R&D and render shots. I helped R&D the fog. On the first shot I did the fog.
Wolverine: Eye Lasers me & Comp, probably made 75 versions of that. Destruction Josh Hatton, Zack Judson, & I Shatter/Debris Fluid sims, Kevin Brown Particle Volumetrics, Chris Haney made everything work.
Fast & Furious: Car is real and CG so added sparks, dust, debris, and CG car destruction.
The Covenant: "Assention" Magic was me & Chris Bradley, Comped by H Haden Hammond. The power ball was developed by me and passed on to H Haden Hammond & Dave Fedel.
Sky Captain: Plumes and explosions me & Comp, Rocket trails were developed by me passed on to Sean Applegate.
Nike Commercial: Tornado was me and Comped by Justin Johnson. Clouds are live action.
VFX Guild vs Union
The VFX town hall brought up the idea of a Union or Guild for VFX. Neither is a horrible idea, but in practice it's not always the best idea.
First no union until the companies get their act together, with a trade organization or something. Unions will only hurt. ILM stopped being a union shop not too long ago. I was/am still in the ILM and DreamWorks union IATSE.
I like the idea of a guild b/c it can be much less invasive and more like VES, but with a different goal. Guild could enforce legal practices, like no unpaid OT. Set some standards for artists, and smaller things to make some people lives better, who can't seem to make it better themselves... well that would be the idea anyway. In practice it'd probably be some b/c hassle that made it harder for new artists (like actors) to start working.
A union to me... get read for a negative review... Union to me feels like the charge a lot of extra$ to the company like pensions that are complete BS, and a lot of artist never see that money. They get crappy health-care, charge you $3k or more to join, and feel like they do nothing. Think about who runs a union, full time union people. Lame. For every full time employee that's the union/the artists who pays for them. Are they worth it? That's money that could be in your salary but its not. "Oh but unions get us better wages" No they don't. You still negotiate your rate, but now there is less play for the company b/c they already have and extra $15k/year on top of everything for union crap, most of which you will never see. They will make sure you get holiday and vacation days (or get paid extra for not), which is nice for sure. But a guild could do that too.
Another thing, I don't think the most Sr artist want or need the union/guild. The mid and jr level need it, b/c its easier for them to be taken advantage of. Basically I'm skeptical, and think artist should manage themselves, but that's another blog post.
Lastly a union will never happen, so its not really worth talking about. It only takes a few big companies to say we're a non-union shop. We don't hire union people, during hard times, and you'll see people fleeing the union in droves just like the editors union now. Guild can start out soft and build in power and influence... but the moment it becomes a negative on the resume, is the moment it's hurting not helping.
First no union until the companies get their act together, with a trade organization or something. Unions will only hurt. ILM stopped being a union shop not too long ago. I was/am still in the ILM and DreamWorks union IATSE.
I like the idea of a guild b/c it can be much less invasive and more like VES, but with a different goal. Guild could enforce legal practices, like no unpaid OT. Set some standards for artists, and smaller things to make some people lives better, who can't seem to make it better themselves... well that would be the idea anyway. In practice it'd probably be some b/c hassle that made it harder for new artists (like actors) to start working.
A union to me... get read for a negative review... Union to me feels like the charge a lot of extra$ to the company like pensions that are complete BS, and a lot of artist never see that money. They get crappy health-care, charge you $3k or more to join, and feel like they do nothing. Think about who runs a union, full time union people. Lame. For every full time employee that's the union/the artists who pays for them. Are they worth it? That's money that could be in your salary but its not. "Oh but unions get us better wages" No they don't. You still negotiate your rate, but now there is less play for the company b/c they already have and extra $15k/year on top of everything for union crap, most of which you will never see. They will make sure you get holiday and vacation days (or get paid extra for not), which is nice for sure. But a guild could do that too.
Another thing, I don't think the most Sr artist want or need the union/guild. The mid and jr level need it, b/c its easier for them to be taken advantage of. Basically I'm skeptical, and think artist should manage themselves, but that's another blog post.
Lastly a union will never happen, so its not really worth talking about. It only takes a few big companies to say we're a non-union shop. We don't hire union people, during hard times, and you'll see people fleeing the union in droves just like the editors union now. Guild can start out soft and build in power and influence... but the moment it becomes a negative on the resume, is the moment it's hurting not helping.
Rendering Fluids with higher than 1 Dynamic Attrs
Rendering Fluids with higher than 1 dyn attrs. from destruct007 on Vimeo.
Its not uncommon to sim and render fluids with dynamics attributes higher than 1, but that tends to lead to issues in shading and rendering since maya's internal fluid shader defaults to 0-1 value mapping. Yay! I mean, YAY there's a workable solution!The draw backs to this is not being able to see your ramps entirety, altho you could write a MEL script that just displays your ramp on another ramp...
The FX Process
Here's the thing. Its not about how did I or why did I do something in a scene. Its a process. I start with 1 fluid 1 emitter kinda low rez (50x50x50'ish) I turn everything on, b/c I know what I'm doing and what I want to make ;) I set only 3 attrs damp 0.01 swirl 10 temp turb 5, the second 2 are just the sliders all the way up. Playblast. Hmm looks like the fuel isn't burning fast enough, turn up reaction speed and turn down ignition temp. playblast. Hmm looks like temp isn't fading out now. Turn up dissipation. playblast. Nope not enough, turn up more. playblast. Hmm looks too regular.
make hypothesis.
I wonder if I separated the temp into a smaller emitter it would react differently with the fuel?
test, playblast, nope settings off. tweek, playblast.
ok thats kinda better not much but it's better. hmm uprez. playblast. ok now it needs more bouancy or something, tweek. playblast. Still looks kinda regular.
hypothesis
what if I make the fuel emitter separate and give it a really high value and strong turbulence?
test. ok all my settings are now off. Tweek playblast, tweek playblast, tweek playblast. Hmm ok that looks better.
the point is, why did I do something and is it "the way to do it?" is hard to say and very case by case. Thats why I think of it as "playing" its not a real shot, its kinda general R&D. No rules, try things. sometimes they work other times epic fail.
I can't talk and play at the same time b/c my mind is totally focused on, what settings have I changed? What settings are the animating settings/strongest influences to velocity? Where is the balance of fuel to temp? What are the last 20-50 changes I made? (not THAT much of an exaggeration) if I make 3-4 changes then playblast what were they, and what were the last good numbers? Remember you can't really undo too much with fluids b/c the timeline change will jack your computer.
If I'm at work doing tests and someone talks to me, it could be the end of that test. I can't remember what I was doing. Now I just see a bunch of settings, but I don't understand why I did that, hah.
So play, have fun, test out you ideas. Only experience will make you better. Keep testing and playing. Guess at how it works, test that guess and see if you are right. A failed test doesn't mean you are wrong it just means the test failed. I find a lot of times what I thought was wrong was right later, I just didn't do the right test.
make hypothesis.
I wonder if I separated the temp into a smaller emitter it would react differently with the fuel?
test, playblast, nope settings off. tweek, playblast.
ok thats kinda better not much but it's better. hmm uprez. playblast. ok now it needs more bouancy or something, tweek. playblast. Still looks kinda regular.
hypothesis
what if I make the fuel emitter separate and give it a really high value and strong turbulence?
test. ok all my settings are now off. Tweek playblast, tweek playblast, tweek playblast. Hmm ok that looks better.
the point is, why did I do something and is it "the way to do it?" is hard to say and very case by case. Thats why I think of it as "playing" its not a real shot, its kinda general R&D. No rules, try things. sometimes they work other times epic fail.
I can't talk and play at the same time b/c my mind is totally focused on, what settings have I changed? What settings are the animating settings/strongest influences to velocity? Where is the balance of fuel to temp? What are the last 20-50 changes I made? (not THAT much of an exaggeration) if I make 3-4 changes then playblast what were they, and what were the last good numbers? Remember you can't really undo too much with fluids b/c the timeline change will jack your computer.
If I'm at work doing tests and someone talks to me, it could be the end of that test. I can't remember what I was doing. Now I just see a bunch of settings, but I don't understand why I did that, hah.
So play, have fun, test out you ideas. Only experience will make you better. Keep testing and playing. Guess at how it works, test that guess and see if you are right. A failed test doesn't mean you are wrong it just means the test failed. I find a lot of times what I thought was wrong was right later, I just didn't do the right test.
Fields & Fluids
A work lesson I keep having to relearn.
If you use fields to push and force a fluids movements you open the door for unexpected and unnatural results.
Use fields sparingly. Think hard as to how you can get a fluid to move with only internal fluid dynamics (not the internal "turbulence") and weak motion fields. Sometimes it's turning a fluid in it's side so buoyancy is left or right. Sometimes its having a strong + temp and weak - density buoyancy.
I spent time doing a crack dust sim and kept getting crappy looking sim's. I played with all the settings, even conservatively went back and eased into it. I had a line of emitters along a curve and a turbulence field in the front to disrupt the "air" before the crack emission. The results were somehow unnatural, even at its best. Not to say I won't try it again but its not how dust would react in real life and it looks almost unconsciously fake when you see it CG. What I mean is, when a crack happens in real life there's no turbulent air on the leading edge of the crack, so adding one in CG doesn't help.
If you use fields to push and force a fluids movements you open the door for unexpected and unnatural results.
Use fields sparingly. Think hard as to how you can get a fluid to move with only internal fluid dynamics (not the internal "turbulence") and weak motion fields. Sometimes it's turning a fluid in it's side so buoyancy is left or right. Sometimes its having a strong + temp and weak - density buoyancy.
I spent time doing a crack dust sim and kept getting crappy looking sim's. I played with all the settings, even conservatively went back and eased into it. I had a line of emitters along a curve and a turbulence field in the front to disrupt the "air" before the crack emission. The results were somehow unnatural, even at its best. Not to say I won't try it again but its not how dust would react in real life and it looks almost unconsciously fake when you see it CG. What I mean is, when a crack happens in real life there's no turbulent air on the leading edge of the crack, so adding one in CG doesn't help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
I'm just going to make you tube vids. Not going to post here and there b/c its redundant. If you like'a dah posts, subscribe to my y...
-
Overburn technique video tutorial from destruct007 on Vimeo . From Peter Shipkov's Overburn technique (maybe not the first to do it b... -
I'm pretty happy with how this turned out. Water material for a low poly style.