Blender Flip Fluid Addon - Resolution Comparison Test 2
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 08. 2024
- Here is some more testing with different resolutions with the FlipFluid Addon for Blender. The scene is rendered with Cycles with 128 samples and denoised.
0:00 Resolution 32
0:36 Resolution 64
1:10 Resolution 128
1:45 Resolution 256
2:20 Side By Side Comparison - Krátké a kreslené filmy
Starts looking pretty good at 128 but 256 looks great.
Looks like you really only need 128 until you are getting really close! I can only imagine how long it took to bake 256 res
@@pappi8338 probably took about 4-5 hrs to bake at 256.
Yes but 32 is amazing for lowpoly style animations so it’s great to see the difference like this
@@BlenderRookie F or C?
@@katinjegat f or c ?
for the 256, make sure to randomize the particle size and generally just make the particles smaller. The white water will look so much better!
How to randomize the particle size in Flip though?
@@GlebAlexandrov Pretty sure you can set the size to be randomized in the particle settings.
@@bj124u14 Cool, thanks for the tip.
Wow, such a nice comparison! I love how it looks at 256 :)
very nice rendering, and white water particles as well!
Thanks for sharing this vid. very Interesting to see the results of resolutions.❤❤👌👌
Could you add the render time as a statistic next time to show the scale of these projects. Took 12 hours for me to make a much simpler project.
Yes, good idea.
why do i find it so satisfying
Thank you for your effort bro
Wow you can really hear the PC fans working hard in this video
I need more, more resolution! MMOOOORRE
128 sure seems to be the sweet spot. Doing a test run now of 256 and it's painfully slow, even using the command line to bake/render
128 is perfectly fine. Nice stuff.
Great! Helped me a lot. Where did you found the sound of the water? sounds great
There are many free sounds you can find on the internet. Then I edit these a bit.
Nice one
Cool! Could you tell me your PC specs, and how long did it take to render each frame approximately? Also, is this the ocean volumetric water you're using on these simulations? Thanks!
Hardware:
GPU: Nvidia Geforce RTX 3080
CPU: Intel i9-12900k
RAM: 32GB
The render time for one frame was very quick, i think it was about 20-40 seconds. The shader is just a white glass shader and some blue volumetric absorption.
@@blendus94 how long u simulated 256 edition?
My pc cant even write properly 😭
Thanks for this , I did some stuff with bifrost and exporting the alembic skin about 7 years ago? the results seem to be nicer for less resolution as far as I can remember, that also was not the fastest to render out, from what you say here this is faster.
The 64 video is basically game-ready if you skinned it, the 128 good enough for hero scenes. very nice.
@@blendus94 20-40s per frame seems very slow. With my FluidX3D software I can do the 128 resolution equivalent in real time :D
Demos are on my YT channel.
Nice
at this point it's basically how good of a computer you have 😭😭😭😭😭😭
As a complete beginner I find this extremely interesting just one question I can't get this spray and foam even at lower resolutions like 64, did you used the upres option ?
yeah you just need to set a higher resolution
if only the foam was more real, i mean it behaves strangely, like stays in place and wiggle, kinda like smoke, as if it was "floating" on water
can you tell me how to make a water material like this? it looks really cool
after that, i feel like i could pass hours staring at a water pool in the middle of the rain
I wonder how these simulations are adjusted when it takes like an hour to simulate. Changing the settings at a lower resolution for previews I feel makes it behave differently so adjusting settings sounds difficult
If you have a fast cpu with enough cores (like a nice EPYC) or use the gpu this can be done really fast, well under an hour. If you want to do this on your 3300X then yeah it will take a while.
There are specific algorithms for this. In many modern simulations, the resolution of particles can be dynamically adjusted via an algorithm. Particles that move less (like particles at the very bottom in a corner) are using a lower resolution while particles with more movement (for example ones that are directly at the surface) use a higher and more exact resolution. The simulation may not be 100% accurate in its physics, however it's often still more than enough for something like entertainment purposes.
@@jamegumb7298 you can use the gpu with flip?? i have a 3060ti!!!
Nice! How long those took to simulate?
For the heaviest simulation about 1,5h.
Good video ! Could you show the project (like composition parts and the foam, bubbles and stuff settings - the fluid settings in general) thanks !
It's all on default settings, I just changed the resolution.
Looks great . Render time must have been a killer long time!
Hey quick question, how long did baking took for those setting?
you mean baking its physical settings?
Between 15 and 90 minutes.
Was kinda hoping for 512 and 1024 :P
Looks like I’m not rendering anything higher than 128 😅
1:46 I wish this kind of simulation was possible in realtime.😪
how did you get sounds
Wish we could download the file and check our own systems with it. Does RTX 3090's high VRAM help in rendering?
the render itself it probably used 1gb per frame, but a 3090 would help render it really fast.
1:49 Ouch that storage usage...
Are these just animations or does it work like a cfd model, what data can you collect from this?
Blender isnt Abaqus 😅
Blender is more for animations and good looking stuff. You can extract some speed vectors to change the color for example but its not build for cfd models.
onli i see strange that between 64 and 128 is pretty huge quality increase ? I mean if u look 2:28 and compare 32 and 64 - the first blobs are like looks ok... 32 they are big, on 64 they like 2x smaller... but if compare 64 and 128 they like more than 2 times smaller
fr 32 and 64 look like gelatin and 128 and 256 actually look like water
128 top!
how much time did it take to render or backe?
Max bake time about 1,5h and rendering like 2-4h for one scene I think
Nice! how big are the pipe or the wall?
Thanks!
I think the walls are about 0,5m thick.
@@blendus94 Thanks!
wow
hi, how long to calculate the heaviest scene?
Hi, I think it was under 1,5 hours
@@blendus94 Whats your graphics card
@@animalcity974 RTX 3080
@@blendus94 only 1.5 hours? I was expecting 15days
@@rsunghun yeah, the new Intel CPU rocks
Dope! A tutorial maybe?
Yes, if I have time for this.
The simulation with the resolution of 64 didnt even look that bad with the whitewater particles
Where did you get the sound.
There are many sites you can get sounds from, for CZcams I used copyright free sounds and mixed them up.
@@blendus94 could you name a few? Currently working on my own water Simulation.
64 look good on the eye and grafics vard 😂
I don't have enough life time left to render this.
Baking this on i5 would be a pain :(
Plz add render time too😊
Is this physically accurate ? Like engineering accurate?
Directly from Flip Fluid:
In general, the simulator should not be used for scientific/engineering purposes where accuracy and validation is important. The simulator and simulation method is designed for use in computer graphics applications where complete accuracy is not needed and the fluid just needs to look 'good'. Many shortcuts are taken during simulation in order to reduce processing time which also reduces simulation accuracy. Some of the features/parameters in the simulator are not physically based, do not correspond to real-world physical values, and are just graphics tricks to help produce visually pleasing results. The simulator will not contain many of the parameters that you would find in a simulator aimed towards producing scientific/engineering simulations.
How do you get Flipfluids. Is there a Version that's not pay!
Yes, FlipFluids is available on Github and you can compile it on your own.
Ok
@@blendus94 Give us a video tutorial about that or simply shush you... even with detailed text based descriptions on their own page (which is still heavily insider style even if it might not seem to some developer people) it seems mind bogglingly brutal. "I can compile on my own" my bum.
@@Gary_Hun If you can't just pay up. Compiling is not that hard. In fact it is really easy. Install 3 build tools, run the build script. And one "heavily insider style" "developer people" tip, install MSYS2, it has both the compiler, GNU Make and the CMake built in as long as you follow the install steps.
@@Gary_Hun compiling is ez
sorry OOT question.
is flip fluid a paid add on?
Well, you can pay for it and support the devs if you can afford it or compile it yourselfe. Check the GitHub page for more information.
Fluid simulation is free. Included in the Blender software.
I think amd threadripper+3090 is needed for 256 resolution
Although I believe the Threadripper is discontinued, I know as I have the 1920x. Was planning on upgrading cpu, but not sure now. Angry that this was discontinued so quick.
I have one running at 1024, dosnt look nearly a detailed as yours :(
I'd assume the scale is set differently somehow, like a small high res simulation might be less clear than a large low res one
damn, how long did that take?
Between 15 and 90 minutes for baking.
@@njdotson makes sense, my scene is a motion tracked Outdoor scene that get flooded. So the scale is quite big, dang :/
84 gb was the best I wish I could but my pc can't even take 5 gb 💀
128 is where it starts loking really good, 256 is even better, though 64 is acceptable already I would say.
Is that fluid simulation?
How has water been modelled?
Yes, it's a simulation done with Blenders Flip Fluid Addon.
@@blendus94 nice brother! How was it modelled?
@@mozayn2378 Its simulation bro..i think this is auto...just set source water and It Will flowing like water
GG GPU XD
512 probably burns the pc
Almost as good as Houdini.
128 and 256 are too much white
Looks like bubble water
84gb???
hello???
I mean, 256 is literally just real life.
The first two shots are too unrealistic
True, but it's good for prototyping.
123