Need help with Bullet physics and octane render



  • After getting used to the octane render plugin, I find it extremely efficient. its lightning fast and provide high-quality renders.

    I started using bullet physics and to my demise found out that when I open octane's viewport, it ignores the simulation that took place in poser (and renders properly in poser + seen in poser's preview).

    I first thought I should ask otoy's support. that's the answer I received from paul:

    0_1529331050473_27ad9b0b-7181-4c74-a863-2e77983fe586-image.png

    I guess its been years since than, and there's no hope for a fix :(. did any of you guys is also using octane and managed to somehow bypass this problem? I would really like to continue rendering most (if not all...) of my renders in octane. superfly takes 10 times to render the very same scenes (and not with a better result).

    here is a sample of the problem: as you see, the socks have been through some BP simulation, but when I render in octane - it acts as if no simulation is in place at all:

    preview in poser:

    0_1529331229322_89c7647e-4add-4287-8d42-878c5dedbbfa-image.png

    what octane catch:

    0_1529331249262_b71b28d2-8983-4d58-a39b-46b604b8ab55-image.png

    there must be some way around it...

    thanks in advance, people <3



  • Update:

    I figured out that if I export the cloth AFTER the simulation as OBJ, and import it back to the scene - it keeps its deformation. this is a quick solution for still image art renders. I wonder if I can do the same with a full animation simulation...



  • @gsfcreator you'd have to export an obj for every frame.



  • @ghostship that will be a too-insane solution, for thousands of frames worth of animations...can't use that rout, unfortunately :(.


  • Poser Ambassadors

    Actually it would be trivial to write a Python script to do just that. Given a list of props requiring this handling, the script would export the prop(s), hide the original(s), import, reapply materials (two lines of code), run the renderer, save the image, delete the imports, restore visibility to originals, loop to next frame. Excluding the UI (which would be quite a pain to write) the actual work involved would be no more than 20 lines of code. I'm notorious for underestimating, so call it 100 lines. Still one day's work.



  • @bagginsbill I have zero knowledge/experience in writing python scripts, bagginsbill :-( the only thing I know about python, is to click on them when I use them...

    for this, a summon of one of the poser elder gods is required...(ahhmmm ahmmmm... ;) :) ).

    its a shame. two months ago i was reluctant to use octane. I purchased it only because I needed a native spherical camera. then I dived in, and now I'm in love with this render engine. its not perfect but its a decent beast nonetheless.



  • @bagginsbill said in Need help with Bullet physics and octane render:

    Actually it would be trivial to write a Python script to do just that. Given a list of props requiring this handling, the script would export the prop(s), hide the original(s), import, reapply materials (two lines of code), run the renderer, save the image, delete the imports, restore visibility to originals, loop to next frame. Excluding the UI (which would be quite a pain to write) the actual work involved would be no more than 20 lines of code. I'm notorious for underestimating, so call it 100 lines. Still one day's work.

    Wish I could learn to code like this. I wouldn't even know where to begin.



  • @bagginsbill plus unit test, plus code and steering committee review, plus marketing input, plus scope creep, plus infrastructure and utilities disasters, plus recovery from corrupted backups... let's call it a nice round 10 months. ;-)

    Oh, and forgot the most important factors: works best with infinite stack and zero memory leaks!



  • One of Ottoy's support team told me that if poser can export FBX - i might be able to import it to the octane standalone and render.

    I know poser exports FBX, just never did it before. does anyone knows if FBX will contain the bullet physics simulation information?



  • @gsfcreator said in Need help with Bullet physics and octane render:

    One of Ottoy's support team told me that if poser can export FBX - i might be able to import it to the octane standalone and render.

    I know poser exports FBX, just never did it before. does anyone knows if FBX will contain the bullet physics simulation information?

    I've been reading the manual and trying to get a handle on Bullet physics for a few days now. As best as I can understand, you can save an object to the library with it's Bullet Physics settings intact, HOWEVER, you will need to resimulate when you import it into the scene. I will ASSUME that means that as long as the scene you import it into is a Bullet Physics simulation or the program at least SUPPORTS Bullet Physics, like Blender or Maya, then the answer is yes.



  • @eclark1849 I still have something to try. exporting as OBJ and then import works for a single file...but you can also export OBJ as an animation...I think this might work. I'll you people posted.



  • @gsfcreator said in Need help with Bullet physics and octane render:

    @eclark1849 I still have something to try. exporting as OBJ and then import works for a single file...but you can also export OBJ as an animation...I think this might work. I'll you people posted.

    Good luck with that. You're using the term OBJ, but in Poserspeak that means as a Wavefront Object file. In my experience with Poser that usually just turns everything into a statue.



  • @eclark1849 it does! but won't it turn it into a DIFFERENT statue for each and every frame? I won't be able to animate it, but my plans are to use it just as a tool to get octane to render the result of the BP simulation.

    there must be a solution(!).


  • Poser Ambassadors

    @gsfcreator
    There is a simple solution - do not use live simulation, but use calculate. Live Sim is only for preview. Make sure you have end frame set in both bullet and poser and that you have a saved scene (calculate requires a saved scene to work).
    I cannot upload video here, so showing some frames.

    0_1529877039641_frame00001.png
    0_1529877052270_frame00008.png
    0_1529877070611_frame00014.png
    0_1529877085426_frame00016.png
    0_1529877102791_frame00022.png



  • @wimvdb I did calculated the socks simulation - but I used live BEFORE i did the calculation (and reset it). does that matters? octane still didn't got the simulation. thanks, wim! :)



  • @wimvdb posting YouTube links will embed them in your post


    If you create a free YouTube account, and upload an animation, you can just copy the link to the animation and paste it directly into your forum post. Don't use the link icon, just paste the link and it gets embedded, so it can be previewed in the forum without needing to download a link.



  • @anomalaus how did you created that smoke? :D



  • @gsfcreator you can check out this thread: SuperFly Volumetric Breath Water Vapour Shader Not Clouds for the prop development saga, and this one: adding 'flying perspiration' post render for the simplified volumetric scatter shader.



  • @anomalaus Thanks, man! I'll check it out! though I'm not getting anywhere near superfly. I don't know if something is wrong with my poser. maybe it's not really using the GPU? I need a way to test it...but when I try to render with superfly two things happens:

    1. it slows down my entire pc, which is a quite a beast (I have no problem rendering with Octane, while working on photoshop/premiere at the same time and still have my browsers open without the slightest of lags. but with superfly? I can't even TYPE in my scrivener without lags when this guy's on. it makes no sense ;.

    2. it's slow...like...unfathomably slow.

    something must be wrong with my poser specifications.



  • @gsfcreator I'd suggest you search this forum for render settings threads. There is lots of information out there, but until you find a comparison thread which looks at what various settings do, it's almost too much to take in. For instance, Bucket Size. Lots of people have systems with top-end GPUs that can make use of large bucket sizes efficiently. I'm on a Mac. AMD GPU support is severely wanting to the point that I don't get the choice to render with GPU (apart from hardware acceleration of Preview shading). It took me some thrashing with a simple scene and looking at the Message log and it's information on how long renders took to work out that large bucket sizes actually took longer to render (despite having 32GB RAM in my system). I even tried really small values, but it turned out that the optimal render efficiency came with the default of 64, on my iMac.

    This is one of those things that the manual could do much better on, by describing a 'vary a single parameter then measure' process. The manual is also sadly lacking in sufficient examples of a type which will help the user learn for themselves, and also missing comments on how to use specific shader nodes and what render settings (bounce limits of various types) relate to that shader.

    I've just found myself having to trawl blender sites for cycles documentation on how to properly use the SuperFly HairBSDF node. Unlike the FireFly Hair node, which pretty much does everything, HairBSDF has two different "Component" settings, Reflection and Transmission. To get the full effect, you actually have to use two HairBSDF nodes, one for each Component, and then use a MixClosure node to combine them, with the mix factor driven by either the Transmission or Reflection output of a LightPath node (A fact which was still unstated in the Cycles doco due to it's blinding obviousness to the documentation writers [yet took me a while to infer/guess])!


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Graphics Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.