what is the problem here???

[Ivaylo Katev]

yes, the behavior of the sharpness parameter was changed, to achieve the old appearance you need sharpness below 0.5.
do you prefer the old result?

[themaxxer]

ok, good to know... no i must say that this new parameter is better, to have more details is always good the in this case i have to lower the whole splash and foam parameters i guess.

[themaxxer]

hi, i have an idea for a better splash simulation... wouldn't it be cool to have a threshold to exclude small droplets from creating a trail of splashes filling up the scene? a parameter/threshold with a min size for creating splashes. are there other parameters you changed in the latest build wich could change my scene behaviour? also would it be verx cool to have more influence in controlling where splashes appear... like velocity, curvature, age thresholds... in the piture i send you is a thing i can't achieve in my scene. aedge of splashes falling down. the splashes have to appear over the whole edge not only at certain points. do you know what i mean?

[Ivaylo Katev]

well, we have really bad experience with the concept "provide all the possible controls , and the users will find the correct way". our goal is to make the product easy to use, perhaps we will introduce similar UI concept like in vray (different UI for the beginners and the experts) , but for now we will keep the UI as simple as possible. if you find that is not good the small droplets to leave splash particles, this will be given in account in our improvements of the splash birth, hopefully without introducing more options. the perfect solution should provide the desired effect (splash over the entire waterfall edge) only with tweak of the birth threshold. if this is not happening, we have to improve the birth mechanism until get it working. so, would be better to show us your results and to think how to improve them changing the settings or changing the splash birth mechanism.

[Paul Oblomov]

Direct foam birth mask Both volume and planar.

[themaxxer]

i understand your way and it's a good way. thank you for such a good piece of software. i only wanted to help you as a user. it's not that you have to do these changes only for me and i understand that you struggle with many users with problems. thank you that you still listen to proposals of me

to paul... is this a wish you have for phoenix or a suggestion what i have to do?

[Ivaylo Katev]

it's not that you have to do these changes only for me

well, as i said we started the product with the concept to give as many controls as possible, assuming that the users will find the correct settings, and it was totally disaster. the users can't try all the possible combinations, however the most important reason is that once decided to export the different internal constants as user options, we leave general issues to exist instead to fix them. one example - there is a parameter called "vorticity", and the existence of this parameter seems to be pretty good, it allows the user to adjust how turbulent to be the smoke, isn't it? but is not. this parameter is a patch on general issue of the grid simulation called "numerical dissipation" we would be very happy and even proud to find a way to *remove* this issue and therefore the vorticity option itself. actually exactly the suggestions to make the vorticity options "more powerful", by mapping it by temperature, smoke, etc were the breaking point, when the concept "they will find the way" was abandoned. instead mapping of the vorticity, we started to look for solutions to decrease the numerical dissipation, and we introduced the multipass advection method. the situation now looks pretty similar. you are not satisfied by the splash birth, and you suggest to introduce mapping by curvature, velocity, etc. my suggestion is to explain us how you imagine the correct splash birth, to show us an image how it looks now, and let us to try to improve the splash birth. don't worry that "it's only for you", it's not. all the users are trying to reproduce the real water, it's the ultimate reference.

[themaxxer]

hi there... now i'm testing the motion blur of the phoenix generated mesh and the splashes. as you can see on the picture on the left side i rendered a part of the mesh with a vray cam and on the right side i rendered only the splashes. why is the mesh motion blur lighter not so long and softer than the splashes motion blur??? it's the same cam with the same settings. does phoenix handle deformable meshes other than the splashes? i think the streaks motion blur generates should be the same. i enabled every velocity channel. what can i do to get the same long streaks with the mesh and the splashes?

[Ivaylo Katev]

the liquid seems to have no motion blur at all. are you sure the velocity is present?

[themaxxer]

yes i am sure that i enabled the velocity channel in the liquids, foam, splashes and output tab. i checked it again. with the velocity multiplier raised up to 8 in the liquids tab i got some kind of the same motion blur, but it's not correct. i would like to have it treatet the same as the splashes vice versa looking through the vray cam. are there still problems with deforming meshes and motion blur? also small droplets don't generate average motion blur.

[Ivaylo Katev]

can you send us the cache file?

[themaxxer]

hi there, sorry for my late response... do you mean i should upload 1 .aur file? it is over 500mb in size

[Ivaylo Katev]

the support will give you a ftp account, we have one for such cases

[themaxxer]

ok, but sorry for my question... where can i find that and how do i do that? thanks in advance

[Ivaylo Katev]

write to support@chaosgroup.com and explain them the situation, they will guide you how to upload the file