but you can get very good results when you use 2d particles with motion blure
yeah sure, very good results, but I’ll bet they won’t be nearly as good as the pictures above. I could really use something like that plugin in blender. At the very least, a good way to render realistic effects.
Can we have the artisits post the render times and benchmark times so we all get an idea how computationally intense their entry is? Looking at Dynamite, I’ll bet the render times are extremely long. The best entries would also be a great section for the help manual or for tutorial.
I have seen fireballs just as good done in Blender.
I wish I could find whose gallery had the fantastic animation with an office building with it’s windows being blown out and a giant fireball… cinema quality.
Thanks! I was contemplating having a go, but I’m currently at uni and the workload is rather high! Six weeks holiday from next Saturday though, so that should be plenty of time.
Oh, and then I’ve also got to be composing the music for a friend’s film, and making some CG for it, and getting a job… :o
Just checking in and this deadline shift seems to have done wonders for people posting and entering.
grimey: I’ve had that in the entry requirements (blends and textures… must be posted after submission ends) from the beginning. I’ve just noted that the entrant must agree to allow a tutorial to be written about their work (or they can write it).
NeOmega: I checked out that RVK thing and that looks pretty neat, but it’s not exactly a tutorial, and since he described it as a underused feature, it probably isn’t that well known. Then again, I really had no idea going in to the article about what he was saying, and had none coming out either, so I may be referring to something very common. Still, I never said you have to use a particle system.
Rhysy 2: You seem to have heavily modified that blend (I know which one you mean, you also linked to it in your thread), so I’m sure that that makes it enough different to be able to call it your own
Time, though plentiful, is ticking away on this deadline.
Well it caught my imagination. So here’s my first attempt. Just some particle systems and some motion blur, but I think it comes together quite nicely – I still need to do a bit more work to it and fix the edges of the main explosion.
It’s a way to animate without armatures, simply by changing the shape of a mesh. The only requirement is the mesh has to have the same number of vertices throughout the animation.
wijt looks really good, the best I have seen yet, I noticed you had an extra particle system that made it look like it was glowing. VERY nice, looks really good.
Shifting the deadline…thanks now I can participate too…
Here’s my 2 cents for starting (levelling the playing field):
To get a nice explosion read uppon the real physics in the real world:
first there’s a lot of matter getting pulverised (sneeze)
the cloud created by this matter reaches a critical point
the matter reaches a critical point at which it ignites, from the outside in or from the inside oude depending on the chemicals (FOOOOM)
Smoke or “new matter” appears due to the chemical reaction (burning).
Pieces that were in the explosion get out at random at the "FOOOOM"stage.
Depending on the size of the blast there might be a shockwave of air.
Now go script this in Python or use the particle systems and make a great render
(I’ll get to it when I have the time… probably over the next week-end or so).
)