Are there any news yet? Hope this thread don’t die eventually
See this post, from developer of Fracture Modifier:
Yeah, I read that, but I was hoping for some fresh news If there was something regarding the topic recently, maybe something I have missed. It’s already been a month since last post in this thread.
I guess asking the devs about it would help more. Like Jacques Lucke about the rigid body improvements.
It might also help to create a design task or is it straight forward? ( would also shine a light on the problem.)
Ha! This thread and the FM will never die. We are still in active development of the FM and related technologies. We have been talking about what we can and should share from our current tests so y’all don’t get too restless.
BTW, other projects are claiming to have some alternatives in development but IMO they are no where close to what FM 2.79x already has and will not be close anytime soon if ever. So we have been talking about releasing some developer preview toys to play with to attract more programmers to collaborate on the new technology we have in the works. Releasing some preview toys will show that any other team’s efforts are of no comparison IMO. You will hear about any developer previews here first on this thread.
Ya, we are watching Geoemetry Nodes and other developments. Speaking of which, Hans Goudey has started early work on an OpenVDB based Voxel Remesher node like what Scorpion81 did in a modifier patch that was submitted for review which is in part FM technology. Hans has not reached out to Scorp or the team yet even though to me personally it seems like he’s basing his new node work on Scorp’s already extensive modifier work.
Which by the way, Hans and unmentioned people in a “meeting” we knew nothing of decided to reject that patch and close it as abandoned in favor of doing it in a node at a later date. Keep in mind, users could have had use of that modifier for two years ahead of getting it in a node of unknown quality. Check out that link and all the tokens and compliments that original patch got then come back and finish reading the wall of text, lol.
So coordinating with blender core devs is not as easy as it sounds @3DArtGuy as you can see in Hans not reaching back out to Scorp over the new node remesher even though Scorp has months of work invested in that rejected patch and gave a template on how to use the technology. Thanks for the thoughts to help though, they are greatly appreciated always.
You and others might want to check out this current thread on the mailing list to have more insight on what the experience is like for some who expend their valuable time trying to collaborate with Amsterdam.
[Bf-committers] The Story Of My Attempts At Contributing Code To Blender
I just recently reached out to Scorp about Hans’ work and lack of outreach and we regularly talk about Geometry Nodes which we monitor closely. So we are still evaluating how and when we will interface with Amserdam in a way that doesn’t waste our valuable time at their sole benefit IMO.
Keep in mind we are also working on an external to blender “bridged” version of the FM which is a long term project we have mentioned here before. It entails a very large set of features, settings and constraints tools Scorp and the team took years to develop the algorithms for in the internal version. So in my best Higlander voice, “There can be only one!” So don’t lose your head over cheap immitations of the real thing, the Fracture Modifier technology is immortal and not dying off! ; )
For a tasty treat, Scorp’s been working on the dynamic fracture technology which is coming along very nicely. So here’s a recent test video Scorp shared with me on that technology’s progress.
Dynamic Fracture collision size test video:
OMG this looks nice i cant wait for this. i really hope blender devs will wake up finaly and see how important this is for blender since physics in blender still sucks !!! T_T this should have been added in since 2.8 !!!
when do you think this will be available in latest blender?
Hi, Hans here. I honestly find the spite in your message hard to understand. The idea of calling out my communication in public when I haven’t heard anything from you is just off-putting. From my perspective the situation seemed the opposite-- You may see a “lack of outreach” by me, but I saw a “lack of outreach” in that patch and more generally about the necessary changes to contribute this in Blender. I’ve actually had this thread open in a tab for a couple days after I noticed you talking about openVDB here. I was meaning to get in touch, because working together on similar topics seems like a great idea!
I realize you may have felt burnt by communication with the BF in the past, but since that’s before my time, I don’t have any of the background. I’ve been spending a lot of time trying to coordinate contributions from community members, and I’d like to continue doing that. So I’d like to move past all the above and try to get physics in Blender improved!
I’ll respond to the points more specifically below:
I’m actually hoping it can be useful for more than just a remesher, I see proper support of level sets as something that could be useful in lots of other places. With the volume object and geometry nodes, they can be another data type, just like meshes and curves, supported in simulations, sculpting, procedural effects, etc. To me that sounds awesome!
The patch was indeed the inspiration for my recent work on the nodes, but recently I’ve mostly been exposing existing tools that come with openvdb-- I honestly didn’t find the modifier with the modifier so helpful.
Looking back on the code in the patch, I still think it would have needed a lot of work to get to the point of inclusion in master. In retrospect I’m more certain we made the right choice to move to a node-based approach-- it’s so much more flexible, and it allows splitting the functionality from the modifier into smaller parts so that it will be easier to understand.
Also, if you wanted to know more about the meetings and the thought process, all development discussion is public, there are public chat rooms
Again, I had no idea you all were still interested!
I should really resist responding to this, but really? This is not the way to affect change.
One more immediate thing I’d like to do is get wider testing of the geometry nodes level set branch I’ve been working on. Maybe you would be interested in that?
There’s no official plan yet, but after the work with of the conversion of the attribute workflow in geometry nodes to fields, I’m guessing improved simulation support will be one of our next topics for early in the 3.x series. I know that’s not as good as “2 years ago”, but this stuff is going to happen.
With that in mind, hopefully this is the start of a larger conversation about improving physics in Blender, fracturing in Blender, and doing it in the right way for the long term. That would be great!
Yes, coordinating seems to be hard to do in a way that everybody is happy. I hope you sort this out.
@JTA in addition to Hans Goudey’s answer there is a post from the new blender coordinator which might also be nice giving him feedback. https://twitter.com/dingto/status/1430929136890097669
HI Hans : )
Thanks for feedback from your perspective. This is not a good thread to connect on to collaborate so we’ll monitor the normal dev channels.
This forum thread is focused on users to ask for help, posting work and periodical project updates.
Feel free to post any of your OpenVDB work updates here especially if KD will be helping out.
As always, Fracture ON!
Mushroomeo, your comment was fine and well within the decorum and general sentiment of this forum thread. As long as nobody belabors blender politics in a long or repeated posts, or is directly critical towards a person, critical comments expressing one’s sentiments briefly for this project in general helps the team and others understand the community sentiment. That positive sentiment keeps and has kept us working over the years and motivated.
So thanks for your feedback from your perspective and always feel free to express it considerately.
As always, Fracture ON!
In my research I ran across this interesting and fun project again. It’s like 2 minute papers, fun to check out. I bet you never thought of using fracturing to break bread did you? Lol…
Check out the associated video.
Link update for google drive FM old builds archive:
See also first post, it is the same link as here now.
Hey Kai, long time no see! I decided to dust off the ol’ BCB and made a new building. Around 20k pieces after discretization. The problem that I’ve found is that after a while, most of the objects fall directly through the floor with no resistance. I expected a few odd things to get squeezed through, but not whole walls. Default generated foundations + default generated floor from ground motion in a rigid body world group
Is that some sort of an inherent limitation, too many objects? Or something else?
edit: the floor is in rigid body world.001, while the building is in the original one. Maybe this is the problem, I shall simulate again.
edit.001: Yep. That was the reason.
Hi Ray, good to see you being back! Also good to see you found the issue yourself. Multiple “Rigid Body World” groups shouldn’t exist in one scene but this can occur when linking rigid body objects between different scenes or .blend files (this isn’t supported by Blender).
Your model and video is very nice as expected! I made a post in my community tab.
With how powerful this seems to be, will it ever be merged with the main/default branch of Blender? Especially if it hides where the edges are when it splits so it still looks like one whole object until it splits apart, I’m looking at this for UE4 purposes is all.
Is there an update to the dev of this addon for 3.0 ?
Fracture Modifier is not an “add-on” it is a “Custom Branch” of blender.
Kai said in January that don’t expect the update from 2.7 to 2.9 soon and I don’t notice much updates between then and now with quick scroll.
Look at these posts