Came across this piece of paper on my random browsing. noticed Nils Thürey that did most/all of the work on blender fluid sim, El’beem AFAIK.
http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~tedkim/WTURB/
it’s very in-depth on how they use a smoke sim of resolution *n to bump it up to a higher resolution of *N , using fancy stuf I can’t grasp.
but it seems like all the forumlas and underlying theories on how to achieve this is in there. could be usefull for blender smoke simulation.
this is blender’s smoke simulation 
Isn’t this what the smoke simulator is based on http://www.blender.org/development/release-logs/blender-254-beta/smoke-simulation/
edit - beaten to the punch by broken but anyways
haha, so good we already have it!
TMMD.
This pretty much proofs the point that people should start to use features instead of wanting new ones or better ones on a daily basis =D
Where´s Entollingdi? 
Did he really bail out on us?
or maybe people who make this statement must make allowance for the fact that we don’t all use the same features of Blender and those that use certain features can come up to its limitations faster and begin making feature requests sooner.
A person like me who does nothing but car modeling 90%of the time has almost nothing to bitch about or want in blender but someone who wanted to animate a character like Violet with her long flowing hair would be have issues I probably wouldn’t understand.
Endi, correct me if am wrong, did mostly low poly game stuff so had almost no need for GI but someone who did visualizations work would probably complain about the internal render engine.
hey arexma, let me talk in name of Endi. Won’t be as good, but that’s all I’ve got:
We need wavelet sym in Blender… To do nothing. In fact, we’ll ignore its presence.
The link to the wavelet paper is broken on the blender.org site… Should that be updated to the one posted by aermartin?
ps. Nice to see that Blender’s newer features are pretty much cutting edge. 
Edit:
We present a novel wavelet method for the simulation of fluids at high spatial resolution
So this same technique could be used on a particle based water sim too? [troll]We needz reeltym warterzorz!&?[/trolol]
Good try Sneg =)
–
Don´t get me wrong, I love new features and versatile tools, I was partly sarcastic and still am.
However lets take this particular case.
Firstoff no offense aermartin. Thats no attack towards you =)
Whats wrong with Blenders smoke simulation besides some minor bugs?
We got a decent smoke simulation, yet I wait to see something in finished project, or better finished animations to make extensive use of it where it hits limits and one can say… smokesim´s not good enough.
I know aermartin only had the best of intentions and thought he might have found something that could help development.
We got 65k registered users, although I can write a list of the active ones (besides GameEngine subforums) from memory.
Yet, I ask simple questions about basic features (dynamic particle hair collision, drivers) and it seems not a single user here can answer that question - still not a day where someone finds something in the web that could be useful or should be implemented into blender, from minesweeper to completely integrate gimp.
And I have to admit, that many of the “pro users” that where frequent in this forum a while ago have gone mute, I guess they still use Blender, might read along, but are just adrift as submarines in the forum.
Sadly BA gets more and more shallow regarding in-depth knowledge and help from the community.
It´s like a beachhead into blender and then people move on, I just don´t know where to.
I think it is quite a problem to find in depth information about blenders current features, unless you enslave a dev (can you catch them with a coffeetrap?) to answer your questions, or got 10h a day to trail and error.
I know there are books out there, but I don´t need to know how to model a gingerbread man (great book, loved it) anymore or other basic stuff or about workflow in blender.
I need a dry technical documentation about existing features.
And support forums really is for beginners, if you have any in depth questions you usually get 0 replies.
I love to hang out there and help beginners, but who helps me? Certainly not those wanting new features before mastering the existing ones =)
I am aware that not everyone knows all aspects of an animation package, but are there features no one uses at all? Do all use only trivial stuff sketchup could do as well? And if so, why want particular new features that are beyond their capabilites? - Just so that one´s dad has the biggest car? =)
That has gone completely OT sorry, I am a hostage to my thoughts
</vent>
dunnow where to open the tag 
yeah Sadly true.
It’s about to change, I guess. Ton mentioned he has interest in investing on proper documentation. The docs probably won’t help advanced users much, but I believe it’ll help rising the level of the questions asked here. You know… every once in a while someone asks basic stuff like “how to add watermark to render?”. These people obviously don’t even know Blender has a powerful nodes based post-processor.
About the noticeable absence of pros here, well… Lets look at the forum’s average user level. The pros won’t have much interest in showing up unless for posting their latest great work. Some people post here for the first time only to show an amazing work. That’s very curious, uh?
edit: ah sorry for the hijack. Blame it on arexma, who brought up interesting discussion
Yeh blame me, I take the hat of shame this week.
But doesn´t matter the topic isn´t much to discuss as the feature is already in Blender =)
Arexma, well said!
But on the other hand… 90%+ jobs use the most basic tools!
That’s why even without bmesh blender is still quite a powerful and usable modeller (for those that want it to be)…
I agree that many of the more advanced tools and workflows have few who know them inside out (know the pitfalls, workarounds hack etc…)
I’d love to use this smoke sim stuff if it were …er… less “sim”…
Same thing with the other volumetric stuff…
I’m preferring doing stuff with simpler and really old school hacks that I can direct to the result i want rather than the trial and error and slow turnaround time to tweak a sim into action…
Both true lol 
Nah seriously. At my job I use the same 5 things over and over again too, but sometimes projects require different approaches or new tools in the pipeline or hacks, fakes and workarounds.
Also having more knowledge of Blender doesn´t make you any faster, at least not me.
All I do is stop the work later hitting a deadline. I´ve never ever finished anything before the deadline, usually you don´t finish, you reach a point where you got to call it finished - theres always something to lay hands on.
All that changes is the deep satisfaction I feel creating something, having pushed it a bit further this time, making most out of the (usually too less) time.
Just because I use the 101-Toolset doesn´t mean I am satisfied with that =)
And if I find a new or better way to do something, buying me more time it´s a good day.
And then there is the personal interest as well, just because this job only requires “xyz” doesnt mean I am not intrested in “jkl” as well and want to broaden my skills, or yet better, because I need “xyz” all the time I am even more intrested in “jkl”
But at one point the learning curve gets a straight line, a horizont you cant surpass alone.
And there is currently a lack of a community for that - and it is hard to do it virtual.
The blender artist is a rare species in the industry, personally I seem to be a loner everywhere, only at one job so far I had a fellow Blenderer. It would be so beneficial to work on a project with other blender users, just to see how they have set their workflow and see how they handle things, on a serious project and how they approach it…
Does this paper gives intersting tips on how to use Fluid Sim i 2.5 ?
Thanks
@broken
LOL! yeah it was kinda “old” paper 2 yrs 
but that’s cool it’s already in there. But Daniel (genscher) must have been really quick to implement this paper into his smokesim. or was the entire smoke sim based on this paper alone? impressive work anyways.
FYI, this was not a “feature request” it was a news I scour the interwebs for cgi stuf and as soon as I see familiar names (Nils, Jakob and the crew) I focus a bit more on them.
if I would do a smoke_sim feature request it would only be in the GUI implementation, to be more like fluid sim in the layout.
but maybe fluid sim, hires and preview settings are to diffrent from smoke and using hi-res enabled smoke.
maybe someone can explain that for me, why it’s not like fluid sim. use a “preview” resolution for viewport, then on render use the hi-res division to bump it up. if I enable hi-res but disable to view it - my smoke still looks lowres. but goes from 13fps playback in the interface to down to 0.1fps as if it was showing high resolution smoke.
I mean is there a meaning to see high resolution smoke in viewport? can’t it be like Render resolution for fluid sim. only enable during rendering. but by default it could be turned of or have 0 subdivisions … and thus rendering the smoke sim at the given res. not bumping it up.
just an idea there sure is a reason for why it’s implemented the way it is today, and why hi-res need it’s own tab. and why smoke baking also has it’s own tab compared to fluid sim. maybe because smoke sim is dependent on a Particle System.
and I know prolly because it’s been implemented form 2.49 straight of but smoke sim uses the old cursor 2.49 style for bake-progress instead of using the progress bar in the header region.
but that will prolly get done for 2.6
Fluid’s Final resolution compared to Preview resolution is just a baked simulation with an higher value.
When you bake fluids; preview have no effect on final fluid.
Smoke High Resolution depends on Smoke Resolution. It is subdivided result based on Noise method (Wavelet or FFT).
For the same standard Smoke, you can obtain different High Resolution simulations.
So it is important to be able to see High Resolution result before rendering.
If you bake without High Res; it is not calculated and baking is faster.
It is why playback is low when you activate High Res after baking. Blender try to show unbaked high res.
It is important to understand that you can bake (not just render) smoke with or without high res.
I am happy that it have its own tab.
Dropdown menu is used for fluid because there are 8 types of fluid.
In smoke case, I prefer buttons. I think it is faster.
ofcourse baking lo-res goes faster than baking hi-res.
playback for me is slow even when baking high-res smoke.
wiki for 2.5 fluids is pretty well updated.
http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Doc:2.5/Manual/Physics/Fluids
actually, a lot is missing in the other areas but it’s getting there.