Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
briankoko

FumeFX 5.0 for Cinema 4d

Recommended Posts


Dreams do come true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That looks really good and powerful!


Free C4D trainings from MAXON professional on our youtube channel

 

https://www.youtube.com/c4dcafe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand FumeFX doesn't have GPU-accelerated simulations--as does TurbulenceFD. It has viewport GPU acceleration only. And Arnold support only?

 

It will take a lot of rich features to convince me not to just stick with TurbulenceFD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FumeFX does look like an interesting product, but I would imagine the cost to be around $700 (the same as the Max price).  That is less than the X-Particles/Cycle4D bundle price (around $900) but for $200 more you can do so much more than fire and smoke (fluids, grains, fracturing, cloth, dynamics, OpenVDB and a whole new render engine). 

 

Now, there are some good controls that I find interesting within FumeFX for controlling the simulation, like C4D's FFD and setting some conditions using effectors within FumeFX itself based on velocity, etc.  But those controls pale to what can be done if you use particles to shape your smoke FX.  I did not see anything in that video on whether or not FumeFX works with Thinking Particles in C4D.

 

Art directing explosion and smoke effects with X-Particles question/answer structure is just plain powerful and now XP has also incorporated Fields into its particle group structure which just takes particle control to an entirely new level of control.    Plus in XP, you can use fluid particle advection to power cloth and physics simulations as well or use it to drive the motion of your MoGraph objects.  Plus, you can pass everything through the OpenVDB modifier to get some truly interesting results (like smoke turning into water bubbles as seen in the XP reel).

 

Plus XP has multi-physics capability in that a fluid simulation can drive a cloth simulation which in turn can drive a smoke simulation.  That is an advantage over TFD, FumeFX and even RealFlow. Realflow for C4D has multi-physics but only within its own fluid/smoke simulations (true multi-physics capability exists within the Stand Alone version of Realflow, but that would be an unfair comparison as we are discussing C4D plugins). To the best of my knowledge, RealFlow for C4D and FumeFX has no capability to work with other non-fluid dynamic simulations but as XP now has cloth and rigid/soft body dynamics incorporated into its software, those boundaries are blown away. So again, the advantage goes to XP.

 

Now TFD's advantage over FumeFX is that it is GPU accelerated and it works with X-Particles.  That was an important capability for TFD before X-Particles incorporated ExplosiaFX.  So that just leaves TFD with the unique advantage of GPU acceleration.  Given that TFD also works with X-Particles still makes it a smarter choice than FumeFX at this point.  But as you can infer, I am leaning towards XP as the best overall solution.

 

So if I had to rate all the fluid packages out there today for C4D, it would be:

  1. X-Particles (it just has everything...and I do mean everything)
  2. TFD (GPU accelerated makes it unique and it works with XP....sooo…..)
  3. Real Flow (great engineering grade software, but too slow).
  4. FumeFX (Last place based on the information from the video.  Hopefully we learn more in the future that will give it a unique advantage over its competitors).

So FumeFX has some tough competition within C4D.  The only potential advantage to FumeFX would be the ability to handle massive fluid simulations with less effort than XP.  There is nothing to point to that being the case, but I would be interested in hearing about that from others who use FumeFX today.   GPU acceleration is important, so even TFD still has FumeFX beat.  But compared to XP (both CPU based), XP is (for the reasons listed above), the better choice.  Its power, control, ease-of-use and capabilities just can't be beat.

 

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good summary Dave. I tend to agree though I don't want to speak definitely about a product I've never tried.

 

For me...I don't imagine I'll be investing so much money in another one trick pony, esp. if that one trick is non-GPU accelerated simulations. That's becoming a must-have IMO. I mean consider what is being done realtime in game engines with GPU performance:

 

Now this isn't as rich or detailed as TFD or FumeFX, but that speed means a lot. 

 

The ViewPort display accleration via GPU in FumeFX is sweet. We don't have that now in any of our products. And FumeFX does seem to have some features we don't currently have in other products. I just don't think it's enough to interest me given price, alternatives and what I imagine of sim performance.*

 

*I don't know real world FumeFX speeds, but CPU is so much slower.

 

Jawset has been incredibly good and generous. TFD stable, fast, with nice quality....and they haven't had a paid upgrade in forever. Version after version it just keeps producing at no additional costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Icecaveman said:

Good summary Dave. I tend to agree though I don't want to speak definitely about a product I've never tried.

 

For me...I don't imagine I'll be investing so much money in another one trick pony, esp. if that one trick is non-GPU accelerated simulations. That's becoming a must-have IMO. I mean consider what is being done realtime in game engines with GPU performance:

 

Now this isn't as rich or detailed as TFD or FumeFX, but that speed means a lot. 

 

The ViewPort display accleration via GPU in FumeFX is sweet. We don't have that now in any of our products. And FumeFX does seem to have some features we don't currently have in other products. I just don't think it's enough to interest me given price, alternatives and what I imagine of sim performance.*

 

*I don't know real world FumeFX speeds, but CPU is so much slower.

 

Jawset has been incredibly good and generous. TFD stable, fast, with nice quality....and they haven't had a paid upgrade in forever. Version after version it just keeps producing at no additional costs.

Wow...that is impressive.  I do agree, TFD is still a great package and I have no idea how Jawset makes money given all the free updates. A very generous developer if you ask me (he must do this a side job and for the praise of those who use TFD).

 

A very crowded field indeed but I am still going with my rank ordering for the reasons listed.  I would like to learn more about FumeFX but so far, that intro video (while enticing) is not enough to sway me given that I have XP and TFD.   In fact, I would imagine a large base of C4D users who do fluid sim's have either or both of those packages so FumeFX will have its work cut out for them to attract new users.

 

Now, there is a growing criticism against C4D for NOT having its own native fluid package given that all its major competitors at its price point have fluids and for the aging TP module.  Not sure how that is going to be addressed, but I suspect it will at some point.  Will it be in R21?  Not sure.  But if C4D does implement fluids at some point, I would suspect that it will also offer similar viewport performance to FumeFX given past criticisms against C4D's viewport performance that they have worked to improve.  So will one of FumeFX's advantages (viewport performance) be replaced by C4D's own native fluid package at some point?  No one really knows.

 

.....but (as 3DKiwi often says): Fun times ahead!

 

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If ... they can make FumeFX in C4D equal to FumeFX from Max, than for fire and smoke, it is a LOT more powerful than XP for fire and smoke. It really rivals Houdini fire and smoke for high density high quality simulations. That is pretty amazing. Very happy to see C4D gaining more plugins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, MauricioPC said:

If ... they can make FumeFX in C4D equal to FumeFX from Max, than for fire and smoke, it is a LOT more powerful than XP for fire and smoke. It really rivals Houdini fire and smoke for high density high quality simulations. That is pretty amazing. Very happy to see C4D gaining more plugins.

I'm happy to be persuaded. So pls tell me *why* it's more powerful than TFD. I'm open-minded. And I'd love to see more info on sim speed, but there I'm less open minded if it isn't GPU based.

 

If it's not fast it gets too expensive (time = money) and if it's not fast it's not iterative (art directable).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it depends on your usage. But basically most Fire and Smoke sims done at Scanline VFX up to 2017/8 were FumeFX. But you are right, if you are thinking more on a motion BG, than TFD is better as it's faster, uses the GPU and it's result holds quite well for that. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reel from Scanline FX artist. Mostly 3ds Max + plugins (FumeFX included). The world is not only Houdini and that is cool. :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...