maybe instead of just doing it in houdini he could use SDFs?

http://blog.blackredking.org/?p=47


On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Peter Agg <peter....@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Yeah, that's my only suggestion really - I've had quite a few problems
> before where I had very dense particles being culled by complex geo and on
> random frames you'd get very distinct cubes where the volume calculations
> have freaked out. Never found a particularly useful workaround, I'm afraid.
>
> Simplifying the geo has helped, sometimes not grouping them together and
> doing several tests on individual parts did. But sometimes that just shifts
> the problem to different frames - for the project I was on we had one of
> those unfortunate 'just do it in Houdini' moments.
>
> Good luck! :)
>
>
> On 7 May 2013 20:29, Eric Thivierge <ethivie...@hybride.com> wrote:
>
>>  Not necessarily cubes. If I run a smooth op on the geo it fixes much of
>> it (although this is not a solution for me) so it's got to be the internal
>> methods not liking something about the geometry.
>>
>>
>> Eric Thivierge
>> ===============
>> Character TD / RnD
>> Hybride Technologies
>>
>>
>> On 07/05/2013 3:26 PM, Peter Agg wrote:
>>
>> Is this the thing where you get giant cubes of bad volume data, or
>> something else?
>>
>>
>> On 7 May 2013 19:54, Eric Thivierge <ethivie...@hybride.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Anyone notice how many times this just doesn't work correctly? Even
>>> toggling the Closed volume inside often doesn't give the correct results as
>>> well...
>>>
>>> I have a voxel setup with particles and testing inside a geometry to
>>> keep the ones that are within, works, however there are many points still
>>> outside the geo that remain and aren't deleted. The ones left outside
>>> changes each frame as well.
>>>
>>> Anyone have any sure fire methods / workarounds that don't involve
>>> having helper nulls to delete the remaining ones outside?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Eric Thivierge
>>> ===============
>>> Character TD / RnD
>>> Hybride Technologies
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to