Animation test - PhysX driven boxes... Tweet

[[gk]]

However It would be reasonable to include some kind of curve controler that is connected to the samples.
Why?
Well, you might have a camera position that requires few samples, lets say seeing a car on a ground from distance, but as we get closer the car needs more samples, to get a uniform noise you need to gradually up the sample cap. This could be done with a user Curve control over a timeline. That you could Key in and apply a bezier or the like to.

There is no reason to find the worse part of the scene, fix your samples to this and then render overkill on a larger proportion of the sequence that doesnt need that many samples.

- mads

[meleseDESIGN]

If the object is further away it would take less time to render even with cap of 500 samples, but I really like the idea of an curve controller for it. Maybe with a connection to the distance meter, so the curve will be set automaticly depending on the distance of the object to the camera.

[Sam]

Its would be even more easy to just

Move the timeline to point A
Change maxsamples (autokeyed)
Move the timeline to point B
Change maxsamples (autokeyed)

Auto interpolation in/out smoothed

But having different curves methods is important
Not only to control samples, but to turn on a light
For example a neon doesn't turn on linearly, it also blink a little bit before starting up
And while he blink he emmit colored light (slightly)

So to mimic a perfect neon, you need to be able to animate two parameters using custom curves and controls points

[[gk]]

If the object is further away it would take less time to render even with cap of 500 samples, but I really like the idea of an curve controller for it. Maybe with a connection to the distance meter, so the curve will be set automaticly depending on the distance of the object to the camera.

would work in some situations not all. 99% of 3d scenes has more than 1 object, so which should be analysed? the one in front or the one in back, that will be messy. let alone the fact a box with a tiny hole renders super fast from outside...but try go inside it Curve editor would come handy there.

I would refrain from auto interpolation. Simple beziers would be optimal.

[Sam]

I would refrain from auto interpolation. Simple beziers would be optimal.

There's a lot of way to auto-interpolate (in, in-out, out, cubic etc..)
Also after the auto-interpolation you can still tweak the controls point

So I don't see why it would be bad

[[gk]]

Auto is fine with ability to tweak all aspects as the user feel fit.

But its realy easy to port a interpolation to keys so its not realy an issue. The manual work tools costs extra man hours to produce, not the other way around.

[[gk]]

all though boxes penetrating other boxes,

From an artistic non-scientific angle anything works. We could make boxes collapse into a tiny compact pile of boxes and it would still look good as long as it had nerve.

[hieloco]

I haven't tried it yet, but in creative Crash (if I remember correctly) I found a little mel script or something like that that exported each frame in a scene to a sequence of obj's. Might be worth looking into, but again, I don't know if it works or not. Sounds good though!

By the way, great animation!

[[gk]]

yeah man, you can write batch export frames to obj, sub folders..
Think Radiance is adding some grabber for that, might be worthy to write that script and stick up a smalll tests pack with obj sequences.

[mlody47]

XSI 's OBJ exporter support OBJ sequences , straight from the package ( just if someone wants to know )