Wish list for RF|C4D

Is there anything that you would like to see in future versions of RealFlow?
Post Reply
Scott Frizzle
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2018 5:58 pm

Wish list for RF|C4D

Post by Scott Frizzle » Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:10 pm

Here's a few wish list items for RF|C4D. Some of these are mentioned in other posts but I figured I'd put everything in one place.

1) Daemon Falloffs: It would be great of all of the Daemons could utilize all of the mograph falloffs.

2) Filter Daemon stability. The Filter Daemon often introduces instabilities into a simulation (exploding/ stray particles, etc), even when following the guidelines in the manual. I'd like to see the process of transferring particles from one fluid to another be more seamless/ stable.

3) Daemon Constraint system. In addition to the falloff controls, it would be very useful if the Daemons could be constrained by additional scene info, ie, particle information, noise, gradients, object volumes, etc.

4) More particle data types. Being able to utilize the additional particle data to create vertex maps in version 2.5 is a great addition; I'd like to see this extended to all available particle data types, including user data that could be applied to particles.

5) Particle Sampler Shader. While this is partially redundant with the current implementation of mesh vertex maps, I think being able to sample particles and their corresponding data directly within a shader would be more useful and user friendly. This would also simplify the creation of wet maps and would eliminate the need to render out a PNG sequence, which currently seems a bit unreliable.

6) Variable Viscosity and Density. I have no idea of this is even possible within the current Dyverso framework, but VV and VD are essential for realistic simulations of lava or other cooling/ heating/ hardening/ melting fluids. Faking this behavior with the Filter Daemon and multiple fluid types is limited and difficult to keep stable.

7) Hybrido implementation. I'm sure you've heard this request before. :) This would take care of many of the above items in addition to adding a lot more functionality to the plugin. Perhaps there could be two versions of the plugin; one with just Dyverso and one with both Dyverso and Hybrido?

Thanks for being open to feature requests!

Thomas Schlick
Posts: 178
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:35 pm

Re: Wish list for RF|C4D

Post by Thomas Schlick » Thu Mar 29, 2018 3:24 pm

Thanks for your suggestions. We'll take them into consideration.

Maybe one word on the falloff: For some daemons like drag or magic it's technically not possible to create falloffs, because their force fields are calculated at simulation time, since they depend on the position of the affected particles. Forces like gravity or vortex, on the other hand, act on the particles indepent from their positions.

Spatial variable viscosity is indeed only possible with Hybrido at the moment, but not by default. To achieve this behaviour you have to create a custom viscosity field through graphs. Time variable viscosity is possible with Dyverso as well, simply by animating the viscosity parameter, but here you're not able to get these melting or colling effects you're talking about.

The implementation of Hybrido is not on the agenda, and I don't think that this will change soon.

More vertex map types will certainly come.

Scott Frizzle
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2018 5:58 pm

Re: Wish list for RF|C4D

Post by Scott Frizzle » Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:25 pm

Thanks for your reply and for considering these feature requests. One thing I wanted to add based on some current experiments:

When mixing transparent fluids, vertex maps can be inadequate since they are only able to apply color information to the mesh surface, leaving mixing within the transparent fluid volume invisible. If per-particle color information were available, it could be used to apply color to the mesh volumes (using third party renderers) so that transparent fluid mixing would look more realistic.

Thomas Schlick
Posts: 178
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:35 pm

Re: Wish list for RF|C4D

Post by Thomas Schlick » Mon Apr 02, 2018 2:35 pm

Yes, I agree that per-particle colours give better results. We've experimented with a particle shader in C4D already, but if I recall correctly there were problems with the OpenGL interface. Anyway, things improved a lot over the last months and I'll bring this feature to mind for RF|C4D 3.0.

Your feedback is greatly appreciated!

Post Reply