Actually when you talk about the glass shader and increase all light path bounces to 256, that's not what I do. You can leave them all at default or whatever values you prefer for rendering. The only bounces I increase are the ones for transparency and I usually get good results with 64 oder 128. You can leave the total bounces number low, because transparency bounces are independent from them. It doesn't even take much longer to render. And more important it also helps with black artifacts in rendering smoke simulations, which in some tutorials you are told are caused by low resolution or bugs when using the adaptive domain. Anyway, so there is no need for using ray length and transparency combined with the glass shader.
Yeah... That's what I said on the video? I borrowed the trick from a blender conference talk that goes a little more in depth. The bounces that affect the problem are generally glossy/transparent, and the overall "trick" have become almost useless now that cycles is faster. The reason I still kept the light path node shinanigans was because alternating between the ray depth and ray lenght masks controlling transparecy, you can improve render times with lots of glass particles (that would be WAY more expansive to render by just increasing transparency bounces) and also you can use the ray lenght to create a mask and remove the reflections of surfaces interacting with difuse shaded colliders (I.e, when mantaflow meshing creates a gap between the water surface and the collider surface, leading to a unrealistic mirror-like surface). Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful correction, I'll make sure to pin this comment so everyone sees it :) The part about increasing everything to 256 was a joke tho. I tought that was pretty clear, but now I see that rambling about 3090s made the whole thing just a dragged out mess and way less comprehensive.
I could never figure out those damn black artifacts in smoke renders. You are my new favorite person. I have looked high and low on every forum and a thousand tutorials for an answer that isn't low res or adaptive domain issues.
Even for smoke it is either alpha, or sometimes weird intersection stuff from when you have several volumes occupying the same space. Shifting the volume objects a little bit so they don't interssect (i.e the grids of voxels aren't exactly aligned) can help then.
2:00 Ok so this is how I'd do it: 1. The Brown/Blue Mask: - TextureCoordinate->generated->separte X. Map Range so you get a considerably sharp ramp. - Distort the ramp: Add a MixRBG (Linear Light Mode) after The Texcdoord Node. Connect the second Input with a Noise Texture. Eventally do the same with the Noise itself to get a "Distorted Nosie" along the ramp. 1.1 Add some sploches to the dirt mask with another Noise Texture 2. use this Mask to drive the Density of a volumetric Shader to create the brown dust. 3. For the Surface Material use a Glass Shader but use the Light path Node to make sure it's only Glass for Camera Rays otherwise Transparent BSDF (or use the ray depth trick if it works here) 4. Add Bump - Noise Texture with ca. 0.3 Roughness and high Detail 5. Add some blue Volume Absorption to the Blue part.
Looks like this would work fine without much effort, which is great. When I put that on the video I had a faint idea of using one of those 2d fluid simulators to generate a mask, but it would be optimal to use blender's own procedural textures.
Thank you! I realized after finishing the edit that I left a huge chunk of nonstop info without even a breath, but I had no time left to record new versions of some of the explanations. I'll update the description with a project file so you guys can dig around and reverse engineer stuff :)
Thank you for this tutorial! It genuinely helped me because alot of the other techniques i see to make "realistic'ish" mantaflow water is very hardware expensive which leads to very long bake times, but this helped me considerably, so thank you very much!
(Not so) fun fact: a lot has changed within blender since I begun to plan this video and even after I finished editing it. (namely, the full repercussions of cycles x and a few changes on how a few nodes work and how blender handles meshes/shading). I also got a lot wrong and learned better ways to do basically everything I talked about on the video. this comment section is filled with good tips too! maybe I will make a updated, better version of this, including some simulation stuff that I gathered over the years fighting mantaflow to get it to behave, but since the theory section is still valid, I decided against deleting it. plus it has made me a full fat 10 bucks so far. jokes aside, principled bsdf is in theory more physically accurate, but I (and a bunch of other geriatrics) still find it faster to just mix transparent and glass bsdf ( sometimes taking fresnel into account, but most times not). principled volume, tho, I'm 100% with you on that. way better than five different volume shaders and lots of sliders.
actualy I meant "volume shaders" as it's own thing, I'm not sure how the principled volume works, although maybe it would produce better results, not sure. (also the original comment was made before I got to the part where you were talking about deeper waters so I didn't know at the time you already mentioned volume shaders)
Hours of banging my head against the keyboard while listening to blender conference talks and trying overambitious projects. the glass/light path thing is almost certainly from one of the talks (I'll link it if I find it) and probably the point density thing too (maybe the nebulae talk by Gleb Alexandrov?) pro tip: the blender conference talks are a great source of blender knowledge.
Have you considered using a glass shader with an IOR of 1/1.333 (the inverse of water's) for the bubbles? I found that it realistically simulates a pocket of air inside water. Try it! Also, if you can get away with only spherical partilcles, you can use the new point cloud rendering system, it's much faster than rendering instanced icospheres.
Oh, you gonna hear about point cloud rendering, all right. I'm still mad nobody told me sooner. I've been spending my every awake moment testing the limits of point cloud renders for the past month
Also I did think about the glass bubble thing, but discarded it due to render times. My strategy for bubbles now is a metallic shader with the right ior, with the alpha channel being controlled by the fresnel output on the layer weight node, plus some math nodes and sometimes a very slight white emission with low strength. The downside to this approach is the absolutely massive amounts of transparency bounces needed, to the point of being unpractical beyond a certain threshold on the particle count. But the same applies to the glass shader, and this looks better imo.
Principled Volume shader. Ok, There's a great tutorial by polyfjord, called 'how to make fireballs on blender' that's one of the best fire/smoke tutorials out there. You should guve it a look.
Nope. it's the meeting of the waters on the amazon river. both rivers are fresh water, just different enough on temperature and flow speed to go unmixed for miles. Fun fact: the amazon river is so large, and so much water flows within it, that when it meets with the ocean, the change of the tides causes a monstrous wave flowing up the river, trashing everything on it's way. It's called "Pororoca" by the locals, and also the source of a huge meme here in Brazil, the "corre richard" meme... which is basically a TV reporter (who graduated with honors at the Prometheus school of running away from things, btw) getting a little too close to the wave and almost dying in the process. Brazil is hardcore even on meme material lmao
Sorry, I just gotta ask, how did you get the water to push the objects at 15:55 like that? I've always wanted to do that, but to my understanding, that was impossible to actually do, you could only fake it by either keyframing it or setting the surface after simulating to a rigid body, but there would be a disconnect with the particles and objects. How did you do that, and did you just fake it super well? I gotta know! Also, great work with the tutorial! I've seen every fluid sim tutorial there is in the world, and I think this one might be the most useful and well-done one out there.
Faked it with rigid bodies. I baked the rigid body sim to keyframes, chose a keyframe where the rocks seemed settled (more or less in the middle, right after they touched the ground) then deleted all the previous keyframes. Took a couple of attempts to get the timing of the water just right, which I did by altering the inflow object's starting keyframe and the overall simulation speed
I think i found amazing youtuber..! I’m just staring out, I can’t keep up with your video. But your amazing works motivate me a lot..! Please keep it up🔥🔥❤️❤️
Eevee is a whole different beast. You would have to do a bunch of things manually cause the light path node don't work on eevee. The volumetric stuff would still work, but the glass amd particles would need special materials and a lot of tweaking
Thanks! I currently don't know of any reliable way to get fast caustics to work with cycles. I can think of a few ways to use procedural textures to fake them, but none of them will look great... maybe sometime in the future? idk.
@@PAGMAOnline I'm sorry, but I really thought I had a link to the full shader in the description. Like I could swear on it. But it's not there. Whoops. It's been like a whole year. Wtf
Funny you just said that, I was considering a waterfall as the example sim, but ended up going with weird rock. I won't promise anything (as my record isn't the best when it comes to deliver promised tutorials) but definetly will try. I love waterfalls, and there's lots of things I want to do that would go well with waterfalls too.
I saw in a comment that you explained how you made the rocks move with the water, but I didn't quite understand the explanation, could you elaborate more for me? I also wanted to know the ideal amount of samples for rendering
The rocks move with a simple rigid body simulation that Ibaked to keyframea and than deleted every keyframe before the water "hits" each rock. The ideal amount of samples will always be however much your time budget allows for. Let's say you have 200 frames to render and 12h. You divide 12h by 200, which would be 0,06h or 3,6 minutes per frame. Let's say minimum samples are about 30. The you set it for something average like 256 or 128, set the time limit for about half of the time you calculated (frames take a lot more time to render than whatever you set on three-time linit' section), and there you go.
Hi there , thanks a lot for sharing this. Is very difficult to make the head falling as the water moves? I dont know how to make the water interact with objects and make them moving. Thanks.
Not really. The water isn't actually moving it, I'm just using a rigid body sim to make it look like the water is moving stuff. I baked the simulation to keyframes, then erased the keyframes till the frame when the water hits.
I didn't. I simulated the sculpture falling, then added the water later, setting the start of the sim just right so that the water hits it just as it starts to move
No. The transparent/water color not being 100% white can make it more noticeable, but the cause of the problem is light getting "trapped" inside the glass ( since computers can only calculate a set number of bounces instead of the infinite bounces irl). The ray gets in, and bounces back and forth between the internal geometry of the glass object, until the maximum number of bounces is reached. If the ray is still inside of the glass when that happens, it is counted as "occluded", and if there are alot of them in the same area, the average will be darker. Try experimenting with reducing bounces on the different types of ray on the light path settings and see what type of results you get. The worst offenders on this case are generally transparency, glossiness and transmission rays, but increasing the bounces too much makes render times awfully long so that's what the trick is about :)
The foam part isnt working. i plug in the point density as shown but nothing happens. even tried to use a math node to multiply by absurd numbers but the white parts just never show up
Maybe somwthing changed from the blender version I was using (~2.8) to now. Remember: the particle system is end of life right now, and they might have just dropped support to it at some point. I'd try it with an older blender version, then if it still doesn't work, just drop it altogether. Geometry nodes points offer such better performance anyway, that you might nor even need such tricks anymore
@@FractalParadox Well that's unfortunate. Thank you for the great guide anyways. Is it possible for you to give me a few tips to maybe create foam using geo nodes?
I talk more about it here: ruclips.net/video/Xg4UpGRVsmo/видео.html if you are using Flip fluids addon, it's points automatically I think. if mantaflow, I show how to render as points in the link above
i was wondering why it didnt look exactly realistic and i see that its because the stone are not getting darker where tthe water hits it... have any idea of how to do soo ? thanks
Too much hassle for me with this tutorial specifically (as it is about the water shader only), but yes, you can do that traditionally using dynamic paint, or I guess you can use geometry nodes with the geometry proximity node and some material switches. Dynamic paint is a modifier you can use to make certain objects act as "brushes" and "paint" on a "canvas" object. If you set the water mesh as the brush and the rocks/ground as the canvas, you can create a "wetmap" (a bw image that tells you where the "paint" is on the "canvas") that you can use as a mask to mix between your normal shader and a darker, glossing version.
Maybe your scale is not applied? It can disappear if thw scale is wrong. Also the point density is very hit and miss on the viewport, so sometimes it doesn't show, but in the render it's there. Also try selecting the node and changing some parameter to refresh the node tree or restarting blender.
This made me want to continue to learn blender. I like the way you explain. I was Lost at times because I don't know crap...but this inspired me to try to learn blender once more. Thank you.
Only a selected few builds have the new caistics tho. The 3.1.2 sable build doesn't have it. Dunno why, maybe it's an issue with experimental features?
@@FractalParadox Just little bit buggy. I'm using CPU btw... 🤣🤣🤣🗿🗿🗿 But not laggy, just low render. Because Ii don't have good GPU and it's expensive right now.
Sadly my monitor res is lower than 1080p. I try to make things as big as possible during screen recordings, but sometimes I forget :P I'm planning on getting a new monitor, but prices in my country are... less than desirable right now. so yeah, lowres it is
@@s0up_dev greater than is probably around .500, layer weight is probably default. You can mess with the values till it looks right. Also alpha will cost you, so you can also use the same setup to make the bubbles transition into a diffuse or metallic shader instead of transparent
@@FractalParadox Yes, yes. Just bought it brand new a year ago, monster GPU and upgraded to 128GB RAM also. Only to find out Blender doesn't support MAC GPU's. But just read yesterday Blender 3.1 should support my GPU.
You always get them with mantaflow sims tho? Try following a mantaflow sim tutorial, there are lots. Ch3ck if perhaps you are not using the " combined export" option, that merges all particles together
@@FractalParadox How would you do this, I am having trouble getting the shader to work in 3.5 and am wondering how/where/what the heck is a point cloud. If you could help that would be great!
@Samuel Styles point clouds are a new way to render virtualized 'particles' with geometry nodes. I explain how they work better in this video: ruclips.net/video/Xg4UpGRVsmo/видео.html
Thanks! You might be surprised how much 20min fiddeling with settings on mantaflow makes you even more confused. But after 200 hours, it starts to make sense
No naming names, it's all in good fun :) Actually I didn't mean for this joke to sound so specific, but puget systems was the first thing that came to mind when I recorded ( and also this was my best take, so...)
@@henryhambardzumyan8102 oh I'm not angry or anything, the video is super confusing and random, plus my humor isn't the best, and can be very annoying. Plus since 3.1 is here, and a bunch of features got added, it's already outdated info. There are a lot of mantaflow tutorials out there which are more accessible, tho I haven't seen many that tackle shading
@@henryhambardzumyan8102 the behavior of some shaders changed a little with cycles x, and it got a lot less forgiving with very thin overlapping geometry too (you can guess what that does with particles) plus now there's point cloud rendering, so the parts about shape of the particles are also outdated coz it takes less resources to render as a point cloud
Please, do not add text that cannot be read without pausing the video. As a rule of thumb, try to read it 3x while watching at normal speed. If you cannot, it's too much text, too fast.
Seems like a good rule of thumb... If there was anything useful on the text anyway. Most of the quick text is intentional, and some is just complementary info.
Actually when you talk about the glass shader and increase all light path bounces to 256, that's not what I do. You can leave them all at default or whatever values you prefer for rendering. The only bounces I increase are the ones for transparency and I usually get good results with 64 oder 128. You can leave the total bounces number low, because transparency bounces are independent from them. It doesn't even take much longer to render. And more important it also helps with black artifacts in rendering smoke simulations, which in some tutorials you are told are caused by low resolution or bugs when using the adaptive domain. Anyway, so there is no need for using ray length and transparency combined with the glass shader.
Yeah... That's what I said on the video? I borrowed the trick from a blender conference talk that goes a little more in depth. The bounces that affect the problem are generally glossy/transparent, and the overall "trick" have become almost useless now that cycles is faster. The reason I still kept the light path node shinanigans was because alternating between the ray depth and ray lenght masks controlling transparecy, you can improve render times with lots of glass particles (that would be WAY more expansive to render by just increasing transparency bounces) and also you can use the ray lenght to create a mask and remove the reflections of surfaces interacting with difuse shaded colliders (I.e, when mantaflow meshing creates a gap between the water surface and the collider surface, leading to a unrealistic mirror-like surface).
Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful correction, I'll make sure to pin this comment so everyone sees it :)
The part about increasing everything to 256 was a joke tho. I tought that was pretty clear, but now I see that rambling about 3090s made the whole thing just a dragged out mess and way less comprehensive.
I could never figure out those damn black artifacts in smoke renders. You are my new favorite person. I have looked high and low on every forum and a thousand tutorials for an answer that isn't low res or adaptive domain issues.
Even for smoke it is either alpha, or sometimes weird intersection stuff from when you have several volumes occupying the same space. Shifting the volume objects a little bit so they don't interssect (i.e the grids of voxels aren't exactly aligned) can help then.
2:00 Ok so this is how I'd do it:
1. The Brown/Blue Mask:
- TextureCoordinate->generated->separte X. Map Range so you get a considerably sharp ramp.
- Distort the ramp: Add a MixRBG (Linear Light Mode) after The Texcdoord Node. Connect the second Input with a Noise Texture. Eventally do the same with the Noise itself to get a "Distorted Nosie" along the ramp.
1.1 Add some sploches to the dirt mask with another Noise Texture
2. use this Mask to drive the Density of a volumetric Shader to create the brown dust.
3. For the Surface Material use a Glass Shader but use the Light path Node to make sure it's only Glass for Camera Rays otherwise Transparent BSDF (or use the ray depth trick if it works here)
4. Add Bump - Noise Texture with ca. 0.3 Roughness and high Detail
5. Add some blue Volume Absorption to the Blue part.
Looks like this would work fine without much effort, which is great. When I put that on the video I had a faint idea of using one of those 2d fluid simulators to generate a mask, but it would be optimal to use blender's own procedural textures.
Most of this went over my head, but it was a lot of fun to watch
Thank you! I realized after finishing the edit that I left a huge chunk of nonstop info without even a breath, but I had no time left to record new versions of some of the explanations.
I'll update the description with a project file so you guys can dig around and reverse engineer stuff :)
You are criminally underrated
Thank you for this tutorial! It genuinely helped me because alot of the other techniques i see to make "realistic'ish" mantaflow water is very hardware expensive which leads to very long bake times, but this helped me considerably, so thank you very much!
Glad to be of help. Thanks for watching (and bearing my horrible jokes)!
@@FractalParadox wasnt that bad, dont worry!
Correction, shader closest to water is Principled BSDF+ volume shaders
I think.
Haven't really gotten this theory to work out.
(Not so) fun fact: a lot has changed within blender since I begun to plan this video and even after I finished editing it. (namely, the full repercussions of cycles x and a few changes on how a few nodes work and how blender handles meshes/shading). I also got a lot wrong and learned better ways to do basically everything I talked about on the video. this comment section is filled with good tips too!
maybe I will make a updated, better version of this, including some simulation stuff that I gathered over the years fighting mantaflow to get it to behave, but since the theory section is still valid, I decided against deleting it. plus it has made me a full fat 10 bucks so far.
jokes aside, principled bsdf is in theory more physically accurate, but I (and a bunch of other geriatrics) still find it faster to just mix transparent and glass bsdf ( sometimes taking fresnel into account, but most times not). principled volume, tho, I'm 100% with you on that. way better than five different volume shaders and lots of sliders.
actualy I meant "volume shaders" as it's own thing, I'm not sure how the principled volume works, although maybe it would produce better results, not sure. (also the original comment was made before I got to the part where you were talking about deeper waters so I didn't know at the time you already mentioned volume shaders)
Can you do a Large scale waterfall tutorial Please
dude... your tutorial are incredible. THE best out there... you make learning boring shit so fun!
Thank you! I only ever hope to at least be a little funny.
The point density is like a blessing. Thanks
Glad to help
Did you handanimate the Stones in the Water?
@@mage3458 rigid body
I dont know how did you figure out this cool shading trick ?
Hours of banging my head against the keyboard while listening to blender conference talks and trying overambitious projects. the glass/light path thing is almost certainly from one of the talks (I'll link it if I find it) and probably the point density thing too (maybe the nebulae talk by Gleb Alexandrov?) pro tip: the blender conference talks are a great source of blender knowledge.
@@FractalParadox haha thats great, yeah I watched all of them, I wish I remembered this thing!
Have you considered using a glass shader with an IOR of 1/1.333 (the inverse of water's) for the bubbles? I found that it realistically simulates a pocket of air inside water. Try it! Also, if you can get away with only spherical partilcles, you can use the new point cloud rendering system, it's much faster than rendering instanced icospheres.
Oh, you gonna hear about point cloud rendering, all right. I'm still mad nobody told me sooner. I've been spending my every awake moment testing the limits of point cloud renders for the past month
Also I did think about the glass bubble thing, but discarded it due to render times. My strategy for bubbles now is a metallic shader with the right ior, with the alpha channel being controlled by the fresnel output on the layer weight node, plus some math nodes and sometimes a very slight white emission with low strength.
The downside to this approach is the absolutely massive amounts of transparency bounces needed, to the point of being unpractical beyond a certain threshold on the particle count. But the same applies to the glass shader, and this looks better imo.
This was great, really enjoyed your energy as well. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks!
heck another fun channel to watch
Thank you!
Welcome
But how do you shade fire and smoke?
Principled Volume shader.
Ok, There's a great tutorial by polyfjord, called 'how to make fireballs on blender' that's one of the best fire/smoke tutorials out there. You should guve it a look.
Using the point density is nice but then I need to raise the volume bounces to 7-10 to get a good white volume instead of a dark gray one
yeah, at this point, with Geo nodes, if you have a good gpu, just use more points for the foam. I have memory constraints, therefore shader tricks
That example of that river mixing with ocean is also due to fresh water trying to mix with salt water different density
Nope. it's the meeting of the waters on the amazon river. both rivers are fresh water, just different enough on temperature and flow speed to go unmixed for miles.
Fun fact: the amazon river is so large, and so much water flows within it, that when it meets with the ocean, the change of the tides causes a monstrous wave flowing up the river, trashing everything on it's way. It's called "Pororoca" by the locals, and also the source of a huge meme here in Brazil, the "corre richard" meme... which is basically a TV reporter (who graduated with honors at the Prometheus school of running away from things, btw) getting a little too close to the wave and almost dying in the process. Brazil is hardcore even on meme material lmao
@@FractalParadox ah okay, wasn't sure what river. Looked like salt and fresh water
@@FractalParadox yeah I've read about those eaves, it's can be really dangerous
@@RomboutVersluijs yeah it big so look like sea sometimes. plus one is super clean an the other looks like sewage so there's that.
@@FractalParadox it looks so weird. I'll go watch the tutorial further now ;(
Sorry, I just gotta ask, how did you get the water to push the objects at 15:55 like that?
I've always wanted to do that, but to my understanding, that was impossible to actually do, you could only fake it by either keyframing it or setting the surface after simulating to a rigid body, but there would be a disconnect with the particles and objects.
How did you do that, and did you just fake it super well? I gotta know!
Also, great work with the tutorial! I've seen every fluid sim tutorial there is in the world, and I think this one might be the most useful and well-done one out there.
Faked it with rigid bodies. I baked the rigid body sim to keyframes, chose a keyframe where the rocks seemed settled (more or less in the middle, right after they touched the ground) then deleted all the previous keyframes. Took a couple of attempts to get the timing of the water just right, which I did by altering the inflow object's starting keyframe and the overall simulation speed
I think i found amazing youtuber..! I’m just staring out, I can’t keep up with your video. But your amazing works motivate me a lot..! Please keep it up🔥🔥❤️❤️
Thanks!
how would this work for eevee?
Eevee is a whole different beast. You would have to do a bunch of things manually cause the light path node don't work on eevee. The volumetric stuff would still work, but the glass amd particles would need special materials and a lot of tweaking
Yo great tutorial. Btw can you make a tutorial about water caustics?
Thanks! I currently don't know of any reliable way to get fast caustics to work with cycles. I can think of a few ways to use procedural textures to fake them, but none of them will look great...
maybe sometime in the future? idk.
Can you post the entire node setup?
What do you mean I literally did this
@@FractalParadox Hm . . . I must have missed it. I don't want to look dumb, but . . . where? Sorry, I am so confused.
It is a great video btw.
@@PAGMAOnline I'm sorry, but I really thought I had a link to the full shader in the description. Like I could swear on it. But it's not there. Whoops. It's been like a whole year. Wtf
There is no large scale Waterfall tutorial in RUclips. I request you
Funny you just said that, I was considering a waterfall as the example sim, but ended up going with weird rock.
I won't promise anything (as my record isn't the best when it comes to deliver promised tutorials) but definetly will try. I love waterfalls, and there's lots of things I want to do that would go well with waterfalls too.
I saw in a comment that you explained how you made the rocks move with the water, but I didn't quite understand the explanation, could you elaborate more for me?
I also wanted to know the ideal amount of samples for rendering
The rocks move with a simple rigid body simulation that Ibaked to keyframea and than deleted every keyframe before the water "hits" each rock.
The ideal amount of samples will always be however much your time budget allows for. Let's say you have 200 frames to render and 12h. You divide 12h by 200, which would be 0,06h or 3,6 minutes per frame. Let's say minimum samples are about 30. The you set it for something average like 256 or 128, set the time limit for about half of the time you calculated (frames take a lot more time to render than whatever you set on three-time linit' section), and there you go.
Hi there , thanks a lot for sharing this. Is very difficult to make the head falling as the water moves? I dont know how to make the water interact with objects and make them moving. Thanks.
Not really. The water isn't actually moving it, I'm just using a rigid body sim to make it look like the water is moving stuff. I baked the simulation to keyframes, then erased the keyframes till the frame when the water hits.
Just wow! All i was looking for, thank you very much!
Glad to be of help!
ohhhh so thats why my water was looking like it came from the sewer (it looked cool but not what i wanted) lmao ty it's actually clear now
Gkad to help!
🔥🔥🔥🔥🙌🏾😃 brilliant tutorial
good stuff man
Thanks!
Wonderful tutorial. Many thanks.
Thank you! I'm glad you liked it
Bro, how did you make the sculpture move with the push of the water?
I didn't. I simulated the sculpture falling, then added the water later, setting the start of the sim just right so that the water hits it just as it starts to move
@@FractalParadox oh thanks 👏🏼 nice job ✨️👌🏼
noise texture+colorramp to dark blue and light blue=results
Isn't the black areas you sometimes get when rendering glass or water cause by the white not being set to full white?
No. The transparent/water color not being 100% white can make it more noticeable, but the cause of the problem is light getting "trapped" inside the glass ( since computers can only calculate a set number of bounces instead of the infinite bounces irl).
The ray gets in, and bounces back and forth between the internal geometry of the glass object, until the maximum number of bounces is reached. If the ray is still inside of the glass when that happens, it is counted as "occluded", and if there are alot of them in the same area, the average will be darker.
Try experimenting with reducing bounces on the different types of ray on the light path settings and see what type of results you get.
The worst offenders on this case are generally transparency, glossiness and transmission rays, but increasing the bounces too much makes render times awfully long so that's what the trick is about :)
The foam part isnt working. i plug in the point density as shown but nothing happens. even tried to use a math node to multiply by absurd numbers but the white parts just never show up
Maybe somwthing changed from the blender version I was using (~2.8) to now. Remember: the particle system is end of life right now, and they might have just dropped support to it at some point. I'd try it with an older blender version, then if it still doesn't work, just drop it altogether. Geometry nodes points offer such better performance anyway, that you might nor even need such tricks anymore
@@FractalParadox Well that's unfortunate. Thank you for the great guide anyways. Is it possible for you to give me a few tips to maybe create foam using geo nodes?
I talk more about it here: ruclips.net/video/Xg4UpGRVsmo/видео.html
if you are using Flip fluids addon, it's points automatically I think.
if mantaflow, I show how to render as points in the link above
this is a really good video my dude
Thank you!
i was wondering why it didnt look exactly realistic and i see that its because the stone are not getting darker where tthe water hits it... have any idea of how to do soo ?
thanks
Too much hassle for me with this tutorial specifically (as it is about the water shader only), but yes, you can do that traditionally using dynamic paint, or I guess you can use geometry nodes with the geometry proximity node and some material switches.
Dynamic paint is a modifier you can use to make certain objects act as "brushes" and "paint" on a "canvas" object. If you set the water mesh as the brush and the rocks/ground as the canvas, you can create a "wetmap" (a bw image that tells you where the "paint" is on the "canvas") that you can use as a mask to mix between your normal shader and a darker, glossing version.
@@FractalParadox ayt thanks man ! have a wonderfull evening ;)
where did you get these stone assets?
polyhaven.com
is the shader available for download?
Nope. Honestly should have been, but I forgot
Great great very great
so good
Thank you!
couldn't get the point density part to work. any tips?😕😕
Maybe your scale is not applied? It can disappear if thw scale is wrong. Also the point density is very hit and miss on the viewport, so sometimes it doesn't show, but in the render it's there. Also try selecting the node and changing some parameter to refresh the node tree or restarting blender.
This made me want to continue to learn blender. I like the way you explain. I was Lost at times because I don't know crap...but this inspired me to try to learn blender once more. Thank you.
I'm glad!
useful and fun i love it
Thanks! I try
And there is Blender 3.1 alpha which features real Cycles Caustics!!! More realistic, obviously...
Only a selected few builds have the new caistics tho. The 3.1.2 sable build doesn't have it. Dunno why, maybe it's an issue with experimental features?
@@FractalParadox Just little bit buggy. I'm using CPU btw... 🤣🤣🤣🗿🗿🗿 But not laggy, just low render. Because Ii don't have good GPU and it's expensive right now.
@@cg.man_aka_kevin yeah i feel you. I was stuck rendering with a dual core cpu and 2gb of ram for like 3 years
@@FractalParadox My ram is 8...
damn cant see some digits at 1080p sadge
Sadly my monitor res is lower than 1080p. I try to make things as big as possible during screen recordings, but sometimes I forget :P
I'm planning on getting a new monitor, but prices in my country are... less than desirable right now. so yeah, lowres it is
oh I see. Maybe you remember though, at 14:32 layer weight blend is 0.030 and greater then threshold is 0.900?@@FractalParadox
for the bubbles
@@s0up_dev greater than is probably around .500, layer weight is probably default. You can mess with the values till it looks right. Also alpha will cost you, so you can also use the same setup to make the bubbles transition into a diffuse or metallic shader instead of transparent
Got it, thanks@@FractalParadox
thanks for the tips :D
Glad to be of help.
That is great, I'm gonna use it for ginormous waterfall simulation for Meditation challenge. Thanks for the work!
Thanks!
Good job
Thanks!
I like the way you explain and funny lol
"Cycles X took care of that"
*MAC enters the chat*
About that....
Well, that's on you for using mac then... _Says the linux guy who had no backup of any project files on his entire channel_
@@FractalParadox Yes, yes. Just bought it brand new a year ago, monster GPU and upgraded to 128GB RAM also. Only to find out Blender doesn't support MAC GPU's. But just read yesterday Blender 3.1 should support my GPU.
@@MarCuseus yea, the name of the game for blender and other open sourcw projects is generally linux first, then windows, maybe.
@@FractalParadox "C'est la vie" :P
use screen space refraction
please
This is cycles
Maravilhoso, OBRIGADO! Subscribed :)
Greetings from Suécia.
Thank you!
@@FractalParadox De nada :)
muito top!
Muito bom mesmo 👏👏👏👏
Obrigado!
11:25 Where do I get the Spray particles? I don´t have those. 😕
You always get them with mantaflow sims tho? Try following a mantaflow sim tutorial, there are lots. Ch3ck if perhaps you are not using the " combined export" option, that merges all particles together
@@FractalParadox ok thanks
@@teamafus6034 also this tutorial is outdated, nowadays you would use point cloud instead of particles for extra performance
@@FractalParadox How would you do this, I am having trouble getting the shader to work in 3.5 and am wondering how/where/what the heck is a point cloud. If you could help that would be great!
@Samuel Styles point clouds are a new way to render virtualized 'particles' with geometry nodes. I explain how they work better in this video: ruclips.net/video/Xg4UpGRVsmo/видео.html
hahahah! Great opening!
Thanks
are you Brazillian?
Yep. Brasileiro. Hue BR. Nascido e criado em terras brasilis. Porque faço vídeos em inglês? Também nsei.
@@FractalParadox parabens man. maneiro demais. adoro esse estilo de video. eu penso em fazer video em ingles tambem, normal kkk. engaja mais ma
caralho que bom que eu te achei!
really great work, what a shame I can't understand half of it
Thanks! You might be surprised how much 20min fiddeling with settings on mantaflow makes you even more confused. But after 200 hours, it starts to make sense
4:03 cggeek burn
No naming names, it's all in good fun :)
Actually I didn't mean for this joke to sound so specific, but puget systems was the first thing that came to mind when I recorded ( and also this was my best take, so...)
Raise your hand if you not an animator? ☝️
Man just tell me how to do that fuck, what a freaky show?
I just hate step by step tutorials. Sorry, not sorry.
@@FractalParadox I'm sorry, I was angry because I didn't succeed. You must be cool, I'm just not your audience
@@henryhambardzumyan8102 oh I'm not angry or anything, the video is super confusing and random, plus my humor isn't the best, and can be very annoying.
Plus since 3.1 is here, and a bunch of features got added, it's already outdated info. There are a lot of mantaflow tutorials out there which are more accessible, tho I haven't seen many that tackle shading
@@FractalParadox Ow, 3.1 so that's the issue. Because I repeated and couldn't get the same result. Some items have been removed -_-
@@henryhambardzumyan8102 the behavior of some shaders changed a little with cycles x, and it got a lot less forgiving with very thin overlapping geometry too (you can guess what that does with particles) plus now there's point cloud rendering, so the parts about shape of the particles are also outdated coz it takes less resources to render as a point cloud
Hi cannot join your discord good serr
Link must be dead, lemme update it. Here: discord.gg/vW2ewv4q
@@FractalParadox thank you masstaaa
Yes! i dont get it
4:27 me too man me too.
2:09 yes
_IOR, babyyyyy!_
No entendí nada pero muy buen video :D
you lost me at 0:00
Well, thank you for the comment then.
🍺
Please, do not add text that cannot be read without pausing the video. As a rule of thumb, try to read it 3x while watching at normal speed. If you cannot, it's too much text, too fast.
Seems like a good rule of thumb... If there was anything useful on the text anyway. Most of the quick text is intentional, and some is just complementary info.
0:14 That's what she said
LMAO
Try to mumble less. It's better for your viewer.
Sure
Almost impossible to find useful information between all the unfunny, I guess you think it's comedy. Total waste of time.
Fair.
your water looks bad
It _does,_ doesn't it?
real