Re: deleating Particals
The reason to do it post-emittion is because then you know that whatever's left will be doing the same thing (presuming you're not doing any neighbour lookups or anything) that it did before, but there'll just be less of them. It's the path of least resistance when a client's looked at something and says 'I like it... just fewer'. On 11 April 2013 04:31, Raffaele Fragapane raffsxsil...@googlemail.comwrote: I'm aware of plenty cases where one might need to, especially post-facto stuff where you just can't go back upstream (caches, things produced as manually operated chains for hacks, LODding something, bracketing something and so on). In this case I was more proposing it's worth looking at that. 90% of the stuff that starts simply emitted can usually be halved more cheaply, and interacted with in more complexity producing better results, by reduing the emission rule hits and then a straight forward tweaking of any frequency based on the ID (if you have any). More of a food for thought than anything, I guess. Maybe should have not been formulated as a question. On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Andy Moorer andymoo...@gmail.comwrote: Sometimes when the opportunity presents itself (such as a weekend available to cache on a local machine) I like to save out the maximum density I can in a given timeframe simply because its easier to remove data than to not have it at all or build up density by interpolating between particles or the like. In regards to simple workflows... I have a couple of easy-to-build compounds I keep handy (though its just as easy to build them as you go) one which assigns particles a random number between 1-100, another which tests for that value against a defined threshold for deletion or whatever. It makes it very quick to be able to build structures which act on a certain percentage of particles or to modulate other values with that number. By always using the same compound/logic I free myself from having to give it any particular attention or thought, I just drop the compounds in and know what I'm going to get. Simple but useful, and since it is (for better or worse) my own logic instead of one of the factory compounds I know what is happening under the hood and don't have to worry about unexpected results, pre-set contexts, or other caveats. Same goes for a number of other simple tools - the most useful being one which returns a uniformly random vector of a defined magnitude. The factory randomize by cone compounds irritate me. :) -- Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!
Re: deleating Particals
The modula works good but the random value is better in this case thanks for all your help guys Cool Ben On 10 April 2013 20:52, Peter Agg peter@googlemail.com wrote: For what it's worth, I'd actually recommend giving every each particle a random value between 0 and 1, then delete any over 0.5. It's not as clear cut as the modulo way, but it means you get to re-seed the values if you don;t like the result - where as you're kinda suck with whatever ID the particle is given otherwise. Depends on what you're doing, of course. If you have a billion points to make a vapour you're probably not as fussed! On 10 April 2013 20:23, Rob Chapman tekano@gmail.com wrote: welcome to logic my fren On 10 April 2013 21:19, Ben Beckett nebbeck...@gmail.com wrote: Sweet it work Am no sort why but I will read it through Thanks On 10 April 2013 20:11, Gustavo Eggert Boehs gustav...@gmail.comwrote: Not infront of SI but you could Get IDs and run them through modulo node (using 2 as input). It basically returns the leftover of a division... in your case, odds will always return 1. More here: http://xsisupport.com/2009/10/24/using-the-modulo-node/ 2013/4/10 Ben Beckett nebbeck...@gmail.com Hi Everyone I have to may particals and I want to reduce the cache by haft. I want to deleat if your odd or even with a condition. Am playing but if any one could say how to to save me some time thta would be brill Thanks All Ben -- Gustavo E Boehs http://www.gustavoeb.com.br/blog
Re: deleating Particals
What about the Test Random Probability and setting the ratio value to 0.5? That should work also. On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Ben Beckett nebbeck...@gmail.com wrote: The modula works good but the random value is better in this case thanks for all your help guys Cool Ben On 10 April 2013 20:52, Peter Agg peter@googlemail.com wrote: For what it's worth, I'd actually recommend giving every each particle a random value between 0 and 1, then delete any over 0.5. It's not as clear cut as the modulo way, but it means you get to re-seed the values if you don;t like the result - where as you're kinda suck with whatever ID the particle is given otherwise. Depends on what you're doing, of course. If you have a billion points to make a vapour you're probably not as fussed! On 10 April 2013 20:23, Rob Chapman tekano@gmail.com wrote: welcome to logic my fren On 10 April 2013 21:19, Ben Beckett nebbeck...@gmail.com wrote: Sweet it work Am no sort why but I will read it through Thanks On 10 April 2013 20:11, Gustavo Eggert Boehs gustav...@gmail.comwrote: Not infront of SI but you could Get IDs and run them through modulo node (using 2 as input). It basically returns the leftover of a division... in your case, odds will always return 1. More here: http://xsisupport.com/2009/10/24/using-the-modulo-node/ 2013/4/10 Ben Beckett nebbeck...@gmail.com Hi Everyone I have to may particals and I want to reduce the cache by haft. I want to deleat if your odd or even with a condition. Am playing but if any one could say how to to save me some time thta would be brill Thanks All Ben -- Gustavo E Boehs http://www.gustavoeb.com.br/blog
Re: deleating Particals
I have to ask, if you want to almost unconditionally halve the particles, what prevents you from doing it at generation time instead of using resources unnecessarily to generate double the number and then using resources again to cull them? On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Alan Fregtman alan.fregt...@gmail.comwrote: What about the Test Random Probability and setting the ratio value to 0.5? That should work also. On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Ben Beckett nebbeck...@gmail.com wrote: The modula works good but the random value is better in this case thanks for all your help guys Cool Ben On 10 April 2013 20:52, Peter Agg peter@googlemail.com wrote: For what it's worth, I'd actually recommend giving every each particle a random value between 0 and 1, then delete any over 0.5. It's not as clear cut as the modulo way, but it means you get to re-seed the values if you don;t like the result - where as you're kinda suck with whatever ID the particle is given otherwise. Depends on what you're doing, of course. If you have a billion points to make a vapour you're probably not as fussed! On 10 April 2013 20:23, Rob Chapman tekano@gmail.com wrote: welcome to logic my fren On 10 April 2013 21:19, Ben Beckett nebbeck...@gmail.com wrote: Sweet it work Am no sort why but I will read it through Thanks On 10 April 2013 20:11, Gustavo Eggert Boehs gustav...@gmail.comwrote: Not infront of SI but you could Get IDs and run them through modulo node (using 2 as input). It basically returns the leftover of a division... in your case, odds will always return 1. More here: http://xsisupport.com/2009/10/24/using-the-modulo-node/ 2013/4/10 Ben Beckett nebbeck...@gmail.com Hi Everyone I have to may particals and I want to reduce the cache by haft. I want to deleat if your odd or even with a condition. Am playing but if any one could say how to to save me some time thta would be brill Thanks All Ben -- Gustavo E Boehs http://www.gustavoeb.com.br/blog -- Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!
Re: deleating Particals
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Raffaele Fragapane raffsxsil...@googlemail.com wrote: I have to ask, if you want to almost unconditionally halve the particles, what prevents you from doing it at generation time instead of using resources unnecessarily to generate double the number and then using resources again to cull them? Probably made an epic sim and cached it. Then needs to reduce them but keep the same stellar motion. Not everybody has 32gb of RAM Raf or render farm for that matter! :P Eric Thivierge http://www.ethivierge.com
Re: deleating Particals
Sometimes when the opportunity presents itself (such as a weekend available to cache on a local machine) I like to save out the maximum density I can in a given timeframe simply because its easier to remove data than to not have it at all or build up density by interpolating between particles or the like. In regards to simple workflows... I have a couple of easy-to-build compounds I keep handy (though its just as easy to build them as you go) one which assigns particles a random number between 1-100, another which tests for that value against a defined threshold for deletion or whatever. It makes it very quick to be able to build structures which act on a certain percentage of particles or to modulate other values with that number. By always using the same compound/logic I free myself from having to give it any particular attention or thought, I just drop the compounds in and know what I'm going to get. Simple but useful, and since it is (for better or worse) my own logic instead of one of the factory compounds I know what is happening under the hood and don't have to worry about unexpected results, pre-set contexts, or other caveats. Same goes for a number of other simple tools - the most useful being one which returns a uniformly random vector of a defined magnitude. The factory randomize by cone compounds irritate me. :)
Re: deleating Particals
Yep I made a super heavy bug swarm and I need to take out a few to render it. On 11 April 2013 03:51, Andy Moorer andymoo...@gmail.com wrote: Sometimes when the opportunity presents itself (such as a weekend available to cache on a local machine) I like to save out the maximum density I can in a given timeframe simply because its easier to remove data than to not have it at all or build up density by interpolating between particles or the like. In regards to simple workflows... I have a couple of easy-to-build compounds I keep handy (though its just as easy to build them as you go) one which assigns particles a random number between 1-100, another which tests for that value against a defined threshold for deletion or whatever. It makes it very quick to be able to build structures which act on a certain percentage of particles or to modulate other values with that number. By always using the same compound/logic I free myself from having to give it any particular attention or thought, I just drop the compounds in and know what I'm going to get. Simple but useful, and since it is (for better or worse) my own logic instead of one of the factory compounds I know what is happening under the hood and don't have to worry about unexpected results, pre-set contexts, or other caveats. Same goes for a number of other simple tools - the most useful being one which returns a uniformly random vector of a defined magnitude. The factory randomize by cone compounds irritate me. :)
Re: deleating Particals
I'm aware of plenty cases where one might need to, especially post-facto stuff where you just can't go back upstream (caches, things produced as manually operated chains for hacks, LODding something, bracketing something and so on). In this case I was more proposing it's worth looking at that. 90% of the stuff that starts simply emitted can usually be halved more cheaply, and interacted with in more complexity producing better results, by reduing the emission rule hits and then a straight forward tweaking of any frequency based on the ID (if you have any). More of a food for thought than anything, I guess. Maybe should have not been formulated as a question. On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Andy Moorer andymoo...@gmail.com wrote: Sometimes when the opportunity presents itself (such as a weekend available to cache on a local machine) I like to save out the maximum density I can in a given timeframe simply because its easier to remove data than to not have it at all or build up density by interpolating between particles or the like. In regards to simple workflows... I have a couple of easy-to-build compounds I keep handy (though its just as easy to build them as you go) one which assigns particles a random number between 1-100, another which tests for that value against a defined threshold for deletion or whatever. It makes it very quick to be able to build structures which act on a certain percentage of particles or to modulate other values with that number. By always using the same compound/logic I free myself from having to give it any particular attention or thought, I just drop the compounds in and know what I'm going to get. Simple but useful, and since it is (for better or worse) my own logic instead of one of the factory compounds I know what is happening under the hood and don't have to worry about unexpected results, pre-set contexts, or other caveats. Same goes for a number of other simple tools - the most useful being one which returns a uniformly random vector of a defined magnitude. The factory randomize by cone compounds irritate me. :) -- Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!
