I need to export an xParticles system as alembic, so I’m converting it to Thinking Particles for export.
When converting, I can assign the TP color in xPresso. But there are times I want to export alembic with the color assigned thru xParticles rather than trying to replicate it in TP.
So, I would like the xParticles color data to come through. In my current set up, the P Pass seems to check only the first xParticle’s color and then assign all TP particles that color. Can a P Pass iterate through xParticles?
The PPass releases the Particles it holds, and it does so without informing any other system (e.g., X-Particles.)
This is an X-Particle question: How to bake the X-Particles into an Alembic file while keeping the color information alive?
Do I put the target that you have into the right question?
My question would be, even I really suggest Alembic a lot, why not use the format that you can export from the X-Particles cache in the format your target application needs it?
Alembic is pretty much for baked animation, not to replicate setups of animation rigs. At least that what the developers of it say: https://www.alembic.io
So if I’m understanding correctly, PSetData only iterates through particles in a PPass, and cannot take info (per particle) from xParticles?
You are right, my goal is getting xParticles into another program with attributes (besides velocity and position). I have checked Insydium’s documentation and haven’t found anything suggesting it’s possible to export alembic.
I use alembic because I’m sending it to Clarisse. Maybe I’m missing something, but I haven’t found a way to import particle sequences in any other format. I have tried prt and rpc which weren’t recognized. I use the particles (with baked animation) as points in a scattering system and attach geometry to it. And when coming out of Houdini, I can extract color info and shade the geo with it directly which is very convenient!
Maybe there is way to get Houdini to read an xParticles file and convert to alembic from there. Thank you for your ideas and time!
This might be a little bit more complicated than I like to share it.
Thinking Particles, by default, have no identifier. The ID that they have is based on the group they are in. If they move to a new group, they change the ID of reminding particles and get a new (not fixed) ID in the new group.
Is this unchangeable? No. There is even an option given to supply a unique ID that sticks. You can do that also on your own base on the Data you give them. Simulate> Thinking Particles> TP Settings> Channels.
You will find the new Entries in the Get/Set Data nodes after they have been set.
The PGroups can also give out an ID, which could be used to iterate.
=====
However, your question was to not touch Thinking Particles. I think it is the right way for this case. The critical question is, where do you want to use the Particles, what is the target application, or what can be read from the target application?
Even I do not do X-Particles here, I like to suggest to explore this way. It feels like the most native way to exchange particles among applications.
Thank you very much Dr. Sassi! I had noticed PGroups offer ID, but wasn’t sure how to utilize it. It’s less about avoiding TP as much as just not knowing it.
I will look into all these options. I think learning TP would be useful to make informed decisions while setting up projects. I am learning particles and procedural methods in several programs at once, coming from After Effects, so there is a lot to sift through!
I’m happy to help. Particle systems have grown to be applications on their own. Two decades+ ago, it was more a simple plug-in and done. With Thinking Particles, we saw a huge change. Yet, when one avoids Xpresso, then Thinking Particles are much harder to use. However, I find it much easier to untangle if the Xpresso editor was used in a structured way.
With X-Particles, many things have changed. It is a different workflow altogether. Perhaps that is obvious, but since Thinking Particles hasn’t seen many improvements, I think it is fair to say that investing time in X-Particles is a safer bet these days. While I certainly believe that learning never stops. X-Particles has not the flow-chart aesthetic one can have with the Thinking Particles, but it is much richer.
Having said that, I certainly understand that this is a new story, compared to Ae. If you have a question, please set up a little scene file that illustrates your problem/target/idea.
It is much easier to get into any question with a file. A file works, or it doesn’t, and it can be achieved to keep solutions close.
I’m curious now and suspect I’ll be back with a file for inspection after I watch some tutorials. I can already say the iterations and passing of info back and forth is a bit confusing but I would like to understand this. I’ve seen some nice work done with TP regardless of it’s age, and see it’s potential with some xPresso.
Typically one has not to care about such iterations. It was more meant as a hint of what needs to be developed to bring two different systems together. Which might be a lot.
Whereby I think I would not try without urgent need, as particle amounts are continually changing, and to get two completely different systems in synch requires a concrete target that can’t be achieved otherwise.
It is much easier to get Thinking Particles, and MoGraph combined, for example. Where one can store information of particles in Mograph Selections or Weight tags.
Also, not simple, and I wouldn’t ask anyone to start with those things.
What I have seen typically over the past 16+ years supporting artists, that it “must” be the largest, coolest, and most challenging thing to start with. If that happens, I have often not seen more questions afterward. It can kill motivation.
Each part by itself is relatively simple, nearly basic. The magic of Cinema 4D comes by combining those basic things. Like creativity can be defined by combining items in a previously illogical way. When it is created, it makes sense. Such creations work best when the basics are well known and do not take any attention anymore.
However, everyone learns differently. But also everyone might get or lose motivation differently. My target is undoubtedly to motivate by providing working solutions to build a solid foundation, based on the questions I get.
Yes, please ask questions. I’m happy to look into it.
I was able to get the color info that I needed by exporting xParticles to Houdini, then converting to alembic. So I think I’ll just jump into TP in a general way and see how it works with Mograph. (which I’m also learning!)
P.S.: I know you have your round-trip solution, but I was searching for something faster. Here is a little idea, please check if that works for your set up at all!
The idea is simple, it iterates through the X-Particles, and pulls from each particle the position, speed, and color. Just as a test, you might expand on that.
This is then given to a PStorm, it produces a single particle with a lifetime of one frame, for each X-Particle. This new particle gets the information as mentioned above.
This works fine with Alembic. BTW, if you can’t see colors, in case you rebuild this, then check off the color in the Thinking Particles Settings for that group. The color there is more to see the flow from one group to the next. It overwrites the unique color.
One weird thing showed up in S22 exclusively so far, I can tell. The Orientation of the ABC object tosses the particles in the wrong direction. The fix for right now is to just place a Deformer (any deformer) under it as a child. That’s all. It corrects this mishap.
P.S.S.: After searching a little bit more, I couldn’t find anything. Since I never had to pack X-Particles into an Alembic file, it feels odd that there is nothing directly. I would really suggest asking the Insydium Support why that is. They certainly have a proper answer.
Thinking Particles seems to be the way to go for now. If you like, you can check out this version as well. The option to output Thinking Particles from the XP-Emitter is perhaps too simple. As I mentioned, this is new to me and so never tested in-depth. So, I call the two examples (above and this one here “beta”, just to be certain that tests are mandatory.)
P.S.: I have written to Insydium if there is any way to do it directly. I will post a file/screencapture if something is shared with me.
Edit: Got the answer, and currently, Alembic information can only be produced via Thinking Particles. So we did not miss out on a trick or something else. /edit
