Simulation Nodes Have Landed!

[@attimp4]

Huge brain.

[@pepperandsage2295]

Omg your the KZbinr guy

[@officialstevenma]

KZbinR GUYY!!!! Love your videos so much mann, really top tier stuff

[@joeyvfx_official]

I can't wait to learn more about those incredible cloth & softbody style sims! You're doing fantastic work!

[@denysk.1178]

I think all of us here would like a bit more step by step (with more explanation) on how built it. It’s awesome

[@AndyRedwood]

Fantastic work! I can't pretend to understand all of that, but it's motivating me to up my geo nodes game. Thanks!

[@muad_]

Found your twitter about a week ago, then the new node was announced, and now I'm learning about the geometry nodes stuff I've been waiting for the most! Please keep it up, your teaching style is amazing and I can't wait to dive deeper.

[@rjwh67220]

Damn, simulation nodes must require some truly hairy-assed calculations. Thanks for the post, I’m looking forward to the tutorials.

[@UnderfundedScientist]

Seriously so excited about this series

[@tasmansea1620]

wicked good video, nice speed run covering a LOT of ground. thank you

[@lukayz1363]

Can't wait for the next tutorials!

[@violentpixelation5486]

🙌❤️🔥💯 Explaining the nodes ROCKS

[@JA3_J-A3]

Incredible channel! Thank you for sharing your knowledge!

[@marcvandenbroeckDaKawa]

Amazing work man. Thx for explaining all of this.

[@zossua7375]

Looking forward to learning this. Going to wait for the full release though.

[@MicDoesThings]

That looks amazing!

[@MrCanevar]

Damn, you are creating vellum for blender :) at 0:26 !!!!

[@akoras3222]

Looking forward to all of it :) Great resources, thank you!

[@mannychop]

great!! ill look forward to the rest of the series!

[@KevRyanCG]

As soon as you went into the node with the multiple collision update nodes I checked out. It's a bit too early days for me coming from Houdini but it's showing great promise! Maybe there'll be some sort of For-Loop with feedback node that will be able to take the place of multiple node groups in a row.

[@seanterelle]

I would love loops like that as well, I’ve seen them mentioned in design docs and hope they become a reality!

[@somdudewillson]

@@seanterelle Repeat Zones aren't just in design docs, they literally already exist in the Blender 4.0.0 Beta.

[@KillinSmallz]

outstanding work

[@StrayCreations]

Fantastic explanation, thank you!

[@jacquese.pretorius8825]

😮Rocket science 😅 hope GN Wil have more presets for all these wonderful new futures bundled similar to C4D

[@luminoucid]

This is truley amazing, thank you for your walktrough! 🙂

[@man_art_man]

I've enjoyed this tutorial so much! Very well done! Thank you! Gonna to play with it and share some results with my tweaks... Hope it's okay for you if I tweeter some stuff referenced to your person .))

[@RomanJahns]

Amazing Work! Can't wait for what to come. The tearing looks so good. I've been scanning all of your Sim-Videos for any Mention of the Delta-Time or Sub-Stepping the Sim. The Documentation on this is rather sporadic, and i can't seem to wrap my head around it. Do you have a quick tip on that for me? I'd really appreciate it!

[@seanterelle]

You can simulate delta-time and sub-steps by creating a simulation step node group with a delta-time value input. The delta-time input should affect the scale of the velocity offset at the beginning of the step as well as the size of the updated velocity vector at the end of the step. Sub-stepping is simulated by chaining multiple of these simulation step node groups within the simulation loop :)

[@somdudewillson]

The simulation nodes aren't constrained to realtime, and work in fixed timesteps.

[@creamsoda8792]

Such a great demo! Would you explain a little more on why clamping the velocity to the particle radius helps with stabilizing this simulation? I understand the rest of the node setup pretty well but just couldn't wrap my head around this part 😭😭

[@seanterelle]

For sure! When the velocity is clamped to the particle radius it greatly reduces the possibility of particles moving "through" each other during the simulation. If there velocities are larger, say four times their radius, then particles on trajectories where they should collide may end up passing over the point at which they would intersect. Clamping the velocities is a quick way of making sure those collisions occur, so the simulation ends up being more stable, but less physically accurate.

[@creamsoda8792]

@@seanterelle thank you so much!

[@srb20012001]

The analysis required to set up the node network is way too advanced for the non-technical user. Sort of what distinguished Houdini procedurals from general CGI. That fact, plus being versed in all of the node operator library, makes the tool impractical as a production solution, imo. Maybe developing LLM AI to parse user prompts in natural language, then converted to Blender-friendly Python, is the direction to go with this stuff.

[@ashlee3dee]

yeah i agree. geometry nodes feels more limiting and confusing than anything. doing things like this is a piece of cake in almost any programming language, and its way easier to understand the code than it is to understand this node network.

[@joeyvfx_official]

I feel the total opposite way about this. I suppose everyone has their preferences, but geometry nodes feels very intuitive to me with its visual flow of blocks and wires compared to lines of code. With the way simulation nodes are heading now, doing a complex simulation could be as simple as obtaining a pre-made node group that accepts multiple inputs for simulation objects & colliders. This is something I've been dreaming of ever since geonodes came out. I feel like any confusion about it is basically just due to not understanding certain aspects of geometry nodes, of which I'm sure the overall literacy will improve going forward.

[@joeyvfx_official]

@@ashlee3dee Yeah I agree with that. There aren't really any intuitive indicators when there are conflicts with field outputs & non-field inputs for example. You'll just get a red connection & a little warning sign on the node, but no explanation as to why the connection doesn't work. Maybe over time the UI will get better about stuff like that

[@sintesecc]

Hey, thank you so much fo the tutorial! Could you or anyone in the comments provide some insight on how to approach this if the collider was not a sphere? Some other custom geometry like an extruded letter. Here we calculate the collider offset based on the radius, how can i calculate the offset based on the 'inside or outside' of the collider? thank you.

[@DerekElliott]

very very cool

[@genesis2303]

When the next one? Dying out of curiosity how you build such airtight/impenetrable collider box while joining particles.

[@qubafootbag]

this all was already possible with the molecular add-on wasn't it?

[@XxSpeedy21xX]

Great video this is so exciting! Can I ask how you got those simulation nodes with the velocity? Did you modify it yourself? Thanks!

[@seanterelle]

You can add sockets like that in the ‘simulation state’ drop-down in the ‘node’ tab of the menu that comes up on the right-hand side of the geometry node editor when you press ‘n’ or click the little arrow tab on the top right of the editor area. You also need to have either the simulation input or output node selected.

[@aymanuwaida7760]

I can’t wait for the next one 😮😮😮

[@davidmcsween]

Ooh could you incorporate the z axis and use the point cloud to make interactive smoke?

[@jessestapleton7277]

love this! would you be open to contacting anyone for a collaboration type thing at all?

[@Lantalia]

Hmm, does this end up being full up verlet integration? Doesn't seem like it tweaks velocity quite correctly for elastic collision, so you end up more with a hybrid pressure simulation... *goes to upgrade blender*

[@ItsAkile]

What, this is huge 🤩🤩

[@ongakuyaro]

that looks sick

[@psychoticgiraffe]

Does this version 3.6a fix the compositor? I uninstalled 3.6 before because the simulation nodes build would not compositor at all without catastrophic crashes, hopefully they fixed that in this?

[@itayroseari-m3u]

Hey man, thank you for the tutorial. Are you doing freelance work? Thanks

[@TOFUDMC]

this is sick

[@OAM1]

Instant subscribe!🔥

[@jpozo2046]

Can you create something similar to boids from particle system with this simulation nodes?

[@seanterelle]

Yes! Definitely possible

[@MattBixler]

how're you finding the live performance of these simulations? do you think something like this is feasible for a user with a mid/low-end machine?

[@ion_403]

My computer started to smoke everywhere, is that normal?

[@bean_mhm]

This is cool!

[@gart2922]

Do you have plans to update the 2d fluid files with 3.6 version. Or maybe there will be no issue?

[@crwde]

But it is still much more convenient and correct to do such simulations with a particle system, without unnecessarily exploding your brain in the process of inventing a bicycle with crutches :|

[@BongbokCG]

🔥🔥🔥🔥

[@traditur_]

*WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO YEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH BAAAAAAAAAAABBBBBBBBBBBBBBYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!*

[@shreyasgamer12]

PC specs please...

[@МихаилБадаев-э5ф]

Hello. Will it work on Blender 3.4?

[@thefaketomato]

No. This uses simulation nodes, which is currently only available in the 3.6 alpha.

[@МихаилБадаев-э5ф]

@@thefaketomato many thanks. I'll wait for official release. However, thank you very much for the lesson.

[@h0ang]

fucking legend

[@eluvonai]

🌻🌻🌻

[@RoN43wwq]

great

[@richphinami3047]

Blender prove them wrong 😅 Houdini users

[@meherbaba-godinhumanform7926]

💘💘❤❤💕💕