Why is Bifrost particle system not upgraded and imperfect?

[wuhailu]

Why is Bifrost particle system not upgraded and imperfect?
MPM is indeed a bright spot for Bifrost, but it lacks a lot of functions, and it is currently not very practical.
There are more and more MPM papers, and other software can also develop MPM solvers.
Bifrost should now improve the entire system to make Bifrost practical.

Now the Aero solver is still practical. But MPM and Aero alone cannot compete with Houdini. Most of the people around me have gone to learn Houdini.

[Christoph_Schaedl]

Cause there is a lot of Core stuff in development. First you need a solid base than build on top.

One of those element where the Terminal feature. Without you cant build complex graphs.

There is more coming.

https://help.autodesk.com/view/BIFROST/ENU/?guid=Bifrost_MayaPlugin_output_objects_to_the_scene_outp...

[wuhailu]

It's almost two years since Bifrost was released, and I haven't seen much change in the particle system. MPM cloth and hair are the functions of the laboratory, so far they have not matured, and there are too many lacking functions.
It is already a fact that many companies or studios migrate their processes to Houdini.
We have Houdini training everywhere here.

[Christoph_Schaedl]

Houdini has 24 years in development. Give Bifrost some time.

[stamatk]

Hello,

Thank you for the conversation.

While it's true that Bifrost simulation FX are not as far ahead as Houdini, it's also true that it takes a lot of time and effort to create and mature a complex system like Bifrost, from scratch. 

We've been working on our Aero technology longer than MPM, which is why it's more advanced and complete.

In the last year or more, we've focused all of our MPM efforts into making the cloth solver better and more stable. This presented a lot of challenges and took longer than anticipated, but we have made important improvements, and this feature is near its exit from the "experimental" phase. 

There are many paths we can take from here, but I would really love to hear from you exactly you would like and expect from MPM moving forward, both for granular and cloth.

We already know the parameters and usability of the MPM simulations are difficult to understand and unintuitive and improving this is something that's already in the plans.

We would really love to know exactly what it means to you to make MPM "more practical".

Your feedback is very appreciated!

Thanks,

Kosta

[1006138663]

MPM is really a feature of Bifrost. I hope MPM can improve the function as soon as possible to be suitable for work. Now it is true that Bifrost can not be applied to the work as a whole. As you said, it's not easy to develop a platform. We need to do a good job in the basic work. The work that users can't see is really very important. But there is one thing that publicity is also very important. If users don't know the development plan and progress, in view of Maya's slow development in the past decade, he said that he can't persuade himself to spend time on Bifrost, because Houdini's process is really mature now.This year, many companies around me are doing process R & D of blender + Houdini + UE4, which has indeed sounded an alarm for Maya people. For me, I expect Maya to be better and Bifrost to be stronger

[1006138663]

MPM is really a feature of Bifrost. I hope MPM can improve the function as soon as possible to be suitable for work. Now it is true that Bifrost can not be applied to the work as a whole. As you said, it's not easy to develop a platform. We need to do a good job in the basic work. The work that users can't see is really very important. But there is one thing that publicity is also very important. If users don't know the development plan and progress, in view of Maya's slow development in the past decade, he said that he can't persuade himself to spend time on Bifrost, because Houdini's process is really mature now.This year, many companies around me are doing process R & D of blender + Houdini + UE4, which has indeed sounded an alarm for Maya people. For me, I expect Maya to be better and Bifrost to be stronger

[wuhailu]

Most special effects companies now use Houdini, and the recruitment requirements are also Houdini. Few companies use Maya for special effects.

[darioOrtisi]

@stamatk 

There are lot of things that make MPM non-user friendly to me.

A part the specific operator inside like Area preservation or vibration speed, that (really i don't understand) We need a lot of serious documentation and tutorial and resources on big area(for a big view).

It's not the same but I remember the time of mental ray. every time we test it, the test was done on a cornell Box.

But my workflow is not on a cornell box anytime, i usually have big scenes, i  have instances, grass, trees, Car with complex and huge mechanical cad objects. In a tipical scene there are a lot of lights. 

If it's correct to test in an environment for all to test like a benchmark, the real world is different with different option and difficult area. 

This is the same for all the aspect of bifrost. We will like to see simplicity and ready to do.(i know i like simplicity) at 45 years after spends 20 years to manage and solve the problem in Maya, I'm tired out. Sorry

[wuhailu]

Bifrost has been released for two years, and even a 3ds max version can't be developed. Don't expect the game engine version, and don't expect to compete with Houdini. It would be good to keep Maya's only market!
I will not learn bifrost anymore, and there is no complete documentation for two years.
I have deleted all the instructional videos I recorded and published Bifrost on the Internet, learning Houdini Blender is the future!