AWS Thinkbox Discussion Forums

PRT FumeFX Channel Error

Max2011 x64 - Krakatoa v1.6.0.43192 Service Pack 1 - September 8th, 2010

Ugh sorry, another one, not really a bug per-se, krakatoa is doing what it is supposed too, when the smoke channel is disabled in a FumeFX simulation, PRT Fumefx does not respect this setting and throws the warning:

WRN: fumefx_particle_istream::load_voxels() - Failed to load some channels from .fxd file "E:\Cache_FumeFX\FumeFX1357943\FumeFX001_0000.fxd" WRN: The requested channels were: 0xa and the recieved channels were: 0x2

This also causes a fail in the render, respectively.

I wasn’t aware that the smoke channel was still necessary, obviously it is :slight_smile:, since you can disable seed in smoke and only have fire.

That warning should not be causing any render fails. Can you elaborate on how the render is failing?

Sorry, should explain.

Fire particles do render when the “Generate Emission from FumeFX Fire” is enabled and Emission is On. Or I pipe a KCM with a vector to emission.

Else

Particles do not render when the above parameter is off, I would expect that they would since the are particles there, in the viewport anyway. I can’t light them, or the old standby force additive mode.
Max2010_KRK_FireNoSmoke.zip (22.4 KB)

But Fire particles are purely additive. If there is no Emission, there is nothing to render since Color and Absorption are both black and there is no Alpha generated. You need Emission, one way or another.

Also, in the future please use the word “fail to render” when you get an error message pop up when you try to render that informs you Krakatoa cannot render for some reason. Not getting what you want is not “failing to render”, it is “rendering unexpected results” :mrgreen:

Touche and I should know better!

Sorry Darcy, it is not failing just not doing what I want it to do! stomps feet on ground

In the real world :smiley: Is there a (KCM) way to make them not purely additive?

Just add some scattering or absorption.

  • Chad

And Density.

well smack me with a brick, isn’t it just obvious that I overlook the obvious :blush:

Thanks

Privacy | Site terms | Cookie preferences