ADOBE AFTER EFFECTS: Forum Expressions Tutorials Creative Cloud

Newton vs iExpressions

COW Forums : Adobe After Effects

<< PREVIOUS   •   FAQ   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Chris HollandNewton vs iExpressions
by on Oct 3, 2012 at 4:19:56 pm

Hi,

I was curious on what people's thoughts were of Newton versus iExpressions Physics.

A couple things I am thinking are Iexpressions is cheaper even buying the whole thing but I don't know that objects see each other an can interact with each other. iexpressions will also work in 3D space, whereas Newton is only 2D.

So using an example: Lets say I wanted to have a bunch of 3D objects, using element, drop onto screen and fill up the screen as if they were filling up a container. which would be the better option. I would want the objects to interact with each other as well as fill up in noticeable z-space as well.

I am curious what people's thoughts and suggestions are.

Thanks.

Chris Holland
Editor/Animator


Return to posts index

Joseph W. BourkeRe: Newton vs iExpressions
by on Oct 3, 2012 at 4:33:39 pm

As an owner of Newton, there's no question about object collision and interaction - I saw nothing in the demo of iExpression that indicated anything other than an object bouncing off a "wall" and hitting a "floor". Newton has density, friction, gravity, and a number of other physics features that are hard to beat. And it can work with text, and basically anything which can be given a mask or a path.

Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com


Return to posts index

Walter SoykaRe: Newton vs iExpressions
by on Oct 3, 2012 at 5:17:04 pm

[Chris Holland] "So using an example: Lets say I wanted to have a bunch of 3D objects, using element, drop onto screen and fill up the screen as if they were filling up a container. which would be the better option. I would want the objects to interact with each other as well as fill up in noticeable z-space as well. I am curious what people's thoughts and suggestions are."

iExpressions won't do collisions, and Newton won't do 3D, so my suggestion is C4D or any true 3D package with dynamics.

You may be able to fake depth with a multi-plane Newton setup. Stack several simulations, each in their own plane, receding into space; maybe rotate them a bit. Your objects will have true X and Y interactions, but they'll be locked in Z-space, so it may not be that convincing.

You could take a single Newton 2D dynamic system and rotate it on its X-axis so that it's raked toward the camera; again, you'll still only have 2D collisions, but they will have some sense of depth since they'll be approaching the camera.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index


Joseph W. BourkeRe: Newton vs iExpressions
by on Oct 3, 2012 at 5:26:03 pm

Walter's right - I skipped right over your "3D objects" mention - guess I need another cup of coffee. It depends on whether you have access to (and knowledge of) a 3D package, and whether it's worth your time to create the multi-plane setup to give you "sort of" 3D. If your camera is going to go off the z-axis in 3D space, which you suggest it is, then 3D is the way to go. While I've seen some demos of Newton which have 3D elements in them (via the CS6 3D extrude capability of AE, I believe), there isn't a way to get a true 3D view and the physics of Newton.

Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com


Return to posts index

Roland R. KahlenbergRe: Newton vs iExpressions
by on Oct 3, 2012 at 6:01:40 pm

Newton should be fine for collision of 3D layers. The impossible/very difficult part comes when the collision requires movement in z-space. If collision occurs with x/y space then Newton should do just fine. If you wanted x and y rotations, you can link via Expression or copy the required KFs from a Newton-ized 2D layer's z-rotation.

HTH
RoRK

Intensive AE & Mocha Training in Singapore and Malaysia
Adobe ACE/ACI (version 7) & Imagineer Systems Inc Approved Mocha Trainer


Return to posts index

Walter SoykaRe: Newton vs iExpressions
by on Oct 3, 2012 at 6:39:06 pm

[Roland R. Kahlenberg] "Newton should be fine for collision of 3D layers. The impossible/very difficult part comes when the collision requires movement in z-space. If collision occurs with x/y space then Newton should do just fine. "

That's what I was inelegantly trying to get at, but Roland and Joe said it much better than me.

With Newton and the ray-tracer, you can get more than 2.5D, but somewhat less than 3D because the object interactions are all bound within a plane. Let's call it 2.75D.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index


Roland R. KahlenbergRe: Newton vs iExpressions
by on Oct 4, 2012 at 7:03:40 am

[Walter Soyka] "With Newton and the ray-tracer, you can get more than 2.5D, but somewhat less than 3D because the object interactions are all bound within a plane. Let's call it 2.75D"

Meh? Walter, it'll always been closer to 2.5.5D
(note the extra/second dot - :-D). Until AE allows effects to work, natively, within its 3D comp space, we'll always be 2.5.5D - lol!

Cheers
RoRK

Intensive AE & Mocha Training in Singapore and Malaysia
Adobe ACE/ACI (version 7) & Imagineer Systems Inc Approved Mocha Trainer


Return to posts index

Chris HollandRe: Newton vs iExpressions
by on Oct 4, 2012 at 4:10:05 pm

Thanks for the feedback. It is much appreciated.

Chris Holland
Editor/Animator


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]