Any trick for 30+ sec particle effects?

There seems to be a 30 second limit on particle effects, anybody know of a trick to extend this duration? Not everything is loopable.

Yeah, change the Time Scale of the effect. In the General section of the Controls panel, Adjust the Time Scale control to slow things down. Anything between 0 and 100% will be a slower-than-normal forward movement. Higher than 100% will speed things up, 0% will stop them entirely,

What is the reason for 30 seconds? Might the limit be removed in the future?

(If we hack the value in the saved project file, might that work?)

I'm not sure what the reasoning behind it is. A shot that lasts longer than 30 seconds is pretty rare, and having the total range smaller makes it easier to dial in specific values with the slider, so maybe that has something to do with it?

I'd be happy if the maximum Lifetime was increased though.

I suppose one of the few projects where you might want longer would be for a background, like the nebula or stars which could run a long time.
Not sure if the trick by reducing time scale will always produce a good result?

Why wouldn't it? What problem do you foresee?

My spider senses just suggest to me there could go something wrong with the motion. But nothing concrete.

There are a few controls on the particle simulator, such as 'Life' or 'Particles Per Second' which affect how many particles are on each frame. In turn, the number of particles on a frame affects performance, particularly if you've got a processor or graphics card towards the bottom end of HitFilm's minimum spec.

Because of this, there's always going to need to be a maximum range for these sort of controls. For the 'Life' control, 30 seconds generally provides a nice balance between being able to create the effect you want, and not having to worry that your export will take several days to complete! As Axel describes, most effect shots are generally no longer than 30 seconds.

I can confirm that Axel's suggestion of using the 'Time Scale' control should provide a rather elegant solution for you though. If you change the value of the control to 50%, slowing the simulation by half, and turn the 'Life' control of the particles to 30 seconds, they will actually be alive for 60 seconds. However, you'll also have had the effect of slowing down the particle motion, as they will move half as far in a second. To counteract this you'll need to double the values of controls like 'Speed' to get the same results as you would using a time scale of 100%.

Let us know how you get on, or if you have any more questions.

If you're doing a starfield, you can put the timescale to 0, as presumably you don't want movement, just a stationary starfield. That way it can last as long as you want.

Couldn't you export it as 50/60p, then bring it back in and jigger the playback speed. I think it's "time map" or something.

There's usually always a sneaky workaround in this stuff.

Yep, that would be another solution.

Using the Time Scale control built into the particle system saves the time, trouble, and potential quality loss of exporting, though, and keeps the particles in 3D.

In turn, the number of particles on a frame affects performance, particularly if you've got a processor or graphics card towards the bottom end of HitFilm's minimum spec.Because of this, there's always going to need to be a maximum range for these sort of controls.

I'm afraid I don't understand that line of reasoning which thinks its a good idea to handicap the abilities of program for the sake of some imaginary lowest common denominator. Why have infinite tracks it might slow down everything, lets just limit it. And lets limit the resolution, and the file size etc etc.

For the 'Life' control, 30 seconds generally provides a nice balance between being able to create the effect you want, and not having to worry that your export will take several days to complete!

Well presumably you can do that already; i made a particle sphere which took about an hour to render 10 seconds. And so what? If people add a billion particles, surely they would expect it might take a while.

I can confirm that Axel's suggestion of using the 'Time Scale' control should provide a rather elegant solution for you though.

I'm afraid I don't think its elegant; being able to set the time duration (or resize the event) would be elegant; having to calculate the values of 4-5 different settings seems messy.

If you're doing a starfield, you can put the timescale to 0, as presumably you don't want movement, just a stationary starfield. That way it can last as long as you want.

Haven't you looked out the window of the Enterprise lately? The stars are moving dude!

If people add a billion particles, surely they would expect it might take a while.

It would be soooo nice if that is actually how it worked. But, while that is the logical way to approach it, its not the perspective some users (or reviewers) employ when examining the situation. I'm glad you understand it clearly though.

Haven't you looked out the window of the Enterprise lately? The stars are moving dude!

Actually, I believe the ship is moving. Through the stationary star field. Technically, yes, all the stars are moving as the universe expands and the galaxy spins, but not on a level that is visible. The apparent motion of the stars through the windows of the Enterprise is entirely due to the movement of the ship. And can be perfectly simulated by animating a camera moving through a stationary star field.

Actually, I believe the ship is moving. Through the stationary star field. Technically, yes, all the stars are moving as the universe expands and the galaxy spins, but not on a level that is visible. The apparent motion of the stars through the windows of the Enterprise is entirely due to the movement of the ship.

Hehe, good point.

And can be perfectly simulated by animating a camera moving through a stationary star field.

So one could make a volume large enough that a camera could move through it without 'running out'? That might work.


Now lets talk transporters!

Yeah, absolutely. Especially if you use the Time Scale control, which would allow you to use a point emitter, shoot out particles as far as you want, then freeze them in time all at once, so you could move your camera about through them.

Transporters are an effect which we have on a list of tutorial subjects that we really want to do in the future. We are looking forward to tackling them as soon as we get the time. If you want to have a go at them sooner, we would love to see what results you come up with.

I'd like to do a transporter effect for the heck of it, but its not really on my immediate todo list - so you may beat me to it.
Will be interesting to see though.

Indeed. I believe Simon has plans to tackle the Star Trek (2009) version of the effect; which incarnation interests you the most?

Yeah, absolutely. Especially if you use the Time Scale control, which would allow you to use a point emitter, shoot out particles as far as you want, then freeze them in time all at once, so you could move your camera about through them.

When I try that the "stars" are blinking - on/off/on/off - that is not a desired effect...

They won't blink unless the settings or some external effect is telling them to; the only way we could troubleshoot that is if you send us the project file to take a look at, via the Support system.

They won't blink unless the settings or some external effect is telling them to; the only way we could troubleshoot that is if you send us the project file to take a look at, via the Support system.

I was simply following Simons tutorial on how to create 'space dust'.


I shall however mail you one soonish, but I must eat something first or I'm going to faint.