Pros of Blender-FLIP-Fluids

• Integration with Blender: Blender-FLIP-Fluids is a plugin that seamlessly integrates with the Blender 3D modeling and animation software, allowing for a more streamlined and user-friendly workflow.
• Visualization and Rendering: The plugin provides advanced visualization and rendering capabilities, enabling users to create high-quality fluid simulations and animations within the Blender environment.
• Accessibility: Blender-FLIP-Fluids is a free and open-source project, making it accessible to a wider range of users, including hobbyists and independent creators.

Cons of Blender-FLIP-Fluids

• Limited Customization: As a plugin, Blender-FLIP-Fluids may have less flexibility and customization options compared to a standalone fluid simulation engine like fluid-engine-dev.
• Performance Limitations: The performance of Blender-FLIP-Fluids may be constrained by the overall performance of the Blender software, which can be a concern for large-scale or complex fluid simulations.
• Dependency on Blender: Blender-FLIP-Fluids is tightly coupled with the Blender software, which means that users are required to have Blender installed and configured correctly to use the plugin.

Code Comparison

Here's a brief code comparison between the two projects:

Blender-FLIP-Fluids (Python):

import bpy
import flip_fluids_addon.base_types.flip_fluid_module as fluid_module

class FlipFluidsDomainObject(fluid_module.Base):
    bl_idname = "flip_fluid_domain"
    bl_label = "FLIP Fluid Domain"

    def __init__(self, obj):
        fluid_module.Base.__init__(self, obj)
        self.mesh_object = obj

fluid-engine-dev (C++):

class GridFluidSolver3 : public FluidSolver3 {
public:
    GridFluidSolver3(
        const Size3& resolution,
        const Vector3D& gridSpacing,
        const Vector3D& gridOrigin);

    void solve(double timeIntervalInSeconds) override;
    void computeVelocity(double timeIntervalInSeconds) override;
    void computeDensity(double timeIntervalInSeconds) override;
    // ...
};

Pros of SPlisHSPlasH

• SPlisHSPlasH is a well-established and widely-used library for fluid simulation, with a large community and extensive documentation.
• The library provides a wide range of features, including support for different fluid models, collision detection, and rendering.
• SPlisHSPlasH is actively maintained and regularly updated, ensuring its continued relevance and reliability.

Cons of SPlisHSPlasH

• The codebase of SPlisHSPlasH can be more complex and harder to navigate compared to Fluid Engine Dev, which may make it more challenging for newcomers to contribute or extend the library.
• SPlisHSPlasH may have a steeper learning curve, as it requires a deeper understanding of fluid simulation techniques and concepts.
• The library's focus on a wide range of features may result in a larger codebase and potentially slower performance compared to a more specialized library like Fluid Engine Dev.

Code Comparison

Here's a brief comparison of the code structure between the two repositories:

Fluid Engine Dev (doyubkim/fluid-engine-dev):

class FluidSolver3 {
public:
    virtual void Update(double timeIntervalInSeconds) = 0;
    virtual void SetBoundaryCondition(const Surface3Ptr& boundary) = 0;
    virtual void AddParticle(const Vector3D& position) = 0;
    // ...
};

SPlisHSPlasH (InteractiveComputerGraphics/SPlisHSPlasH):

class SPHKernelBase {
public:
    virtual Real W(const Vector3r& r, Real h) const = 0;
    virtual Vector3r gradW(const Vector3r& r, Real h) const = 0;
    virtual Real laplacianW(const Vector3r& r, Real h) const = 0;
    // ...
};

The key difference is that Fluid Engine Dev focuses on a more high-level API for fluid simulation, while SPlisHSPlasH provides a more low-level, modular approach with a focus on different fluid simulation techniques and kernels.

Pros of Tungsten

• Tungsten is a physically-based renderer, which means it aims to accurately simulate the behavior of light in the real world, resulting in highly realistic and visually stunning images.
• Tungsten supports a wide range of advanced rendering features, such as path tracing, photon mapping, and volumetric effects, making it a powerful tool for creating complex and detailed scenes.
• Tungsten is highly customizable and extensible, allowing users to write their own plugins and integrate it into their own projects.

Cons of Tungsten

• Tungsten has a steeper learning curve compared to Fluid Engine Dev, as it requires a deeper understanding of rendering concepts and techniques.
• Tungsten is primarily focused on rendering, and does not provide the same level of support for other aspects of game development, such as physics simulation or user interface.
• Tungsten is a relatively niche project, with a smaller community and fewer resources available compared to more mainstream game engines or rendering libraries.

Code Comparison

Fluid Engine Dev:

void AddSphereToScene(const Vector3D& center, double radius, const Vector3D& color) {
    auto sphere = std::make_unique<Sphere>(center, radius);
    sphere->SetColor(color);
    m_scene.AddShape(std::move(sphere));
}

Tungsten:

std::shared_ptr<Primitive> createSphere(const Vec3f& center, float radius, const Spectrum& color) {
    auto sphere = std::make_shared<Sphere>(center, radius);
    sphere->setEmission(color);
    return sphere;
}

Both code snippets demonstrate the creation of a sphere object, but the Tungsten version uses a more generic Primitive interface, while the Fluid Engine Dev version uses a specific Sphere class. The Tungsten version also uses a Spectrum object to represent color, while Fluid Engine Dev uses a Vector3D.

Pros of Mitsuba2

• Mitsuba2 is a highly flexible and extensible rendering framework, allowing for the implementation of a wide range of rendering algorithms and techniques.
• The project has a strong focus on physically-based rendering, making it well-suited for applications that require accurate and realistic lighting simulations.
• Mitsuba2 supports a wide range of material models and has a modular design, making it easy to integrate with other software and libraries.

Cons of Mitsuba2

• Mitsuba2 has a steeper learning curve compared to Fluid Engine Dev, as it is a more complex and feature-rich project.
• The project's documentation, while comprehensive, can be challenging to navigate for newcomers.
• Mitsuba2 may have a higher computational overhead compared to Fluid Engine Dev, depending on the specific use case and hardware requirements.

Code Comparison

Fluid Engine Dev (doyubkim/fluid-engine-dev):

void AddForce(const Vector3D<double>& force) {
    m_forces += force;
}

void Update(double timeIntervalInSeconds) {
    m_velocity += (m_forces / m_mass) * timeIntervalInSeconds;
    m_position += m_velocity * timeIntervalInSeconds;
    m_forces = Vector3D<double>();
}

Mitsuba2 (mitsuba-renderer/mitsuba2):

def sample_bsdf(self, si, sample1, sample2, active=True):
    """Sample the BSDF"""
    wi, pdf = self.sample(si, sample1, sample2)
    bsdf_val = self.eval(si, wi)
    return wi, bsdf_val, pdf