Chris Huff wrote:

> In article <396572FB.AC4D4BD3@nospamthanks.hotmail.com>, Pabs
> <pab### [at] nospamthankshotmailcom> wrote:
>
> > Could work but maybe you could specify some different types of sampling -
> > like the box method, point & bbox method, sphere & bbox method, random
> > points in random directions et al.
>
> That would be possible, but I don't know how useful it would be. I think
> the best coverage would result from taking a random point in the
> bounding box and firing the ray in a random direction...that seemed to
> produce the best coverage for the proximity pattern.
>
> > Are U going to add propogation reactions like when a particle
> > interacts with a surface/other particle it creates new particles &
> > changes in some way.
>
> I plan to implement things this way:
> If a particle impacts a surface while traveling at a speed higher than a
> specified threshold, it will break into multiple particles smaller than
> the original(conserving mass and volume). Particle fission will also
> occur if the particle density in an area drops below a certain threshold.
>
> Low-velocity impacts on a surface will take a different set of rules...I
> might add calculations based on proximity to the surface. The particles
> will cling to the surface, making it "get wet".
>
> Particles will join together(fuse) if their velocities are close to
> being identical. This will be more likely if the particle density in the
> area is higher, and will not happen if it is below a certain threshold.
> This will help keep the simulation fairly efficient, so it doesn't get
> bogged down with a bunch of tiny particles.
>
> > > BTW, one other problem with the particle_system pattern was that it was
> > > slow,since all the particles had to be calculated. I plan on adding a
> > > bounding structure based on recursively subdividing boxes(I think it is
> > > called an octree...) or planes(I have no idea what this is called) to
> > > speed up inter-particle force calculations, so that should really speed
> > > up the patterns...
> >
> > What like ignoring particles so far away that the contribution is
> > negligible.
>
> That is already done, but the distance calculation itself takes
> time...which is why I am going to attempt to make a bounding structure.
>
> > Another pattern could be based on the velocity & or direction of the
> > particles.
>
> Or even better, a single pattern that can do all of those...particle
> density, average speed, average temperature, average age...

That all sounds great :)
Runnning ... out ...of ideas...NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

--
Bye
Pabs

Post a reply to this message