If I've understood you correctly, you want a
possibility to create "wave-swallowing" effects,
meaning that waves hitting a certain region won't
get reflected, in order to create your river.

That should be possible. The effect of reflecting
waves happens because the height of the wave
gets spread out less where it can't spread onto
blocked nodes. But, if I'd just nullify the heights
at certain points, the waves won't move further
than there...

In fact, as I've put a possibility to call a macro
between every step, this could be used to create
just the "no-wave-reflection" effect you're after.
I'd have to look into that, especially since this
might be handy for other situations as well.

As for particle-wave interaction: You could always
use POV's trace-function to check if an arbitrary
positions intersects the water-mesh, and if it does,
just place a LSS_Drop at the correct coordinates.
Emitting particles from the system would be a little
more difficult I guess, but again, the macro which
may be called after every step might be useful for that,
combined with some other macros which keep track
of wave-heights and -changes...
But I'm not much into that specific part (particles)
at the moment. I'm currently under a little stress, but
I'll look at wave-swallowing effects as soon as possible.

Other than that, all I can say is that the system is
more suited for calm waves and a little effect than
storms... As I mention in the help: This isn't a fully-fledged
volume-preserving simulation. Its a neat little effect,
originating from 2D-pixel-displacement, so don't expect
too much of it... :-)

(I still think highly of it! I'm proud I've begun and
finished something worthwhile which someone might
actually use... :-)

-- 
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

> > Hey all
> > > For something like a water trails a particles system would still be
best
> > Perhaps you should have a look at Rune's great particle system. It has
no
> > mass-mass-collision-detection between the particles themselves (only
> > paritcle-environment), so filling a glass with water is not possible
(all
> > the particles would stay on the bottom). But it makes wonderful streams,
> > waterfalls, fountains and even explosions. You can get it from
> > http://www.runevision.com
> >
> > hth,
> > florian
> >
> >
> >
>
> Yes, but I am not looking for water trails or the like, but the sort of
> real stream that is a transparent surface (not particulate) and is merely
> perturbed by any rocks or the like is interacts with. Now combining
> particle systems into this so that say an area where you get spatter and
> splashes would emit particles that when they hit add to the positive wave
> of this Tim's system would be very handy. However, as you mention,
> neither particle systems not this one can effectively simulate every
> situation. Making some provisions for some combination of them, assuming
> that my theoretical use of Tim's macros will work would provide better
> realism. Though actually... For it to really work right you would need a
> combinational system that only emitted particles when a 'wave' crested
> and began to collapse again. So that the 'spray' would be thrown from the
> edge of that wave. Tim's is easier for a standing pool and 'might' work
> for a river or stream.
>
> Particle systems, especially with inter-particle reactions would be much
> slower to simulate the same thing (I assume) in and one reason why the
> examples often look horrid is that a 50 foot waterfall, for example,
> doesn't have droplets any larger than a 5 foot fountain. If you cheat,
> then you get a large structure with globs of water that visually are ten
> feet wide, but if you scale up the waterfall to a real size the number of
> particles needed skyrockets. Obviously you can't do much about the
> problem with 50 foot waterfalls, but if you are making a river and you
> want to show spray, then a perturbed surface, with a 'few' carefully
> placed particle emitters around some key rocks and which have the right
> droplet size, makes more sense than using a particle system for the
> entire thing. However, if Tim's macros can't simulate such a sloped
> surface effect...
>
> I suspect however that is might, since a relatively flat river or stream
> could be thought of as one of his macros with one end open. I.e. water
> 'joining' one end causes displacement, but the edges do not generate a
> return deflection unless the wave hits an intervening object. If all the
> added disturbance occurs at the 'high' end and the low end is open and
> just swallows the wave that reach it.... Guess that is the real question,
> can it be made to ignore the 'edges' of the surface as a deflection point
> and only treat intervening objects for that purpose. Though that is
> probably not something that it will do. :p
>
> -- 
> void main () {

>     call functional_code()
>   else
>     call crash_windows();
> }

Post a reply to this message