On 2/16/2017 4:36 AM, Kirk Andrews wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
>> No, to get the water down you just need gravity. :-)
>> Seriously, Would you intend to make close ups or an animation? These
>> landscapes are generally quite static over short time spans. (I am sure
>> Thomas might have an opinion.)
>>

>
> I haven't played too much with animation, but suppose you could. It's not going
> to look too fantastic if you do a close up of those streams, since they're made
> of cones and spheres. You'd definitely be able to tell that up close.
>
> I've thought that maybe I could switch to building a mesh for the streams
> instead; that would probably yield better close-up potential.
>
> At the moment, it takes about half a second per stream to parse. There are about
> 100 streams in this render. If I don't have other settings cranked up too high,
> render times are just a few minutes right now.
>

They are good parsing times for something that looks complicated.

I only mentioned animation and close ups because you mentioned inertia. 
Which made me think of the lakes draining. But for that I think you 
would need to create the fluid dynamics in SDL or in a third party program.



-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message