In article <3ed3598f@news.povray.org>, tor### [at] torfboldcom says...
> 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