 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/06/2012 9:53 PM, Thomas wrote:
> What I am struggling with is the bit where the shutter has to rotate and follow
> the groove. Any ideas how this can be achieved?
Hi Thomas, I have not looked at your code but I have an idea that you
might be able to adapt.
Some years ago I did something similar for a TC-RTC animation. I used
splines to control the motion. In the animation below (it is cyclic and
should be viewed as a loop) each row is unioned (if that is a word). The
unions can be translated then rotated. This should give you the motion
required.
http://youtu.be/7BmtOe-8n0E
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> Some years ago I did something similar for a TC-RTC animation. I used
> splines to control the motion. In the animation below (it is cyclic and
I hadn't thought about using a spline for this... but that indeed might do the
trick. I'll give it a try (if I can find some time).
Thanks for the idea.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/06/2012 10:50 AM, Thomas wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> Some years ago I did something similar for a TC-RTC animation. I used
>> splines to control the motion. In the animation below (it is cyclic and
>
> I hadn't thought about using a spline for this... but that indeed might do the
> trick. I'll give it a try (if I can find some time).
>
> Thanks for the idea.
>
My pleasure and remember that you can store the data in an array.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I finally managed to get something going that I like. There are still a few
little bugs in and I am not convinced the bottom part should move like it does
now. Surely it should move at the same speed that the top part is moving at?
Here is the link:
http://legopov.blogspot.co.uk/
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/07/2012 8:16 PM, Thomas wrote:
> I finally managed to get something going that I like. There are still a few
> little bugs in and I am not convinced the bottom part should move like it does
> now. Surely it should move at the same speed that the top part is moving at?
>
>
> Here is the link:
> http://legopov.blogspot.co.uk/
>
That is good.
I think that it needs some more fps to see it better and a higher
bothering you with the movement of the bottom part.
edge rises unevenly as it rotates. I say unevenly but I think that it
will be a sine function.
You could post a mpg in povray.binaries.animations.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 08.07.2012 21:16, schrieb Thomas:
> I finally managed to get something going that I like. There are still a few
> little bugs in and I am not convinced the bottom part should move like it does
> now. Surely it should move at the same speed that the top part is moving at?
>
>
> Here is the link:
> http://legopov.blogspot.co.uk/
There's something fishy indeed: The elements seem to grow and shrink as
they pass the curve.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> Am 08.07.2012 21:16, schrieb Thomas:
> > I finally managed to get something going that I like. There are still a few
> > little bugs in and I am not convinced the bottom part should move like it does
> > now. Surely it should move at the same speed that the top part is moving at?
> >
> >
> > Here is the link:
> > http://legopov.blogspot.co.uk/
>
> There's something fishy indeed: The elements seem to grow and shrink as
> they pass the curve.
hi,
I posted a new animation in povray.animations.binary (?) after I fixed a few
bugs last night. It is also a render where the see through parts aren't see
through as it is a significant speed up :)
Any comments welcome.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 09/07/2012 21:55, Thomas nous fit lire :
> Any comments welcome.
Awesome.
Yet, the right angle would actually kind of make it impossible to move
that door the usual way. I guess it's just the original design of Lego.
(a slanted section at 45°, however small as long as probably larger than
1 element, would really be helpful to open & close the door from a
single point of action)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/07/2012 8:55 PM, Thomas wrote:
> I posted a new animation in povray.animations.binary (?) after I fixed a few
> bugs last night. It is also a render where the see through parts aren't see
> through as it is a significant speed up:)
It looks good to me. I think you've got it. Well done!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 09.07.2012 22:10, schrieb Le_Forgeron:
> Le 09/07/2012 21:55, Thomas nous fit lire :
>> Any comments welcome.
>
> Awesome.
>
> Yet, the right angle would actually kind of make it impossible to move
> that door the usual way. I guess it's just the original design of Lego.
It's not a right angle; it's an arc (albeit a small one).
> (a slanted section at 45°, however small as long as probably larger than
> 1 element, would really be helpful to open & close the door from a
> single point of action)
From a theoretical point of view, anything that avoids an instantaneous
turn is sufficient; no 45° section needed, nor any minimum size of the
transition section (except a > 0 constraint). A larger size reduces the
maximum force required for movement (and also levels out the differences
in force required during different phases of the movement), but even
with extremely small transition section sizes the required force is
always limited.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
