My first decent image using the wavelet turbulence code for fluid 
simulation. The default settings turned out to me none to interesting, so I 
have been playing around with random source generation and am getting some 
better results. I am going to run a simulation at higher resolution and 
hopefully have a decent animation in a day or two.

Mike

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'cotopaxi.jpg' (143 KB)

Preview of image 'cotopaxi.jpg'

"Mike Hough" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> My first decent image using the wavelet turbulence code for fluid
> simulation. The default settings turned out to me none to interesting, so I
> have been playing around with random source generation and am getting some
> better results. I am going to run a simulation at higher resolution and
> hopefully have a decent animation in a day or two.

Neat.  Haven't gotten a chance to play with the code yet, but it's a novel idea.
 Is the noise in the media from the Monte-Carlo sampling, or from the synthetic
turbulence?  If the former, then maybe media method 3 would work better.  With
the simulations I've run before, it seems like it can take longer to render it
well than it does to calculate it in the first place, but I guess it's been a
few years since I last tried.  Thanks for the good link, and I'm interested to
see the results of the animation.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

The turbulence adds a lot of detail to the media, so in a way it is 
producing the noise. More samples will remove it (around 200 using method 
3). Using interpolate 1 also seems to reduce artifacts significantly. I have 
the files now to render a 4 second simulation but it might take awhile. 
Uncompressed it is going to be about 5GB of data!

Mike


"triple_r" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
news:web.495937fd5c21e16bf02256cf0@news.povray.org...
> "Mike Hough" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> My first decent image using the wavelet turbulence code for fluid
>> simulation. The default settings turned out to me none to interesting, so 
>> I
>> have been playing around with random source generation and am getting 
>> some
>> better results. I am going to run a simulation at higher resolution and
>> hopefully have a decent animation in a day or two.
>
> Neat.  Haven't gotten a chance to play with the code yet, but it's a novel 
> idea.
> Is the noise in the media from the Monte-Carlo sampling, or from the 
> synthetic
> turbulence?  If the former, then maybe media method 3 would work better. 
> With
> the simulations I've run before, it seems like it can take longer to 
> render it
> well than it does to calculate it in the first place, but I guess it's 
> been a
> few years since I last tried.  Thanks for the good link, and I'm 
> interested to
> see the results of the animation.
>
> - Ricky
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Looks already pretty good! But the smoke is too crandy, somehow.

Post a reply to this message