 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine wrote:
> Heat also refracts light, like the puddle-on-the-road mirage. So light
would
> bend away from the center of the flame, no?
Well, it's not really the heat that does it, just the density change caused
by the heat, but yes you're right, it will. Because the air in the flame is
hotter, it will be less dense, so a ray of light going in to it should bend
away from the normal (if you were to draw the normal right through that is).
--
Lance.
http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch wrote:
>
> David Fontaine wrote:
> > Heat also refracts light, like the puddle-on-the-road mirage. So light
> would
> > bend away from the center of the flame, no?
>
> Well, it's not really the heat that does it, just the density change caused
> by the heat, but yes you're right, it will. Because the air in the flame is
> hotter, it will be less dense, so a ray of light going in to it should bend
> away from the normal (if you were to draw the normal right through that is).
Which will also vary depending on where you intersect the flame since
there are varying temperatures within the flame itself.
--
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> Lance Birch wrote:
> >
> > David Fontaine wrote:
> > > Heat also refracts light, like the puddle-on-the-road mirage. So light
> > would
> > > bend away from the center of the flame, no?
> >
> > Well, it's not really the heat that does it, just the density change
caused
> > by the heat, but yes you're right, it will. Because the air in the
flame is
> > hotter, it will be less dense, so a ray of light going in to it should
bend
> > away from the normal (if you were to draw the normal right through that
is).
>
> Which will also vary depending on where you intersect the flame since
> there are varying temperatures within the flame itself.
That's right, which is why it's such a difficult thing to accurately model.
The other thing that makes it hard is that because it isn't a solid object,
the changes in density aren't as black and white (which means neither is the
normal)... I have no idea how someone would go about doing it perfectly.
--
Lance.
http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch wrote:
> normal)... I have no idea how someone would go about doing it perfectly.
As it is with many things in the 3D graphic industry. If you can't model
it with real world physical attributes you fake it so that it at least
appears like it was. Unless you goal is academic it probably doesn't
matter anyway since the viewer is more concerned about the results than
the methods used to achieve it.
--
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
> Lance Birch wrote:
> > normal)... I have no idea how someone would go about doing it perfectly.
>
> As it is with many things in the 3D graphic industry. If you can't model
> it with real world physical attributes you fake it so that it at least
> appears like it was. Unless you goal is academic it probably doesn't
> matter anyway since the viewer is more concerned about the results than
> the methods used to achieve it.
Yes that's right. I made an image today that is a bit along those lines...
--
Lance.
http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3A3C43D0.9E91475C@faricy.net>, David Fontaine
<dav### [at] faricy net> wrote:
> Does a suspension refract? It's a suspension of smoke particles in
> air, and the ior of the air is the same inside the flame.
It is far more than a suspension of smoke particles in the air...there
are also various vaporized compounds and ions that will also affect the
density and ior. In addition, flames coming from a pressurized gas
released through a small hole will have an even higher density at the
beginning, flames from a pre-mixed gas will also be a bit different,
etc...
> Heat also refracts light, like the puddle-on-the-road mirage. So
> light would bend away from the center of the flame, no?
As mentioned, it isn't the heat, it is the varying density caused by the
heat, and since the heat isn't constant and the composition of the flame
at each point can also have an effect, the effect is more complex than
simply bending light away from the center of the flame. Then you have
things like turbulence, etc...
Of course, in just doing artistic images in POV, if you need the ior at
all (and assuming someone writes the patch for variable ior) you could
just do a spherical patterned ior...but the original question was about
absorption.
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune wrote:
>
> To create fire that looks realistic in POV-Ray the usual approach is
> to use both emitting and absorbing media. Absorbing media is used to
> make the fire visible on bright backgrounds.
>
> But I think in reality fire doesn't absorb light (almost not anyway).
Hot gases *do* absorb light; in fact, they absorb at the exact same
frequencies at which they emit. This is how astronomers can tell
which gases comprise the sun's corona, various nebulae, etc.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch <-> wrote in message <3a3c4b9c@news.povray.org>...
>Ken wrote:
>>
>> Which will also vary depending on where you intersect the flame since
>> there are varying temperatures within the flame itself.
>
>That's right, which is why it's such a difficult thing to accurately model.
>The other thing that makes it hard is that because it isn't a solid object,
>the changes in density aren't as black and white (which means neither is
the
>normal)... I have no idea how someone would go about doing it perfectly.
The density of the flame at any given point is well-defined. I think that
the overall process for tracing the ray would be to solve the appropriate
initial-value differential equation -- not the world's easiest process.
--
Mark
"The derivative of sin(2x) is cos(2x)" - Matt Giwer
"I never said that" - Matt Giwer
"I completely agree a flywheel can store a million times more energy if its
rotational velocity is measured in microradians instead of radians." - Matt
Giwer
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark Wagner wrote:
> The density of the flame at any given point is well-defined. I think that
> the overall process for tracing the ray would be to solve the appropriate
> initial-value differential equation -- not the world's easiest process.
Oh, that all? Should be easy. (j/k) ;)
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
>
> Rune wrote:
> >
> > To create fire that looks realistic in POV-Ray the usual approach is
> > to use both emitting and absorbing media. Absorbing media is used to
> > make the fire visible on bright backgrounds.
> >
> > But I think in reality fire doesn't absorb light (almost not anyway).
>
> Hot gases *do* absorb light; in fact, they absorb at the exact same
> frequencies at which they emit. This is how astronomers can tell
> which gases comprise the sun's corona, various nebulae, etc.
The moral of which is that - by default, and unless you _know_why_ you
want to do something else - you should set your emission and absorbtion
to be the same in any glowing media. It will almost always look better.
-Robert Dawson
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
