 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"St." <dot### [at] dot com> wrote in message news:48ff61ed$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:48ff61ae$1@news.povray.org...
>> St. wrote:
>>> hello
>>
>> CLASSIC! :-D
>
> Had to be done... :)
BTW, that's a really cool image. Reminds me of evil eyes and gnashing
sharp teeth!
~Steve~
>
>
>>
>> --
>> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
>> http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> BTW, that's a really cool image. Reminds me of evil eyes and gnashing
> sharp teeth!
Visit here to see what these things look like in motion:
http://www.falstad.com/ripple/
Mine will hopefully be fully programmable when it's finished, but this
shows you what can be done.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Hehe I just worked out how to use YouTube ;-)
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GeDiFxCY9s
>> (make sure you click the "watch in high quality" text)
>>
>> That's using a 256x256 grid, but it's drawing it in 3D as well as 2D
>> so it runs a bit slower (~150fps).
>
> I have no idea how hard this is for your GPU, but my CPU was loaded to
> 75% just playing this back!
...and yet here, it takes less than 10% of my dual-core monster machine. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:40:26 +0200, "scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GeDiFxCY9s
>(make sure you click the "watch in high quality" text)
Where were you in my "physcodellic" youth, Scot?
Groovy Baby :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:48ff83f2$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>
>> BTW, that's a really cool image. Reminds me of evil eyes and gnashing
>> sharp teeth!
>
> Visit here to see what these things look like in motion:
>
> http://www.falstad.com/ripple/
>
> Mine will hopefully be fully programmable when it's finished, but this
> shows you what can be done.
o.o
That should have a public health warning accompanying it!
Clever stuff though.
~Steve~
>
> --
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
> http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Visit here to see what these things look like in motion:
>>
>> http://www.falstad.com/ripple/
>
> o.o
>
> That should have a public health warning accompanying it!
>
> Clever stuff though.
Yes.
Now check out the rest of that entire site. He had a wave tank, some
stuff about 2D resonant modes, a drum head simulator, a plucked string
simulation, FIR and IIR digital filter demonstrations, some stuff about
quantum numbers, a simulation of heat/pressure/volume in an idealised
gas, simulations of magnetic and electric fields and how they interact,
an extremely neat analogue circuit simulator... and that's just what I
remember off the top of my head!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> My simulation manages about 2 seconds per frame for 100x100...
That seems ridiculously slow, even my POV version can do about 3 frames per
second with a 100x100 grid!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> My simulation manages about 2 seconds per frame for 100x100...
>
> That seems ridiculously slow, even my POV version can do about 3 frames
> per second with a 100x100 grid!
Even on a single-core AMD Athlon 1700+ 1.5 GHz CPU?
Actually, my current revision of the program manages in excess of one
frame per second even at 400x400. It's just nowhere near "realtime" speed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Actually, my current revision of the program manages in excess of one
> frame per second even at 400x400. It's just nowhere near "realtime" speed.
That seems a considerable improvement from before!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Actually, my current revision of the program manages in excess of one
>> frame per second even at 400x400. It's just nowhere near "realtime"
>> speed.
>
> That seems a considerable improvement from before!
I didn't actually measure it accurately before. It just "seemed" to be
taking forever.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
