Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:

> > Still need to think on how to "raise" the y-axis level of each vibrational
> > source to better model it,
>
> Am I missing something here?
> I has a similar problem as the Modeller I use (Bishop3D this time not
> blender) only uses 3 decimal places. So I multiplied the data by a
> thousand and reduced the scale of the plane appropriately.

I mean in the isosurface formula.  When I plot out all the data in Excel, I see
that the mean y-values for all the different points vary.   I'm not sure how to
include the height differences of the points in my function.

> > and then how to offset the phase according to the
> > frame_number.
> >
>
> You have lost me there.

The isosurface is at present static.  I want to change the phase of my cosine
waves in the function, based on frame_number.   That way the waves ripple
outwards from the data points.

> > Not sure how the real vibrational data ought to be propagated into the plate
> > aside from that - maybe run it through a fast Fourier transform and somehow
> > alter the changes in frequency and amplitude based on that....
> >
>
> Can you trust the data enough to extrapolate?

I haven't really thought it that far out.
This is, after all, a problem posed by the OP.   It just caught my interest.

OK - back to interpolating the control points for my 3x3 bicubic patch model.
16 data points, 128 interpolated control points, 144 control points altogether.
 :D

Post a reply to this message