On Wed, 05 May 1999 17:04:41 -0500, Ben Birdsey
<bbi### [at] unlgrad1unledu> wrote:

<snip>
>        2) The other issue is the issue of realism. In a lot of
>           particle simulations, you don't really care if the
>           simulation cheats a bit on the physics.  You just
>           want it to look GOOD.  But Peter wants to simulate
>           something real, and something we all know.  So if he
>           runs the simulation and Mercury falls into the Sun
>           he's in trouble!

I will actually model a twin star planetary system. I am planning to
use a particle system to illustrate how a black hole "sucks mass" from
a star that passes nearby. I will also, do a particle system with
collision detection in addition to gravitational forces, and have some
laugh watching rubber stars knock each other in space. Last thing I am
planning is to put a camera on the moon, point it at Earth, and do a
dizzling roller-coaster-style animation that will make you all sick
for a month :)

<snip>

>           Actually computing the paths of the planets this way
>           is really only good if you want to see the TINY effect
>           that the Sun has on the orbit of the Moon, or the REALLY
>           TINY effect that all the other planets have on the orbit
>           of Mercury.

How about Charon's effect on Pluto?

>           With even 10 objects the rendering time is so much longer
>           than the computation time that it just doesn't matter, but
>           I wonder what happens when you start tossing in all those
>           moons and a few asteroids ...

NumCalcs = NumObj^2. I might get along with 100, maybe even 250
objects. More will be overkill.

>
>	This really is a cool topic.  Maybe we could start a thread on simulation
>issues or something!
>
>	Until that Day,
>	Ben

All the best,
---------
Peter Popov
ICQ: 15002700

Post a reply to this message