I tried something similar with my grasspatch macro. I didn't try the "75% chance
of having a ball" idea, tho. I found for really large number of placements,
there is little visible difference between the two methods (simply finding
random ponits within the boundary was the second method) and I think the second
method parsed faster...

But it looks natural and good, and that's the important thing, isn't it?

Paul Vanukoff wrote:

> I was trying to emulate those super bounce balls. Placement was actually
> quite easy. I placed them on an evenly spaced grid, where each "cell" has a
> 75% chance of containing a ball (using rand() ). Then I moved each ball a
> random amount in the x and z directions, the maximum any ball could move was
> half the grid spacing, that way, it would look very random, but no balls
> would touch each other.
>
> --
> Paul Vanukoff
> van### [at] primenetcom
>
> "Josh English" <eng### [at] spiritonecom> wrote in message
> news:38A2E0E4.A9CDBC05@spiritone.com...
> > Very nice realism, and it looks so simple. It reminds me of those rubber
> > "super-bounce" balls on an excersize mat. How did you place the balls?
> > I'm curious as to how you distributed them.
> >
> > Paul Vanukoff wrote:
> >
> > > I'll spare you the remainder of the subject lines I thought of.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Paul Vanukoff
> > > van### [at] primenetcom
> > >
> > >  [Image]
> >
> > --
> > Josh English
> > eng### [at] spiritonecom
> > "May your hopes, dreams, and plans not be destroyed by a few zeros."
> >
> >

--
Josh English
eng### [at] spiritonecom
"May your hopes, dreams, and plans not be destroyed by a few zeros."

Post a reply to this message