JRG wrote:

> Nice, but it's just the same thing that mine and Gilles' macro do with trig.

  Not 100% the same. What I tried to avoid are the "caught in fall"
books that the trig method gives, without having to use low randomness.
Although this situation is possible, it's rare, and so it looks unreal.

> Even if it looks so, it would be really physically correct if you considered
> the weight of the books and the friction between book and book, and book and
> ground. Your macro checks if a book touches another one, but cannot say if
> the weight of that book makes the previous book fall or not. [...]

  Well, that macro does not intend to be a correct simulation, only a
tricky one. I used the size of the book as indicator of the book weight
(usually that's true, bcos all books are composed by paper), for the
probability of the book to stand up. I'm working now on taking it into
account also to slide the books proportionally, and to manage other
situations.

> BTW, your approach to the problem is quite clever. After all you managed to
> avoid all that trig formulae ;-) .

  Yes! ...but because I don't know how to do it with trig. :( My method
involves surely more work, but that's the typical character of the "lazy
ignorant" I am. 

> Can't wait to see your entry.

  My entry is too worked now to abandone it, so I will enter it for
sure. Your scene seemed also enough worked to finish it in time. Too
busy for the rest of the month? Or perhaps some vacations?

-- 
Jaime Vives Piqueres

La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org/

Post a reply to this message