>
> Thanks. You do realize that it consisted of several objects (though they
> were put in a union)?
>

I did realize that, and also... (goes on below)

>
> There have been lots of animations where particles interact with more than
> one object. Look through this group and you'll find them.
>

...I know that there are often several planes or boxes used to limit the
particles to a certain boundary.

>
> > Also, I'd guess, having particles scatter through a room
> > filled with objects would be an extensive test for the systems.
>
> Not really.
>

Why not? If particles run into tight spaces, don't the faults in coding appear?

I've found a calculation error when rendering one animation. A particle hit
a corner, which would imply rebouncing off two positions at once. The system,
of course, calculated only one, but skipped the second, as the algorithm then
sorted it out as being a rebounce that would take place if the particle
would actually move backwards in time.
Thus, a particle bounced out of the boundary box and moved on out there!

One idea I just had for an animation:
Consider a three-storey house. No columns, no doors, no windows. Just
three empty room atop of each other. In the floor of the third and second
room are holes, different kinds of shapes, but not too big. Now, have
particles fall from the ceiling of the third room, and as some'll drop through,

they gain more speed and bounce upwards again, perhaps with enough force
as to re-enter a room above.
I know, thinking about it, it's pretty simple, but I'd like to see that kind of

animation. It's just something neat to play with, I guess.

You know those games in little plastic boxes, in which you have a maze or
some holes, into which you have to drop some metal balls?
It's just fun to look at, that's all.

Tim

Post a reply to this message