> I thought a lot about the problem and analyzed possible causes in my head,
> then came up with a better flowing algorithm. Luckily it worked! Now only
> about 0.3% of the particles fall through the surface.

That's not good enough! We don't want ANY particles to fall through! Go back
to the drawingboard! NOW! ;) You'll figure it out. Why don't you ask at
p.a-u? Maybe someone there can shed some light on the subject. I would be
cool if we could do an external version of this, and feed the data back to
POV. Collision detection would be the tough part, though. :\

> This animation does not have any more particles than the last (about 2000
> particles), but this time I've used 6 blob elements for each particle, one
> big and 5 small surrounding it.

Clever... :)

> However, while the last animation was too
> blobby, this one is perhaps not quite blobby enough. I think I should have
> used slightly larger particles. It may also be caused by the fact that I
> didn't use pseudo motion blur this time, so I tried to compensate by using
> real motion blur using an external program.

I was going to ask after watching it, if you used motion blur. Looks cool.
Pseudo and real motion blur are better together, I think.

> I also improved the heightfield, changed the
> camera view, textures and so on.

I approve of this new look.

> I'm wondering if the animation is too slow? I tried to compile it a double
> speed and it looked equally nice, but I decided to use the slow version
> because I'm going for the look of a large-scale simulation.

It's a good speed to show off the effect. Too slow for RL, though.

Post a reply to this message