"Tim Nikias" <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3CD### [at] gmxde...
> I looked at the animation. From your post I gather
> you're using bicubic-patches?

No, these were smoothed triangular patches.  I started with a 50X50 array
and each square was broken into 2 triangles.  I took the vnormalized normals
for the 6 triangles surrounding each point, summed them, vnormaled the
result, and saved the result to another array.  Then I made a mesh from
those smoothed triangles.

I went through the exercise of making a bicubic patch for each square, but I
was unimpressed by the improvement over what I had with the triangles.
Other images I made to test it looked smoother, this one stood about the
same.  I was getting the internals points in the matrix by using the point
before and after each edge to do a linear approximation of the slope.

> The other thing: I think that the frequency of the waves
> can impossibly be higher than the frequency of the mesh.
> They're dependant on each other, the smaller the mesh,
> the faster waves will move, the "grainier" they look.

Well, maybe.  I was thinking after the waves start reflecting and
interfering with other waves.  I think you're right, though.  Won't finer
meshes only make the problem smaller?  The way the algorythm works, making
the mesh smaller still keeps the "speed of sound" at 1 square per tick in
the verticle and horizontal directions.  I tried to take the average over 8
points, but that either resulted in a black hole or a featureless (but very
round) wave, depending on the damping and value you divid the sum of the
corner point by.

> The implementation suggested that waves aren't fully circular,
> so I guess that's not you're fault...
>
> But Rune should speak up, he knows a little more about those
> matters!
>
> Good start though.
>

Thanks.  I forgot to mention the disclaimer that it's my first posted
animation.

Post a reply to this message