Tim Nikias v2.0 wrote:
> There's also the precision thingy we've talked about
> months ago, remember? That my non I/O calculates
> an impact with the boundary box, while your I/O
> one approximates it with trace() calls. I doubt that
> the precision of your system is so much a drawback
> though.

Yes, this is the price to pay for having support for collision detection
with more than a simple bounding box or a plane... In most cases it's
not really a problem though.

> But one thing I've noticed and that is probably
> fitting to mention here:
> I've noticed that the interpolation in between
> frames doesn't yield smooth flying curves, but
> rather straight connections.

Are you talking about your system here or mine? I'm also not sure what
you're trying to say. You can't see the particles in between frames
anyway, so what do you mean by in between frame interpolation?

Anyway, in my system the precision of the flying curves are not
dependent on the framerate at all. It is dependent on the calculation
step rate, which is independent from the framerate. If you specify a
calculation step rate which is lower than the framerate, then (linear)
interpolation is used, but I've never been able to actually spot this
with my eye except in extreme cases where a way too low calculation step
rate was used.

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message