Tim Nikias v2.0 wrote:
> Yeah, I was talking about that very last bit
> of way too few calculations steps. I mixed
> "framerate" and "calculation steps" in my
> original post, my mistake.

No problem. But as I said, I don't really think that the linear
interpolation is a problem.

> Aside of that, I think both our systems would
> be suited for the IMP, but you mentioned
> something about mine being better suited.

No, I said that yours *might* be better suited, sort of to make clear
that I didn't make the post to indicate that my own system would be
better, but just to point out the fact about independancy on previous
frames.

Which system is really better suited is not a discussion I feel like
taking part in right now.

> BTW, can you call macro on certain events, e.g.
> when a particle hits a wall?

No, I haven't implemented support for that, though I think it would be
easy to add. (The wall hit that is. I don't know which other events you
have in mind.) I probably could do it if there was a great demand for
it, but in general I see my particle system as a project of the past.

> I've been rendering an animation where my
> particles bounce around in a Cornell-Box
> (the one from my Radiosity Experiments) and
> interact with a water-surface (achieved with,
> what else, my LSSM), and it looks pretty nice
> so far. :-)

Neat. :)

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