"Tim Nikias v2.0" <tim.nikias (@) nolights.de> wrote in message
news:402cea89$1@news.povray.org...
> > Oh, I misunderstood :-) Hey, a way to get some water coming down the
> tunnel
> > might be to take a solid box water-like and have it at a slight angle
> > underneath the tunnel, just high enough to peek through the floor. Then,
> by
> > sliding it down, it will appear like water is filling in the cracks.
Also,
> > by making the box a height-field and animating the waves, you can get
the
> > rippling effect, and even have it slide up the sides back-and-forth as
it
> > comes down.
>
> That "rising box" kinda thing is often done in PC games, and lacks some
sort
> of real physical interaction with the environment it is "flooding". I'll
get
> to that later, first, another quote:

That's true -- it becomes less realistic as the water moves faster. If it
just trickles in, it's usually okay, but if it is rushing down, it'll
appear -- weird. That is why a height-field with it as well might work well.
But, it looks like you'll actually do a simulation, which is even better.

> > It might be possible to create a tunnel with an isosurface
> > and average a pattern in it. I'm gonna try that this weekend sometime
when
> I
> > need a break from writing my research paper. I've already created
> cylinders
> > and stuff with isosurfaces (real easy, but hard to visualize, imho) and
I
> > might be able to pull it off. Then, you'd get pretty much infinite
> > resolution on the tunnel.
>
> The problem with the isosurfaces is that I can't outsource those for
> heavy-duty calculations to a different programming language. An option I
> wanted to keep open was to have POV-Ray spit some initial data, and then
do
> processing intensive calculations with Java. Isosurfaces can't be used
> outside of POV-Ray. Another main reason for me not use isosurfaces is
> because I don't have too much experience with them, and I doubt that I
would
> be able to do the same kind of displacement to the walls like I do now, at
> least not that easily.

Ah, I get it. That's a good point. One of the great things about isosurfaces
is that they are built from functions (or a collection of functions) so you
are able to precicely calcalate a point on the surface at any point in space
by using the same functions. However, if you don't have software that uses
those functions, then you're basically hosed. You're giving me ideas for my
overlyambitious suite of 3d apps I'm building -- I'll add "isosurface to
mesh" to the list of would-be-nices. Because you can know the point in
space, converting it to a mesh is possible (with diminished resolution).
Right now, I'm working on a Poser (.obj) -> POV-Ray with hair generation
program (a replacement for PoseRay), and then COLDstitch which is a
replacement for HamaPatch/Wings3D, and of course my research papers for my
degree which have to take priority, so I can't promise anything soon for
that (I'll probably build it in to COLDstitch as a plug-in). 3D is my hobby
now (it was my job once) and I'm starting to love it again. I'm still more
technical than artistic, though, which is why I love watching you guys make
stuff -- it really inspires me (and makes me a little jealous, but jealousy
is a good thing -- it motivates) :-)_

> That aside, the approach for the effects I'm thinking about will probably
> work best with a mesh (since it may be outsourced as well)...
>
> Regards,
> Tim

Post a reply to this message