> To keep you pacified: ...

Well, that's good.  I just get paranoid about those things.  I guess there's
a reason people don't like spam.
> 
> My initial thought (when I was thinking about
> implementing that same paper) was to sample the simulation area and thus
> get the boundaries of objects for the smoke to interact with. In effect, I
> just "bake" the animation once by running the render without smoke and
> getting the volumes which block the smoke, then run the simulation, and
> then render the animation with the smoke.

I haven't really put a whole lot of thought into that yet.  That's not a bad
idea though.  For now, my approach is just to set up the simple primatives
in the c++ code and then have it write a pov include file that places
objects.  But I haven't really begun that stage yet, so I guess there's
plenty of time to think about it.  Ideally, it could be patched in kind of
like MechSim, but that's well outside of my ability.

> Another advice: if you do release the application, how about making the
> source-code available via email-request? I sure think some of us Povers
> would like to have a look at it and see if they can improve it, or enhance
> it with extra features...

Well, to be honest, there isn't really an 'application.'  It's just about
1000 lines of code.  It's set up as a big object though, so it runs with
only a few lines of setup and just 'Fluid1.frame();' to calculate one
frame.  So on the contrary, I will freely give away the source code (once
it's a little more complete) and maybe I'll have to send someone the
executable by email request.  But for now there's plenty to keep me busy: 
Re-implement boundary conditions (better), add a dimension, add support for
objects (static and dynamic), add an implicit solver for diffusion, add an
implicit solver for viscosity, add incomplete cholesky decomposition, and
maybe even make it user-friendly... maybe.  And I actually have time to do
these things.  I've forgotten what free time feels like.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message