Tim Nikias v2.0 wrote:
> Come to think about it, I see why this particle-
> system might be better suited than a I/O one:
> there's no dependancy on earlier frames.

Um, I just want to put in a small note here that my system is not
dependent on earlier frames either. Of course it still has to
"calculate* the simulation from the beginning, in the first frame of the
series of rendered frames, but that's also the case in Non-I/O particle
systems, where the simulation is calculated from the beginning in
*every* frame, and not just the first one.

So in short: You can render any sub-series of frames in an animation,
and the system will automatically make sure that the final animation
when the sub-series are combined, will be smooth and seamless. It is the
same trickery that makes my system support cyclic animation, which is
also not normally supported in I/O particle systems.

Now, Tim's system might still be better suited for the project. (There
are probably numerous arguments both for and against.) All I wanted with
this post was to clear a possible misunderstandings about my I/O
particle system.

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