 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Simple question: is it possible to simulate the motion of a liquid (e.g.,
water), or is the math just too hellishly difficult without the help of a
supercomputer?
Andrew.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It is quite difficult. Here is a pretty good link
which can give you some insight to do your own
research with google:
http://graphics.stanford.edu/~fedkiw/
The techniques are pretty advanced and I'd say
very difficult, if not impossible, to implement with
POV-Script, and, parsing would be just breathtaking,
I guess.
--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmx de
> Simple question: is it possible to simulate the motion of a liquid (e.g.,
> water), or is the math just too hellishly difficult without the help of a
> supercomputer?
>
> Andrew.
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks for the website - looks highly interesting! Will have to spend some
time looking through that one...
Andrew.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3dbbc274@news.povray.org>,
"Andrew Coppin" <orp### [at] btinternetcom> wrote:
> Simple question: is it possible to simulate the motion of a liquid (e.g.,
> water), or is the math just too hellishly difficult without the help of a
> supercomputer?
It is not hard to do a very simplified simulation. You could use a
particle system with completely independant particles, and have
reasonable processing requirements. It won't be very realistic though.
You could do a more complex particle simulation with interacting
particles, I've seen simulations of this type that were pretty
convincing, but it is a lot slower. There are other types of simulation
that each have their own strengths.
To do a really realistic simulation of water would require a very
complex simulation and huge amounts of processing power, but you can
usually get a convincing effect with much less. It depends on what you
want...drops of water beading on a surface, paint pouring through a
funnel, waves smashing on rocks.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Waves smashing on rocks? Woooooooohooooo! Like I have the computer power for
that! ;-)
But seriously... I know once upon a time this stuff was science fiction. It
seems that it can now be done. (Well, we have increased computer power in
the last few decades.) It seems that the computations can be made feasible -
it's just that the math is over my head. (Well, from what I've read on the
website Tim gave me 8^0 But then... what do *I* know about maths? :'(
Andrew.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Andrew Coppin wrote:
>Waves smashing on rocks? Woooooooohooooo! Like I have the computer power for
>that! ;-)
>
Try this:
"A Simple Model of Ocean Waves" - Alain Fournier, William T. Reeves - ACM
0-89791-196-2/86/008/0075
If you can't find the paper online, drop me a mail and I'll reply with a pdf
attached (quite large, 4MB or so).
Another one could be:
"Modeling Waves and Source" - Darwyn R. Peachey - ACM
0-89791-196-2/86/008/0065
Both of these models are largely superseded by Fedkiw and Foster models (of
"Shrek"
fame), but, due to their semplicity, are attractive for use in small
projects.
Fournier and Reeves model is particulary attractive for the ease of control
it gives to the animator.
Alex
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
