 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bob H." <omn### [at] msn com> wrote :
>
> As you can tell I'm having fun playing with this sort of thing.
I find this vastly more interesting than tweaking textures to make the
mountain or the back porch step look "photorealistic".
I seem to use POV as a cad animation program more than anything else.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is very cool.
Is it "mere" rotations, or could you add another particle and have it move just
Would such a system conserve energy if one simply moved along at a constant
altitude (no, I don't think so, but how could one do it??)...
Bill DeWitt wrote:
> closer that the earth has completely fried and only the last traces of
> oxidized copper floating on the molten iron remind us of the blue oceans of
> the past.
>
> whole solar system. Probably with planets artificially enlarged for effect.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Greg M. Johnson" <"gregj;-()56590"@aol.c;-()om> wrote in message
news:3b17e786@news.povray.org...
> This is very cool.
>
> Is it "mere" rotations,
'Fraid so, I was not intending to model the interactions of the planet's
gravity, but only to display the curvature of space that they cause. I
only -wish- I knew enough to mimic real orbits and gravity...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3b17eed4$1@news.povray.org>, Bill DeWitt says...
>
> "Greg M. Johnson" <"gregj;-()56590"@aol.c;-()om> wrote in message
> news:3b17e786@news.povray.org...
> > This is very cool.
> >
> > Is it "mere" rotations,
>
> 'Fraid so, I was not intending to model the interactions of the planet's
> gravity, but only to display the curvature of space that they cause. I
> only -wish- I knew enough to mimic real orbits and gravity...
>
This looks great: how did you get the exact match of the orbits?
I remember a C-program that came with all the sources necessary to
construct a 3-body animation. It could contain the necessara formulas,
but then again I think 3 bodies are not enough for you?
--
Regards, Sander
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Sander" <san### [at] stolscom> wrote ;
>
> This looks great: how did you get the exact match of the orbits?
Cheated. They are just arbitrary sin/cos figures.
> I remember a C-program that came with all the sources necessary to
> construct a 3-body animation. It could contain the necessara formulas,
> but then again I think 3 bodies are not enough for you?
Everytime I try to explain this to my wife she gets mad.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Sander" <san### [at] stolscom> wrote in message
news:MPG### [at] NEWSPOVRAYORG...
>
> I remember a C-program that came with all the sources necessary to
> construct a 3-body animation. It could contain the necessara formulas,
> but then again I think 3 bodies are not enough for you?
The galaxy collision program I was trying to convert over from Basic to POV
a while ago does gravity interaction in a sense. Each particle is the same
mass but I'm sure that is a trivial matter. The stumbling block was due to
my not knowing how to get the DIM (dimension) arrays changed, among other
things. Was intended for 2D plotting of the 3D motions.
Really needs to be more a orbit simulator.
Pretty neat web pages here:
http://burtleburtle.net/bob/physics/orbit101.html
Bob H.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3b17f4be$1@news.povray.org>, Bill DeWitt says...
>
> "Sander" <san### [at] stolscom> wrote ;
> >
> > This looks great: how did you get the exact match of the orbits?
>
> Cheated. They are just arbitrary sin/cos figures.
>
> > I remember a C-program that came with all the sources necessary to
> > construct a 3-body animation. It could contain the necessara formulas,
> > but then again I think 3 bodies are not enough for you?
>
> Everytime I try to explain this to my wife she gets mad.
>
I should have said: heavenly bodies...
--
Regards, Sander
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Sander" <san### [at] stolscom> wrote in message
news:MPG### [at] NEWSPOVRAYORG...
> In article <3b17f4be$1@news.povray.org>, Bill DeWitt says...
> >
> > "Sander" <san### [at] stolscom> wrote ;
> > >
> > > This looks great: how did you get the exact match of the orbits?
> >
> > Cheated. They are just arbitrary sin/cos figures.
> >
> > > I remember a C-program that came with all the sources necessary to
> > > construct a 3-body animation. It could contain the necessara formulas,
> > > but then again I think 3 bodies are not enough for you?
> >
> > Everytime I try to explain this to my wife she gets mad.
> >
> I should have said: heavenly bodies...
That would be even better...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bob H." wrote:
>
> The galaxy collision program I was trying to convert over from Basic to POV
> a while ago does gravity interaction in a sense. Each particle is the same
> mass but I'm sure that is a trivial matter. The stumbling block was due to
> my not knowing how to get the DIM (dimension) arrays changed, among other
> things. Was intended for 2D plotting of the 3D motions.
> Really needs to be more a orbit simulator.
>
> Pretty neat web pages here:
> http://burtleburtle.net/bob/physics/orbit101.html
>
> Bob H.
When I did a simulation, it looked exactly like the next to last one in the
link you shared here. My simulation was simply my flocking algo: at time t,
calculate the gravitational forces on every particle, and use this acceleration
to modify the current gravity. I spent weeks and never got a stable system, I
think, because I didn't conserve energy. This, I think would take calcs at
infinitely small delta t's. Or maybe something about potential energy, but
I'm confused. Your model would never decay, and allow a stray "Jupiter" to
wander into it? If so, what's the algo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3b1800aa$1@news.povray.org>, Bill DeWitt says...
>
> "Sander" <san### [at] stolscom> wrote in message
> news:MPG### [at] NEWSPOVRAYORG...
> > In article <3b17f4be$1@news.povray.org>, Bill DeWitt says...
> > >
> > > "Sander" <san### [at] stolscom> wrote ;
> > > >
> > > > This looks great: how did you get the exact match of the orbits?
> > >
> > > Cheated. They are just arbitrary sin/cos figures.
> > >
> > > > I remember a C-program that came with all the sources necessary to
> > > > construct a 3-body animation. It could contain the necessara formulas,
> > > > but then again I think 3 bodies are not enough for you?
> > >
> > > Everytime I try to explain this to my wife she gets mad.
> > >
> > I should have said: heavenly bodies...
>
> That would be even better...
>
I _knew_ it would :)
--
Regards, Sander
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
