It's looking good.

--
/* Nekar Xenos */#local N=<-20,40,100>;#local K=<20,-40,100>;#local R=seed(0);
blob{#while((K-N).x>0)#local X=N;#local N=N+<rand(R),rand(R),1>/3;#local N=(
vlength(N-K)<vlength(X-K)?N:2*X-N);sphere{<N.y,-N.x,N.z>,1,1 scale .02}sphere{N
,1,1 scale.02}sphere{<-N.x-40,N.y,N.z>1,1 scale.01}sphere{<N.x+40,-N.y,N.z>1,1
scale.01 }#end pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission <2,4,5>*5}}hollow}
"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3b179347@news.povray.org...
>
>     This of course, is our solar system after the Sun has dragged us so much
> 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.
>
>     I intend to get the correct densities and distances today and make the
> whole solar system. Probably with planets artificially enlarged for effect.
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

>     I intend to get the correct densities and distances today and make the
> whole solar system. Probably with planets artificially enlarged for
effect.

very impressive - much better with the girds

how about making the gravity effects radius larger, so there is a very
slight, yet noticeable impression further away - with perhaps warped rings
appearing round the planets as well as the sun


--
Rick

Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
Hi-Impact database driven web site design & e-commerce
TEL : +44 (01625) 266358 - FAX : +44 (01625) 611913 - ICQ : 15776037
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk

PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA

Post a reply to this message

"Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5com> wrote in message
news:3b179b80$1@news.povray.org...
> >     I intend to get the correct densities and distances today and make
the
> > whole solar system. Probably with planets artificially enlarged for
> effect.
>
> very impressive - much better with the girds
>
> how about making the gravity effects radius larger, so there is a very
> slight, yet noticeable impression further away - with perhaps warped rings
> appearing round the planets as well as the sun

    Actually the planets do have rings that go around their holes, I will
post a more detailed image in pbi. But I would love to make them more
noticeable in the animation. I am trying various things to inaccurately
represent the slope so that it make more visual sense.

Post a reply to this message

Yes, the grid really improves it.  Shows the third dimension better.

I took the snipet of script you posted and made the solar system with
approx. correct masses and distances.  Not much to look at, as you might
guess, because of proportion.
At one point I had a fair gravity well for the Sun when the planets were
closer in and just basically exagerated; it spread wide and shallow.  I
didn't save the setup so now I have to try and go back to that or come up
with some other way.

Used Earth as the basis for units, E=1.  The Sun is so overpowering though
that all the inner planets get engulfed.  The Moon doesn't even show up
within Earth's G-well.
Kept it to a gradient y pigment pattern, just repeated a lot which is part
of the obscuration trouble I think.

I see you have Mars' orbit at 1 revolution to Earth's 2.  I've managed to
get the orbit timings done easily enough but the eccentricity is beyond me
right now so I guessed at it.

As you can tell I'm having fun playing with this sort of thing.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message

"Bob H." <omn### [at] msncom> 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
as if it were a comet under the influence of these bodies?  I tried a technique
that didn't work in creating stable orbits, as it did not conserve energy. 
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:

>     This of course, is our solar system after the Sun has dragged us so much
> 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.
>
>     I intend to get the correct densities and distances today and make the
> whole solar system. Probably with planets artificially enlarged for effect.
>
>                   Name: Gwell03.mpg
>    Gwell03.mpg    Type: MPLAYER2 File (video/mpeg)
>               Encoding: x-uuencode

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

"Sander" <san### [at] stolscom> wrote :
> > > >
> > > I should have said: heavenly bodies...
> >
> >     That would be even better...
> >
> I _knew_ it would :)

    But I should mention that it is not strictly necessary.

Post a reply to this message

"Greg M. Johnson" <"gregj;-)56590\""@aol.c;-)om> wrote in message
news:3b18473f@news.povray.org...
> Bob H." wrote:
> >
> > The galaxy collision program I was trying to convert over from Basic to
POV
> >
> > Pretty neat web pages here:
> > http://burtleburtle.net/bob/physics/orbit101.html
>
> 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?

Egads.  I never said those were my web pages  :-)  Sorry, I didn't think
about the URL saying "bob" in it.
I can only dream to wish I could come up with the math for those myself.
And the galaxy collision simulation was copied from a magazine years ago.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message

In article <3b18dd0b@news.povray.org>, Bill DeWitt says...
> 
> "Sander" <san### [at] stolscom> wrote :
> > > > >
> > > > I should have said: heavenly bodies...
> > >
> > >     That would be even better...
> > >
> > I _knew_ it would :)
> 
>     But I should mention that it is not strictly necessary.
> 
I know...
-- 
Regards,  Sander

Post a reply to this message

"Bob H." wrote:

> Egads.  I never said those were my web pages  :-)  Sorry, I didn't think
> about the URL saying "bob" in it.
> I can only dream to wish I could come up with the math for those myself.
> And the galaxy collision simulation was copied from a magazine years ago.

I didn't think it was yours.  But if you took the algorithm for your GCS, and
applied it to a solar system, would you get stable orbits?   Mine did not. 
Bill's looks supercool but as he says it's just sin & cos.

Post a reply to this message

"Greg M. Johnson" <"gregj;-()56590"@aol.c;-()om> wrote :
>
> Bill's looks supercool but as he says it's just sin & cos.
>

    I wonder if you can use trace or something to get the angle of slope of
my isosurface and use that to calculate the speed necessary to maintain
orbit?

Post a reply to this message

"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3b1927b4$1@news.povray.org...
>
>     I wonder if you can use trace or something to get the angle of slope
of
> my isosurface and use that to calculate the speed necessary to maintain
> orbit?

Interesting idea, perhaps so in a reverse way.  You're unlikely to start
with the angle of slope and get to the correct orbital velocities, simply
because that isosurface would be probably be difficult to conform to the
real gravity well(s).  This is all inexact science when dealt with in
POV-Ray I'd say.

Answering Greg, no, I bet it wouldn't remain stable.  The program is based
on going into chaos in the first place, not meant for long duration orbits.
Besides, it's the same case in a way.  You specify mass, velocity and
direction vector.  To me that means hit or miss.  :-)
I think a lot to do with that is why planetary simulators use things like
double precision math and constantly fine-tined equations.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message

Nice anim. For a really nice effect, try making the surface transperent, keep
the grid (maybe even make it a little finer), and place a starfield in the
background. Have you tried a square grid?

MJL

Post a reply to this message

I had the particles operating under a simple attractive force to the sun.  I
then played with hundreds (thousands) of values for the gravitational constant
and tweaks to the starting velocity.

The problem is that instead of calculating the force every "infitesimal"
second, I'd set it up to do say every 10 weeks, 10 days, 10 hours, 10 secs or
whatever.  Consider a rock tied to a string that is swung.  If you tried to
model that system by only applying the force at every *HUNDREDTH SECOND*
instead of CONSTANTLY, then the direction of the force isn't going to be
perfect for keeping it on a perfect ellipse.  Hence as Bob says double
precision and mega crunching to get less orbit decay.  The brick wall I ran
into was being forced into one of these choices:

1)  Sin & Cos and no stray particles, or no shooting stray comets at Earth and
seeing how well Jupiter protects it.
2)  Orbits that decay every "year".

But I'm intrigued that there could be some kind of "field effect" solution that
would be based  on Bill's isosurface.
 

Bill DeWitt wrote:

> "Greg M. Johnson" <"gregj;-()56590"@aol.c;-()om> wrote :
> >
> > Bill's looks supercool but as he says it's just sin & cos.
> >
>
>     I wonder if you can use trace or something to get the angle of slope of
> my isosurface and use that to calculate the speed necessary to maintain
> orbit?

Post a reply to this message

"Mark James Lewin" <m_j### [at] yahoocomau> wrote in message
news:3B1AE4C6.F8BCBE0F@yahoo.com.au...
> Nice anim. For a really nice effect, try making the surface transperent,
keep
> the grid (maybe even make it a little finer), and place a starfield in the
> background. Have you tried a square grid?

    I tried the square grid and didn't like it, but I should try the
transparent thing, it sounds like it would be cool.

Post a reply to this message

"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote :
>
>     I tried the square grid and didn't like it, but I should try the
> transparent thing, it sounds like it would be cool.

    Tried it and didn't like it either. The other edges of the iso shows up.

Post a reply to this message