In article <3b192a70@news.povray.org>, Tek says...
> I changed my mind! Here's a bigger render, from a nicer camera angle.
> Unfortunately the motion blur isn't quite high enough quality for this
> resolution, but other than that I'm very happy with it :)
> 
> A change to the physics now means that the balls can escape through the open
> side of the box, which means the render has less things to draw, so this 200
> frame higher-res version took a /mere/ 6 hours!
> 
> --
> Tek
Even more impressive! A pity that rendering an animation still is so 
very time consuming; I would like to see more of it :)
-- 
Regards,  Sander

Post a reply to this message

> Even more impressive! A pity that rendering an animation still is so
> very time consuming; I would like to see more of it :)

Well, I've rigged it up so I can continue renders from any frame. Now I'll just
run it in the background whenever my computer's on :) I'll post the results once
I have some (or a link if the file's too big).

--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message

That's superb! - fascinating how the balls seem to collect in one corner (or
is that your physics model :)


--
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

> That's superb!

Thank you!

> fascinating how the balls seem to collect in one corner (or
> is that your physics model :)

I think that's just coincedence. I'm continuing the render at the moment, it's
got 36 frames further than the last one I posted, and it looks like that clump
of balls has moved now :)

--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message

Purty!

Post a reply to this message

Liked this thing from the beginning.  Are rotations involved at all?  Seeing
as how several of those fall, bounce off the wall and exit nearly
identically it would seem they don't have rotational friction.  Or at least
not randomized rotation.  Or you already are and I missed that fact.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message

> Liked this thing from the beginning.  Are rotations involved at all?  Seeing
> as how several of those fall, bounce off the wall and exit nearly
> identically it would seem they don't have rotational friction.  Or at least
> not randomized rotation.  Or you already are and I missed that fact.

Nope, you're right. Well spotted. In fact there's no rotation or friction in the
system at all. I figured I could get pretty good results without it.

--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message

Great ... and now, make it loopable ;-)


--
background{rgb 1}camera{location<1,5,-2>look_at 0}#macro m(a,b,i)#local d=(b-a)
/8;#local e=vcross(d,y);#if(i)m(a-e,a+e+2*d,i-1)m(a+e,a+2*d-e,i-1)m(a+3*d-e,a+e
+3*d,i-1)m(a+3*d-e,a+5*d-e,i-1)m(a+6*d-e,a+e+6*d,i-1)m(a+8*d-e,a+e+8*d,i-1)#else
cylinder{a,b,vlength(d)/3 pigment{rgb 0}}#end#end m(-4*x,2*x,4) // Jan Walzer

Post a reply to this message

Very nice!

There is something wrong with that ball, which rests in the corner, while it
got hit by several other balls. It jumps up at the end, but I really think
it should get some impulses from the other balls. Perhaps, it's just me,
though ...

I like the atmosphere of the colors used!

Marc-Hendrik

Tek schrieb in Nachricht <3b192a70@news.povray.org>...
>I changed my mind! Here's a bigger render, from a nicer camera angle.
>Unfortunately the motion blur isn't quite high enough quality for this
>resolution, but other than that I'm very happy with it :)
>
>A change to the physics now means that the balls can escape through the
open
>side of the box, which means the render has less things to draw, so this
200
>frame higher-res version took a /mere/ 6 hours!
>
>--
>Tek
>http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
>
>
>
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message