 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I fixed some more bugs in the physics, so I decided I'd give them a thorough
test. I left this one running overnight and today while I was at work, that's 17
hours, just to see how it ran with a much larger number of balls. It's pretty
convincing apart from a couple of balls getting pushed through the walls :)
Next I think I might have a go at varying the radius and weight of each ball.
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'MOTION.MPG' (335 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
After about the 5th ball dropped (or so) a couple of balls seem to "slide"
to the left in midair before they hit the ground.
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbrain com> wrote in message
news:3b17d60f@news.povray.org...
> I fixed some more bugs in the physics, so I decided I'd give them a
thorough
> test. I left this one running overnight and today while I was at work,
that's 17
> hours, just to see how it ran with a much larger number of balls. It's
pretty
> convincing apart from a couple of balls getting pushed through the walls
:)
>
> Next I think I might have a go at varying the radius and weight of each
ball.
>
> --
> Tek
> http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
>
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3b17e14e$1@news.povray.org>, Patrick Dugan says...
> After about the 5th ball dropped (or so) a couple of balls seem to "slide"
> to the left in midair before they hit the ground.
>
I looked at all the images in detail (the motion blur made that
difficult), but as far as I can see it is all OK, the 'slides' you see
were 2 balls falling and hitting each other in mid air - I think.
To me it is astonishing real: excellent!
--
Regards, Sander
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I looked at all the images in detail (the motion blur made that
> difficult), but as far as I can see it is all OK, the 'slides' you see
> were 2 balls falling and hitting each other in mid air - I think.
I hate to contradict you, but I think Patrick might be right. I have a slightly
dubious piece of maths that alters the effects of gravity after a collision
(well I /thought/ it worked). I guess those two balls are just created too close
together then they fall constantly colliding. I've now fixed it in a low-tech
way by making sure balls aren't created so close together ;)
> To me it is astonishing real: excellent!
Thanks :D
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
watched it for about five minutes straight looping...
noticed balls would pick up energy sometimes almost as
if the floor were "sprung." sorta eat- also noticed
one ball in back right corner got "caught" somehow and
gained energy somehow until it winked out or stopped
cold- couldn't tell.
overall VERY neat simulation!
--
CG images, *obscure* home-brewed graphics utils, and
animation
http://www.users.qwest.net/~dearmad
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
wow - how about doing these higher res - (like double)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> watched it for about five minutes straight looping...
> noticed balls would pick up energy sometimes almost as
> if the floor were "sprung."
Hmm... I think that's just when there's a series of collisions (so whilst one
ball may gain loads of energy some others should lose it). Every
collision -should- lose a little energy. Still, I'll look for that.
> also noticed
> one ball in back right corner got "caught" somehow and
> gained energy somehow until it winked out or stopped
> cold- couldn't tell.
Yup, I spotted that one. it's fixed now :)
> overall VERY neat simulation!
Thank you!
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> wow - how about doing these higher res - (like double)
I would do, but my computer's been having problems recently due to overheating
(one of the many fans broke). I don't fancy leaving it on for too long until
I've fixed it.
Besides, I'm still improving the simulation. I'll do a high-res one once I'm
finished, if I ever am ;)
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3b180dd6@news.povray.org>, Tek says...
>
> I hate to contradict you, but I think Patrick might be right.
OK, I'll stop defending your work in future :)
--
Regards, Sander
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
Attachments:
Download 'MOTION.MPG' (556 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
