"Rune" <run### [at] mobilixnetdk> wrote :
>
> And of course comments are very welcome! :)

    That looks so good it is scary. I have to keep reminding myself that
this is all done with a text editor in a free software program.

Post a reply to this message

"Rick [Kitty5]" wrote:
> Looks good, however I think for a test it would
> have been better with a solid texture that
> contrasted with the BG green

I was going for a bit more realistic approach, but maybe it didn't quite
work out that way.

> - aside from that very impressive work.

Thank you!

> how flexable are these routine? could you for
> example to a whole HF water way - rivers \
> moat \ dams etc

There are no inter-particle forces, so the particles can't be used to fill
any volumes. That means you can't use dams, moats etc.

However, you can create rivers, streams and the like that flow in a very
flexible way.

Thinking about it, you should be able to fake dams in some cases...

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:    http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated May 10)
POV-Ray Users:   http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

"Bill DeWitt" wrote:
>     That looks so good it is scary. I have to keep
> reminding myself that this is all done with a text
> editor in a free software program.

Thank you! :)

I must admit I feel the same way. ;D

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:    http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated May 10)
POV-Ray Users:   http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

that is soooo sweet!!!  Only comment is the scale
looked like small water droplets for some reason even
though they didn't move quite small water where surface
cohesion has a greater effect.  Maybe more and smaller
blobs??

I dunno... it's nice at any rate!

-peter
-- 
CG images, *obscure* home-brewed graphics utils
and animation http://www.users.qwest.net/~dearmad

Post a reply to this message

"Dearmad" wrote:
> that is soooo sweet!!!

Thanks! :)

> Only comment is the scale looked like small water
> droplets for some reason
> Maybe more and smaller blobs??

If it took a day on Tony's machine with the current settings, it'd probably
take far longer if the number of particles are increased...

But wait - I have an idea... Something to try for later... :)

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:    http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated May 10)
POV-Ray Users:   http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

"Tony[B]" <ben### [at] catholicorg> wrote in message
news:3b239b6b@news.povray.org...
> Anyway, here it is. Enjoy. Comments and critiques to Rune.

...oh...my...god...

-Ian

Post a reply to this message

"Ian Burgmyer" wrote:
> ...oh...my...god...

Thank you! ;)

However, if the camera angle had been different you'd have been able to see
that hundreds of the particles fall through the surface - which is not good.
Something I'll have to work on...

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:    http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated May 10)
POV-Ray Users:   http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

"Rune" <run### [at] mobilixnetdk> wrote in message
news:3b272f37@news.povray.org...
> However, if the camera angle had been different you'd have been able to
see
> that hundreds of the particles fall through the surface - which is not
good.
> Something I'll have to work on...

Well, let's just say...it's a really...REALLY good start :-)

I like how the particles sort of "spill" over the edge.  That looks very
cool.

My only complaint is that the water looks a little blobby, but Tony probably
would have killed you if there were millions of blobs in there :-)

How long did it take you to do this?

-Ian

Post a reply to this message

"Ian Burgmyer" wrote:
> "Rune" wrote:
> > However, if the camera angle had been different
> > you'd have been able to see that hundreds of the
> > particles fall through the surface - which is not
> > good. Something I'll have to work on...
>
> Well, let's just say...it's a really...REALLY good start :-)

Hehe :)

> I like how the particles sort of "spill" over the edge.
> That looks very cool.

No special programming there - just a result of randomness...

> My only complaint is that the water looks a little blobby,
> but Tony probably would have killed you if there were
> millions of blobs in there :-)

He decided himself how many particles to use. He raised it from 10 particles
per clock unit (which I had used in my tests) to 100 particles per clock
unit.

BTW, the animation is 20 clock units long.

Using even more particles would probably look better, but also be incredible
slow. I am thinking of possible alternatives...

> How long did it take you to do this?

TonyB said it took about a day to render. But if you're talking about
creation time it's more difficult to say. The particle system is an ongoing
project for me that I've been working on for months. This animation in
particular took a few days which was mainly used to create the heightfield
and do test renders of the simulation.

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:    http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated May 10)
POV-Ray Users:   http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

"Rune" <run### [at] mobilixnetdk> wrote in message
news:3b2889bb@news.povray.org...
> > I like how the particles sort of "spill" over the edge.
> > That looks very cool.
>
> No special programming there - just a result of randomness...

Whoa, really?  Spiffy...!

> > My only complaint is that the water looks a little blobby,
> > but Tony probably would have killed you if there were
> > millions of blobs in there :-)
>
> He decided himself how many particles to use. He raised it from 10
particles
> per clock unit (which I had used in my tests) to 100 particles per clock
> unit.

Ah, I see.

> > How long did it take you to do this?
>
> TonyB said it took about a day to render. But if you're talking about
> creation time it's more difficult to say. The particle system is an
ongoing
> project for me that I've been working on for months. This animation in
> particular took a few days which was mainly used to create the heightfield
> and do test renders of the simulation.

A day to render?  I actually expected more :-)

-Ian

Post a reply to this message