 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > Isn't ratracing simulation of light?
>
> No. Ratracing is where you take two of more rats and have them compete
> in a race. Betting is usually involved. :)
And what is rayacing? (:
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ARTis wrote:
>
> > > Isn't ratracing simulation of light?
> >
> > No. Ratracing is where you take two of more rats and have them compete
> > in a race. Betting is usually involved. :)
>
> And what is rayacing? (:
Raytracing is essentially shooting imaginary rays of light out into space.
When one of those imaginary rays of light intersects something a pixel color
is returned to the screen depending upon the shape, color, and surface
properties described for that object. One could call it the simulation
of light but it does not truly model the physical properties of light as
one would expect from a scientific light modelling program. Raytracing
deals more with object properties than it does light properties.
Certainly there is an overlap that occurs to accomplish this but I
don't think calling Raytracing a "simulation of light" an accurate all
encompassing statement.
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rayacing is when a guy named Ray gets A++ in every class.
"ARTis" <art### [at] aaa apollolv> wrote in message
news:3bc2f823@news.povray.org...
>
> > > Isn't ratracing simulation of light?
> >
> > No. Ratracing is where you take two of more rats and have them compete
> > in a race. Betting is usually involved. :)
>
> And what is rayacing? (:
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 8 Oct 2001 19:28:36 -0400, "Redbeard \(MDJohnson\)"
<red### [at] wvadelphianet> wrote:
>I've been using Hugo Elias' page (http://freespace.virgin.net/hugo.elias/) as a
>reference for my simulations. He's got some pretty good info, and if you like
>to explore he doesn't give you *too* much.
Keep in mind that what is shown on Hugo's page is *the* most
simplistic way of doing deformable body dynamics simulation. Linear
mass-spring models are in general simpler than, say, finite element
models, but the former can be made very realistic with introducing
different improvements.
As a start, I'd recommend reading anything you can find on the
subject, esp. the works of Demetri Terzopoulos, David Baraff, Andrew
Wittkin, James O'Brien and Chen Wu.
>As for falling through the surface - I'm cheating right now. If the
>y-coordinate is less than 0 + radius of element, it's forced to that value.
>When I start adding the ability to bounce off of surfaces I'll have to start
>using trace and being *very* careful.
Keep in mind that contact forces are *very* hard to model
realistically. Collisions are even harder, as impulse propagation in
this case is almost a stepwise process. In addition, inertia has to be
taken into account.
The geeky lingo above is to say that you can't just place some nodes
on the surface they will collide with and expect realistic results.
Maybe I'm just jealous (gelous?). Again someone beat me to it :)
Keep up the good work!
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Peter Popov" <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote in message
news:jsfastgausb9ouu35jhbp7a5shefje1oi9@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2001 19:28:36 -0400, "Redbeard \(MDJohnson\)"
> <red### [at] wvadelphianet> wrote:
>
> >I've been using Hugo Elias' page (http://freespace.virgin.net/hugo.elias/) as
a
> >reference for my simulations. He's got some pretty good info, and if you
like
> >to explore he doesn't give you *too* much.
>
> Keep in mind that what is shown on Hugo's page is *the* most
> simplistic way of doing deformable body dynamics simulation. Linear
> mass-spring models are in general simpler than, say, finite element
> models, but the former can be made very realistic with introducing
> different improvements.
>
I do realize that (I was an engineering major and was exposed to some FEM) but
I'm not really looking for *super* realistic right now. In fact, the animation
I was working for IRTC (which I still hope to finish, though not in time for the
contest) is going to use the gel to do a *very* unrealistic construction of a
bridge :-)
> As a start, I'd recommend reading anything you can find on the
> subject, esp. the works of Demetri Terzopoulos, David Baraff, Andrew
> Wittkin, James O'Brien and Chen Wu.
Thanks. I'll check into them.
> >As for falling through the surface - I'm cheating right now. If the
> >y-coordinate is less than 0 + radius of element, it's forced to that value.
> >When I start adding the ability to bounce off of surfaces I'll have to start
> >using trace and being *very* careful.
>
> Keep in mind that contact forces are *very* hard to model
> realistically. Collisions are even harder, as impulse propagation in
> this case is almost a stepwise process. In addition, inertia has to be
> taken into account.
Again, I'm not looking for full realism, just something that looks good in an
animation. I will probably have to cheat at most steps by introducing abitrary
forces. The sotrage format I'm using takes that into account.
> The geeky lingo above is to say that you can't just place some nodes
> on the surface they will collide with and expect realistic results.
Yep.
> Maybe I'm just jealous (gelous?). Again someone beat me to it :)
>
> Keep up the good work!
Thanks! In fact, while I was away I figured out something that is wrong with my
model. I hope to fix it over the weekend (now that beta 6 is out - thanks
Chris)
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
