 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hmm ... looks better every time ...
I'm wondering if there is a way to bring these small particles, that escaped
back to the mainstream ...
I think small groups of particles are OK but if these groups get to small
(maybe n<5) then they should tend to go back to the mainstream,
!OR maybe should create some new particles in THIS group with the current
speed of THIS group (+ a small amount of jittering)
dunno, if this can be implemented ... maybe its a bad idea at all, but that's
what I consider the most unrealistic
but a good work so far .... looking forward ..
--
Jan Walzer <jan### [at] lzer net>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
here's a possible fix. How about this: when you're figuring out where a
particle should go, and you realize that it's about to hit the floor, and
its Y velocity is less than a certain threshold value, then you set its Y
velocity to zero. Then, whenever you find a particle that is both resting on
the floor and has a Y velocity of zero, you multiply its X and Z velocities
by some constant less than 1. That will simulate friction, and may prevent
droplets from rolling away really quickly.
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
[ http://www.slimeland.com/images/ ]
"Jan Walzer" <jan### [at] lzernet> wrote in message
news:3bdb302f@news.povray.org...
> Hmm ... looks better every time ...
> I'm wondering if there is a way to bring these small particles, that
escaped
> back to the mainstream ...
>
> I think small groups of particles are OK but if these groups get to small
> (maybe n<5) then they should tend to go back to the mainstream,
> !OR maybe should create some new particles in THIS group with the current
> speed of THIS group (+ a small amount of jittering)
>
> dunno, if this can be implemented ... maybe its a bad idea at all, but
that's
> what I consider the most unrealistic
>
> but a good work so far .... looking forward ..
>
> --
> Jan Walzer <jan### [at] lzernet>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, I'm already using a friction parameter, even if it's quite low. I made
experiments with bigger values and in fact it looked more viscous.
--
Jonathan.
"Slime" <noo### [at] hotmailcom> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3bdb3ac7$1@news.povray.org...
> here's a possible fix. How about this: when you're figuring out where a
> particle should go, and you realize that it's about to hit the floor, and
> its Y velocity is less than a certain threshold value, then you set its Y
> velocity to zero. Then, whenever you find a particle that is both resting
on
> the floor and has a Y velocity of zero, you multiply its X and Z
velocities
> by some constant less than 1. That will simulate friction, and may prevent
> droplets from rolling away really quickly.
>
> - Slime
> [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
> [ http://www.slimeland.com/images/ ]
>
> "Jan Walzer" <jan### [at] lzernet> wrote in message
> news:3bdb302f@news.povray.org...
> > Hmm ... looks better every time ...
> > I'm wondering if there is a way to bring these small particles, that
> escaped
> > back to the mainstream ...
> >
> > I think small groups of particles are OK but if these groups get to
small
> > (maybe n<5) then they should tend to go back to the mainstream,
> > !OR maybe should create some new particles in THIS group with the
current
> > speed of THIS group (+ a small amount of jittering)
> >
> > dunno, if this can be implemented ... maybe its a bad idea at all, but
> that's
> > what I consider the most unrealistic
> >
> > but a good work so far .... looking forward ..
> >
> > --
> > Jan Walzer <jan### [at] lzernet>
> >
> >
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Now the flood's velocity is variable and the rounded box slowly rotates.
yuk!!
--
Rick
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Impressive! But feels kinda slow.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Now the flood's velocity is variable and the rounded box slowly
rotates.
>
> --
> Jonathan.
Very impressive! I watched it at least 30 times, than I had to force
me to quit - else I would still be watching.
Very cool!
cukk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I couldn't see it.
JRG wrote:
> Now the flood's velocity is variable and the rounded box slowly rotates.
>
> --
> Jonathan.
>
> Name: green.avi
> green.avi Type: Video for Windows (video/msvideo)
> Encoding: x-uuencode
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"JRG" wrote:
> Now the flood's velocity is variable and the rounded
> box slowly rotates.
This is impressive!
However, am I correct in the assumption that if the box rotates fast, then
some particles (possible many) will fall through the surface of the box?
(Though this effect can be decreased by using more calculation steps per
time unit.)
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated June 26)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Holy divx...
I have the mpeg version, which also looks better, but it's 1.5 MB :-(. So
it's not likely to be posted here...
--
Jonathan.
"Greg M. Johnson" <"gregj;-)56590\""@aol.c;-)om> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3bdcbef6$1@news.povray.org...
> I couldn't see it.
>
> JRG wrote:
>
> > Now the flood's velocity is variable and the rounded box slowly rotates.
> >
> > --
> > Jonathan.
> >
> > Name: green.avi
> > green.avi Type: Video for Windows (video/msvideo)
> > Encoding: x-uuencode
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <run### [at] mobilixnetdk> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3bdd90ff@news.povray.org...
> "JRG" wrote:
> > Now the flood's velocity is variable and the rounded
> > box slowly rotates.
>
> This is impressive!
>
> However, am I correct in the assumption that if the box rotates fast, then
> some particles (possible many) will fall through the surface of the box?
> (Though this effect can be decreased by using more calculation steps per
> time unit.)
Not only, the effect will look unrealistic unless you take into account the
extra mechanical energy given by the rotating box (which now is irrelevant).
--
Jonathan.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
