Not actually what I had in mind, but it is at least a step forward in the
development of my liquid simulation theory :)

It may not be very clear what type of surface I'm using. It is a paraboloid,
and the camera is looking towards somewhere near the focus of the
paraboloid.

I know it is still far from Rune's or JRG's beautiful liquid animations, but
I feel like I'm making progress.

One of my most difficult problems was the calculation of the distance from
the particle to the surface, to know if the particle has to bounce. I had to
implement a Newton-like algorithm to know such distance for each particle.
For this paraboloid I know it works ok, but for more complex surfaces (such
as those I have in mind!), specially nonconvex surfaces, I don't know if it
would work.

I've programmed the simulation program in Matlab6, because it is so easy to
work with vectors and matrices in Matlab! But I was surprised to see that it
took much more time to simulate the motion than rendering the scenes!!!

I also have some problems setting the values of the blobs... I've tinkered
with lots of values and I just don't feel like I've reach the "sweet" point.

I'm eager to read your comments.

Fernando.

ps. Probably I will leave the computer overnight rendering a similar
environment but with much more blobs!

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'liquid5.mpg' (378 KB)

> 
> [...]
> 
> I know it is still far from Rune's or JRG's beautiful liquid animations, but
> I feel like I'm making progress.
> 
> One of my most difficult problems was the calculation of the distance from
> the particle to the surface, to know if the particle has to bounce. I had to
> implement a Newton-like algorithm to know such distance for each particle.
> For this paraboloid I know it works ok, but for more complex surfaces (such
> as those I have in mind!), specially nonconvex surfaces, I don't know if it
> would work.

In Povray you could use 'trace' to accomplish this - of course this is not
perfect for highly curved surfaces either.  Is there interaction between
the single particles BTW?

> I've programmed the simulation program in Matlab6, because it is so easy to
> work with vectors and matrices in Matlab! But I was surprised to see that it
> took much more time to simulate the motion than rendering the scenes!!!

I think Matlab isn't exactly what you would call fast, a separate compiled
program might improve speed.

> I also have some problems setting the values of the blobs... I've tinkered
> with lots of values and I just don't feel like I've reach the "sweet" point.
> 
> I'm eager to read your comments.
> 

It does not really look like fluid of course, but otherwise it looks
really interesting.  Both animations only show paricles direcly on the
surface, do they also leave it when speed and curvature are sufficient?

Maybe it would improve the fluid-like look if you interpolate additional
blob components for the render.

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

Nice anim, but I think you're right about the blobs. It looks a bit like
watery cream cheese <g>
Keep up the good work tho.

--

//Mahalis
camera{location<0,0.25,-2> look_at 0.5*y} #declare T=texture{pigment{crackle
scale 0.5 rotate 90 turbulence 0.75 color_map{[0 rgb 1][0.05 rgb 1][0.1
rgb<1,0.25,1>][0.25 rgbf 1][1 rgbf 1]}} finish{ambient 1}} #declare
c=difference{torus{0.5,0.1 rotate -90*x}box{<0.7,0,0.2>,<-0.7,-0.7,-0.2>}}
merge{object{c translate<0.5,0.5,0>} object{c translate<-0.5,0.5,0>}
cylinder{<1,0.5,0>,<1,0,0>,0.1} cylinder{<-1,0.5,0>,<-1,0,0>,0.1}
cylinder{0.5*y,0,0.1} texture{T}}
--

> I also have some problems setting the values of the blobs... I've tinkered
> with lots of values and I just don't feel like I've reach the "sweet"
point.

Post a reply to this message

looking good so far.

perhaps the best soloution for blobs would be to vary the settings depending
on the blobs proximity to other blobs. ie to see if you can get 'joined
blobs' to appear stickier


--

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

What I've noticed is that the messages with attachments usually are much
larger than the attachment itself... mmmh. :/




news:3bf5f624@news.povray.org...
> Not actually what I had in mind, but it is at least a step forward in the
> development of my liquid simulation theory :)
>
> It may not be very clear what type of surface I'm using. It is a
paraboloid,
> and the camera is looking towards somewhere near the focus of the
> paraboloid.
>
> I know it is still far from Rune's or JRG's beautiful liquid animations,
but
> I feel like I'm making progress.
>
> One of my most difficult problems was the calculation of the distance from
> the particle to the surface, to know if the particle has to bounce. I had
to
> implement a Newton-like algorithm to know such distance for each particle.
> For this paraboloid I know it works ok, but for more complex surfaces
(such
> as those I have in mind!), specially nonconvex surfaces, I don't know if
it
> would work.
>
> I've programmed the simulation program in Matlab6, because it is so easy
to
> work with vectors and matrices in Matlab! But I was surprised to see that
it
> took much more time to simulate the motion than rendering the scenes!!!
>
> I also have some problems setting the values of the blobs... I've tinkered
> with lots of values and I just don't feel like I've reach the "sweet"
point.
>
> I'm eager to read your comments.
>
> Fernando.
>
> ps. Probably I will leave the computer overnight rendering a similar
> environment but with much more blobs!
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

news:3bfa06b3@news.povray.org...
> What I've noticed is that the messages with attachments usually are much
> larger than the attachment itself... mmmh. :/

A little while ago someone mentioned it's about 3:2

-tgq

Post a reply to this message

> What I've noticed is that the messages with attachments usually are much
> larger than the attachment itself... mmmh. :/

that's the joy of text encoding :)


--

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

it should only be 8:7 if I'm right ...

8 bits are converted to 7 bits ...

(.. or are they only using 6bits? (hence the Base64-encoding) ... But then
I'm wrong ...)


--
Jan Walzer <jan### [at] lzernet>

Post a reply to this message

I had an increase of about 37.83 percent... That's not very efficient!!! :/

Good luck,

Fernando.

"Trevor Quayle" <Tin### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:3bfa4cf0@news.povray.org...
>

> news:3bfa06b3@news.povray.org...
> > What I've noticed is that the messages with attachments usually are much
> > larger than the attachment itself... mmmh. :/
>
> A little while ago someone mentioned it's about 3:2
>
> -tgq
>
>

Post a reply to this message