I've modified my particle interaction routine in which particles experiment
a cohesive force, but cannot be too close either, so as to avoid having two
distinct particles occupying the same space.

This can be seen at the end of the sequence, in which the blobs settle down
in the bottom of the "receptacle" and don't occupy the same space. This
really improves the sense of the conservation of volume, which was evident
in some past animations.

I'll be happy to receive any feedback on this sample.

Of course, I'm also fed up with this surface, so the next thing I'll try is
to extend the algorithm to accept non-lathe surfaces.

Fernando.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'cohesion2.m1v.mpg' (196 KB)

> 
> I've modified my particle interaction routine in which particles experiment
> a cohesive force, but cannot be too close either, so as to avoid having two
> distinct particles occupying the same space.
> 
> This can be seen at the end of the sequence, in which the blobs settle down
> in the bottom of the "receptacle" and don't occupy the same space. This
> really improves the sense of the conservation of volume, which was evident
> in some past animations.

But there still seems to be a problem with the energy, the particles are
'vibrating' quite a lot in the end.  I suppose this is a general problem
of particle based simulations since they somehow behave like molecules and
this is exactly what the single molecules are doing in a liquid.  

> I'll be happy to receive any feedback on this sample.
> 
> Of course, I'm also fed up with this surface, so the next thing I'll try is
> to extend the algorithm to accept non-lathe surfaces.
> 

That's the advantage of doing things in SDL or as a Povray-patch.  You
have access to the internal intersection routines.

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

news:3bff3dde@news.povray.org...
> I've modified my particle interaction routine in which particles
experiment
> a cohesive force, but cannot be too close either, so as to avoid having
two
> distinct particles occupying the same space.

    That works much better, doesn't it?

Post a reply to this message

> I've modified my particle interaction routine in which particles
experiment
> a cohesive force, but cannot be too close either, so as to avoid having
two
> distinct particles occupying the same space.
>
> This can be seen at the end of the sequence, in which the blobs settle
down
> in the bottom of the "receptacle" and don't occupy the same space. This
> really improves the sense of the conservation of volume, which was evident
> in some past animations.

i think this is one case where more smaller particles will make a definate
improvement - very imporessive - especially the way they seem to behave more
like a fluid


--

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

Looks like the thing were pulling in a few of them really fast toward the
end, not very realistic to me. But still, the general shape of it is quite
nice and swishy. :)

Post a reply to this message

Very good!

I like it a lot. :)

Best Regards

Post a reply to this message

"JPGargoyle" <jpg### [at] clixpt> wrote in message
news:3bffe4c0$1@news.povray.org...
> Very good!
>
> I like it a lot. :)
>
> Best Regards

Thanks!!

Fernando.

Post a reply to this message

"Tony[B]" <ben### [at] catholicorg> wrote in message
news:3bffc8d4@news.povray.org...
> Looks like the thing were pulling in a few of them really fast toward the
> end, not very realistic to me. But still, the general shape of it is quite
> nice and swishy. :)

Thanks! I also see that speed a little bit odd, but I believe it may not be
too incorrect after all, as the potential energy of the particles has to be
transformed into kinetic energy when they are at the bottom of the "bowl"
and as the circular bottom is quite small, the angular velocity of the
particles has to be somewhat high.

Maybe a little more friction is needed to make it more realistic?

Thanks again,

Fernando.

Post a reply to this message

"Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5com> wrote in message
news:3bffa34f@news.povray.org...

> i think this is one case where more smaller particles will make a definate
> improvement - very imporessive - especially the way they seem to behave
more
> like a fluid

Thanks! I've already modified the code to accept other types of surfaces,
but I think maybe I'll leave this addiction away from me for some time,
because I haven't done many other important things!!!! I mean, POV is
dangerous!!!! :)

Fernando.

Post a reply to this message

>     That works much better, doesn't it?

Yes, I think so :)

Thanks,

Fernando.

Post a reply to this message