 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I wonder if I had used a non-moving camera if it would have been
> as easy to tell?
>
Probably not, but as someone mentioned already, exact copies of the
same texture are pretty well recognizable...
> Apard from the shadows, I'd like to know how to make the fire and smoke look
> better if anyone have any hints. As i said, I've worked on it for a long
> time and am kind of unable to see if it looks wrong, and why.
>
One addition would be the rotation of the textures, but that won't work with
discs... If you imagine the great initial fireball as a torus, its easy to
explain:
the inner sides roll outwards and up, the outer sides inward an down...
> A printed version of your particle system??? I have no idea what you're
> talking about... :)
>
I wanted to take my PRINTER and PRINT the PARTICLE SYSTEM to
go it through BY HAND and look at DECLARATIONS and ALGORITHMS
to find optimisation possibilities (putting five sheets of paper with different
sections
aside of each other isn't that easy to be done on a computer)...
Heh, thinking of it, it's like looking at a hard-coded version... ;-)
> Well, I have reasons not to work on a media version right now. Basically, it
> will delay the release of my system. I just wanted to have *some* kind of
> explosion included in the first version of the package. :)
>
Aha. So we're approacing a particle rush? If you post yours, and it gets
popular,
mine won't have a chance... Ah, well.
--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Nikias" wrote:
> as someone mentioned already, exact copies
> of the same texture are pretty well recognizable...
Let me straighten this out. I'm *not* using exact copies of the textures!
I'm not sure where you get the exact copies from that you seem to spot in
the animation... ;)
And no, they're not image_maps but procuderal textures.
> One addition would be the rotation of the textures, but
> that won't work with discs... If you imagine the great
> initial fireball as a torus, its easy to explain:
> the inner sides roll outwards and up, the outer sides
> inward an down...
I have thought about this myself, but it would be very difficult to
implement as the individual particles don't know if they're on the "inside"
or the "outside".
All I could do would be to apply some random rotation to each particle, but
I'm sure that wouldn't look very good.
> I wanted to take my PRINTER and PRINT the PARTICLE SYSTEM
> to go it through BY HAND and look at DECLARATIONS and
> ALGORITHMS to find optimisation possibilities
Oh so you mean the *code* of your particle system! Why didn't you just say
that. ;)
The term "particle system" covers IMO everything including the concept, the
theories involved, the demo scenes, the code, the documentation, the
resulting images and animations, etc., so I was confused when you talked
about printing out "your particle system".
BTW, I'd never be able to work with code in printed form...
> Aha. So we're approacing a particle rush?
Not a rush, I've just decided not to implement too many new things and
consentrate on getting the first version ready for release instead.
> If you post yours, and it gets popular, mine won't
> have a chance... Ah, well.
Well, I for one would probably use it if it's flexible enough. Does it allow
me to get access to a particular particle's location at any time? For
example I'd like to know particle X's location at clock=0.6 even though the
clock of the scene is currently only at 0.3. That's not possible with my
system but I imagine it could be possible with yours because of the way it
works.
You see, if that's possible, i could use each particle in your system as an
emitter in my own system and that way get some truely interesting effects.
:D
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Jan 20)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mark Hanford" wrote:
> I suppose your next trick, Rune, will be Al walking along,
> chewing a fat smoking joke exploding-cigar...
Um, no... (he doesn't smoke.)
Actually, I'd rather have AL blown away by a nearby explosion - without
getting seriously hurt of course.
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Jan 20)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" wrote:
> Well the thing that really makes them look computer
> game-y is the fact that you can see lots of seperate
> identical textures.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Of course all the textures are made from
the same pattern, but unique turbulence is added for each particle, so
they're not identical. Maybe I should also vary the colors a bit?
> Plus their motion is such that it gives away where the
> seperate particles are. i.e. all the fire is either
> following one motion or another, none of it is inbetween.
I don't understand this either. I don't have a set of predefined paths, all
the particles react the same way on (inverse) gravity and wind, and besides
that some randomness is added.
I tried using more particles, but it just made the fire and smoke much more
blurred, because more textures were averaged...
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Jan 20)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" wrote:
> Nice! Reminds me of Mechwarrior 2, only this looks better.
Thanks! Never tried Mechwarrior 2 though...
> Hope you can figure out the shadow-casting soon. :)
Should be ready in the next animation!
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Jan 20)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark Hanford wrote:
> ...
> I suppose your next trick, Rune, will be Al walking along, chewing a fat
> smoking joke exploding-cigar...
...whilst doing the Dirty Bird[tm]...
--
signature{
"Grey Knight" contact{ email "gre### [at] yahoo com" }
site_of_week{ url "http://digilander.iol.it/jrgpov" }
}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > Well the thing that really makes them look computer
> > game-y is the fact that you can see lots of seperate
> > identical textures.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by that. Of course all the textures are made from
> the same pattern, but unique turbulence is added for each particle, so
> they're not identical. Maybe I should also vary the colors a bit?
Are they? Oh, I must be wrong about that!
Okay, well looking at it paused it's harder to spot the individual particles
than I thought, the only hint is that each texture has fairly uniform density
across it, so where they overlap that density is doubled and you can spot the
individual bits. If the texture was more transparent towards the edges then it
would hide this effect better.
> > Plus their motion is such that it gives away where the
> > seperate particles are. i.e. all the fire is either
> > following one motion or another, none of it is inbetween.
>
> I don't understand this either. I don't have a set of predefined paths, all
> the particles react the same way on (inverse) gravity and wind, and besides
> that some randomness is added.
I don't mean a pre-defined path, I just mean each particle moves seperately, so
where two particles move relative to each other you can see that they're
seperate. You see a parallax effect that immediately gives away the fact that
they're seperate.
> I tried using more particles, but it just made the fire and smoke much more
> blurred, because more textures were averaged...
That sounds like it would probably make the individual particles harder to see
:)
BTW, it's still a very nice effect, and anything better would take many times
the render time.
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> BTW, I'd never be able to work with code in printed form...
>
Why not? It's like reading a book... Well, okay, like reading ten
related books alongside each other - but hey, we're all up
to multi-tasking, or not? ;)
>
> > Aha. So we're approacing a particle rush?
>
> Not a rush, I've just decided not to implement too many new things and
> consentrate on getting the first version ready for release instead.
>
Well, then you'll also have to keep backward-compability in mind... Not
that I'd think you'd forget that, but just in case you need a reminder...
>
> > If you post yours, and it gets popular, mine won't
> > have a chance... Ah, well.
>
> Well, I for one would probably use it if it's flexible enough. Does it allow
> me to get access to a particular particle's location at any time? For
> example I'd like to know particle X's location at clock=0.6 even though the
> clock of the scene is currently only at 0.3. That's not possible with my
> system but I imagine it could be possible with yours because of the way it
> works.
>
> You see, if that's possible, i could use each particle in your system as an
> emitter in my own system and that way get some truely interesting effects.
> :D
You know, another interesting thingy about the way my system works:
I can calculate one set of particles, save their data, reload it as
emitters for another set of particles... But since my system can't keep
track of existant particles constantly (it would be very parsing and
calculating intensive, to know for each particle, which particle has caused
it, and when...), yours and mine could make a very good combination...
Perhaps when yours is out, we can have a combined look at how we can
make them fit together well and easy?
--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Nikias" wrote:
> > BTW, I'd never be able to work with code in printed form...
>
> Why not? It's like reading a book...
One things is reading it - making changes to it is a different matter. I
wouldn't be able to keep track on lots of small changes without coding them
little by little and testing that they work on the way.
> Well, then you'll also have to keep backward-compability
> in mind...
Only if I want to... I think it'll cause too many problems to really ensure
backwards compatibility.
> You know, another interesting thingy about the way
> my system works: I can calculate one set of particles,
> save their data
One time for every frame, or once and for all for the entire animation?
> Perhaps when yours is out, we can have a combined look at
> how we can make them fit together well and easy?
We'll see - I'm pretty sure the interfaces are completely different from
each other.
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Jan 20)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> One things is reading it - making changes to it is a different matter. I
> wouldn't be able to keep track on lots of small changes without coding them
> little by little and testing that they work on the way.
>
I wasn't really thinking about making major changes, just some
simplifications on certain algorithms, or variable-usage (there are
tons of them right now, and I probably don't need THAT many)
to save some RAM. And testing afterwards is of course a must.
> [...]
> One time for every frame, or once and for all for the entire animation?
>
I could go both ways, either for every frame, or once and for all,
though the emitting-objects wouldn't move then (I can only save
a certain time-frame, not actual animations, at least not yet)
> We'll see - I'm pretty sure the interfaces are completely different from
> each other.
>
I agree to that, but nontheless I could look at your system in order
to make my macros fit yours, and perhaps vice versa? Just that
someone could put your system in a macro of mine, and my
system in a macro of yours (in case your actually supporting
that many macros, I've made it possible for EVERYTHING to
be user-defined with a macro... but I'm not sure if that was
a good idea...)
When I'm back from my civil service course, I'll probably work
on some images and the particle system (docs, algorithms, examples),
so expect some funky (and crappy) ideas when I'm back... ;-)
--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
