 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I've been working on a way to use my particle system to create explosions.
This is the result so far. It took a long while to tweak it to look like
this, and by now I think I've worked so much on it that I can't judge it
myself anymore; I need outside opinions. So what do you think?
The animation is 100 frames long and was rendered at 320x240 AA 0.3 on a
1GHz computer. Try to guess how long it took.
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
Attachments:
Download 'explode.mpg' (503 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Rune,
I think the actual explosion/flames/smoke look perfect, *except* for the way
that the building shows through the explosion as solid lines, similar to
what happens in many games (which I think looks terrible). Not sure how this
could be avoided though.
All the best,
Andy
"Rune" <run### [at] mobilixnet dk> wrote in message
news:3c6a95e0@news.povray.org...
> I've been working on a way to use my particle system to create explosions.
> This is the result so far. It took a long while to tweak it to look like
> this, and by now I think I've worked so much on it that I can't judge it
> myself anymore; I need outside opinions. So what do you think?
>
> The animation is 100 frames long and was rendered at 320x240 AA 0.3 on a
> 1GHz computer. Try to guess how long it took.
>
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I've been working on a way to use my particle system to create explosions.
> This is the result so far. It took a long while to tweak it to look like
> this, and by now I think I've worked so much on it that I can't judge it
> myself anymore; I need outside opinions. So what do you think?
Looks quite nice, but I'd suggest using isosurfaces or dense media instead to
get a more 3D feel. At the moment it looks a lot like it's just flat polygons
facing the camera, which doesn't really suit pov's abilities, it's only the
early stages of the explosion that you can see the particles are actually media
(and even then I had to pause the animation to be sure).
> The animation is 100 frames long and was rendered at 320x240 AA 0.3 on a
> 1GHz computer. Try to guess how long it took.
I'd guess about 5 minutes per frame.... if it is pov...
Actually now I look closer I'm not convinced it is ray traced! Where's the
shadows? Is this just a real-time animation using a pov rendered explosion
texture on each particle?
(apologies if it isn't, but this is just how it looks to me)
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Andrew Cocker" wrote:
> I think the actual explosion/flames/smoke look perfect
Thanks!
> *except* for the way that the building shows through the
> explosion as solid lines, similar to what happens in many
> games (which I think looks terrible).
Hmm yes... :(
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:
> Looks quite nice, but I'd suggest using isosurfaces or
> dense media instead to get a more 3D feel.
Isosurfaces have sharp edges and are not easy to use to create flame and
smoke IMO.
> At the moment it looks a lot like it's just flat
> polygons facing the camera, which doesn't really
> suit pov's abilities
Heh, it looks like flat polygons facing the camera? :p
> it's only the early stages of the explosion that you
> can see the particles are actually media (and even
> then I had to pause the animation to be sure).
So it first looked like flat textured polygons, but after a closer
inspection you became sure that it was media after all?
> Where's the shadows?
Arg, you caught me!
> Is this just a real-time animation using a pov rendered
> explosion texture on each particle?
No, it's POV-Ray all right. But it *is* textured discs facing the camera.
Ok, so it's not a replacement for good old media as your observations
reveal...
> > The animation is 100 frames long and was rendered
> > at 320x240 AA 0.3 on a 1GHz computer. Try to guess
> > how long it took.
>
> I'd guess about 5 minutes per frame.... if it is pov...
But here's the positive side. It's only 9 seconds per frame, for a total of
15 minutes for the whole animation. Not exactly real-time as you thought,
but quite fast for a POV-Ray 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I like the fire after the explosion, but the way the mushroom cloud disperses
looks a bit odd to me. Maybe if the column of smoke from the fire was thicker
just after the explosion, and dwindled down, it may look better.
Rune wrote:
> The animation is 100 frames long and was rendered at 320x240 AA 0.3 on a
> 1GHz computer. Try to guess how long it took.
My guess is 1.5 - 2 hrs. It really depends on how many particles you have, and
whether you are using media or not. I suspect this is not media (discs perhaps?)
just because, if you make Al chew gum whilst walking, you would surely make
absorbing smoke which would leave a shadow :-)
MJL
--
light_source{9*(y#macro A(H,B,R,T)prism{0,1H+4,0u*9,9v*9,0#local I=1;#while(I<H)
#local V=asc(substr(B,I,1))-33;<div(V,10)mod(V,10)>#local I=I+1;#end pigment{rgb
y}rotate-<90,R>translate-T}#end-z)rgb 9}A(14",6;MWmhryXN3,"60<15,0,8>)box{-99(x+
z)*99pigment{rgb 1}}fog{distance 11}camera{location(y-z)*25look_at 0}A(8"6hiAG=6
"-60x*-10)A(16"/.@VZno=<PLA89/"0x*5) // MJL
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> No, it's POV-Ray all right. But it *is* textured discs facing the camera.
>
> Ok, so it's not a replacement for good old media as your observations
> reveal...
Aha! I was consfused by that but now I see it.
That would be a very effective technique for distant explosions or previewing an
animation, but I'd like to see how good it would look with media!
BTW, if you want to get shadows you could get a second set of discs facing the
light source and use the no_image tag :)
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
Rune <run### [at] mobilixnetdk> wrote in message
news:3c6ad778@news.povray.org...
> "Tek" wrote:
> > Looks quite nice, but I'd suggest using isosurfaces or
> > dense media instead to get a more 3D feel.
>
> Isosurfaces have sharp edges and are not easy to use to create flame and
> smoke IMO.
>
> > At the moment it looks a lot like it's just flat
> > polygons facing the camera, which doesn't really
> > suit pov's abilities
>
> Heh, it looks like flat polygons facing the camera? :p
>
> > it's only the early stages of the explosion that you
> > can see the particles are actually media (and even
> > then I had to pause the animation to be sure).
>
> So it first looked like flat textured polygons, but after a closer
> inspection you became sure that it was media after all?
>
> > Where's the shadows?
>
> Arg, you caught me!
>
> > Is this just a real-time animation using a pov rendered
> > explosion texture on each particle?
>
> No, it's POV-Ray all right. But it *is* textured discs facing the camera.
>
> Ok, so it's not a replacement for good old media as your observations
> reveal...
>
> > > The animation is 100 frames long and was rendered
> > > at 320x240 AA 0.3 on a 1GHz computer. Try to guess
> > > how long it took.
> >
> > I'd guess about 5 minutes per frame.... if it is pov...
>
> But here's the positive side. It's only 9 seconds per frame, for a total of
> 15 minutes for the whole animation. Not exactly real-time as you thought,
> but quite fast for a POV-Ray 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It does look really good, but by what I've seen your particle-system
do before, I was rather disappointed.
Thats just the case when you normally post animations that get
comments like "Jesus! I need to dig into POV a LOT more!" ;-)
As others have mentioned already, it looks 3D-Game-esque,
not POV-RAY. I mean, hey? What did you expect? We're
talking about the one, the only, the freeware raytracer
POV-Ray! Doh! ;-)
Okay, I do like POV-Ray a lot...
And you post an animation just as I'm about to take the
next two non-computer weeks to work through a printed
version of my Particle-System, and finally get it finished,
now that my IRTC-Entry (my first!) has been sent in...
Hooya! (Starship Troopers Battle Cry)
See ya, and I'll just hope you'll post a media-version in a few
days (hey, you've got two weeks, then I'll be back!) ;-)
--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just saw your reply to Tek; so they are discs. To make them cast shadows, you
could use a smart combination of light groups, discs and no_image / no_shadow to
make a shadow effect. Keep your camera oriented discs for visuals, and use
light_source oriented discs for shadows.
MJL
--
light_source{9*(y#macro A(H,B,R,T)prism{0,1H+4,0u*9,9v*9,0#local I=1;#while(I<H)
#local V=asc(substr(B,I,1))-33;<div(V,10)mod(V,10)>#local I=I+1;#end pigment{rgb
y}rotate-<90,R>translate-T}#end-z)rgb 9}A(14",6;MWmhryXN3,"60<15,0,8>)box{-99(x+
z)*99pigment{rgb 1}}fog{distance 11}camera{location(y-z)*25look_at 0}A(8"6hiAG=6
"-60x*-10)A(16"/.@VZno=<PLA89/"0x*5) // MJL
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tek wrote:
> BTW, if you want to get shadows you could get a second set of discs facing the
> light source and use the no_image tag :)
I am too slow today... (see my 2nd reply to Rune)
--
light_source{9*(y#macro A(H,B,R,T)prism{0,1H+4,0u*9,9v*9,0#local I=1;#while(I<H)
#local V=asc(substr(B,I,1))-33;<div(V,10)mod(V,10)>#local I=I+1;#end pigment{rgb
y}rotate-<90,R>translate-T}#end-z)rgb 9}A(14",6;MWmhryXN3,"60<15,0,8>)box{-99(x+
z)*99pigment{rgb 1}}fog{distance 11}camera{location(y-z)*25look_at 0}A(8"6hiAG=6
"-60x*-10)A(16"/.@VZno=<PLA89/"0x*5) // MJL
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mark James Lewin" wrote:
> I like the fire after the explosion, but the way the
> mushroom cloud disperses looks a bit odd to me. Maybe
> if the column of smoke from the fire was thicker just
> after the explosion, and dwindled down, it may look better.
Thanks for the tip, I'll see what I can do.
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 James Lewin" wrote:
> Just saw your reply to Tek; so they are discs. To make
> them cast shadows, you could use a smart combination
> of light groups, discs and no_image / no_shadow to make
> a shadow effect.
I know. I could even make it work with multiple light sources by using
bounded_by tricks. However, while the smoke should cast shadows of course, I
don't know much about how bright fire and explosions cast shadows, if any.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Nikias" wrote:
> It does look really good, but by what I've seen
> your particle-system do before, I was rather disappointed.
Hmm. I had worked out a system with discs where I was actually under the
impression that I wouldn't have been able to tell the difference myself,
apart from the shadows and the places where the particles are intersecting
with objects. But everyone have very quickly spotted the shortcomings of the
system... I wonder if I had used a non-moving camera if it would have been
as easy to tell?
> As others have mentioned already, it looks
> 3D-Game-esque, not POV-RAY.
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.
> And you post an animation just as I'm about to take the
> next two non-computer weeks to work through a printed
> version of my Particle-System
A printed version of your particle system??? I have no idea what you're
talking about... :)
> and finally get it finished, now that my IRTC-Entry
> (my first!) has been sent in...
Good luck with both!
> See ya, and I'll just hope you'll post a media-version
> in a few days (hey, you've got two weeks, then I'll be
> back!) ;-)
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. :)
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 James Lewin" wrote:
> > Just saw your reply to Tek; so they are discs. To make
> > them cast shadows, you could use a smart combination
> > of light groups, discs and no_image / no_shadow to make
> > a shadow effect.
>
> I know. I could even make it work with multiple light sources by using
> bounded_by tricks. However, while the smoke should cast shadows of course, I
> don't know much about how bright fire and explosions cast shadows, if any.
Ah, well if you did them with media and radiosity you could find out!
...if you don't mind waiting a week for each frame to render :)
Or you could use this as an excuse to watch lots of movies with big explosions,
for research purposes of course.
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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.
Well the thing that really makes them look computer game-y is the fact that you
can see lots of seperate identical textures. The big boom is okay (except where
it intersects the box object), but the trail of fire afterwards has so few
particles that they are obviously independent objects. BTW, this would still
look wrong using media!
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 suggest you just use more particles, so they overlap more and clues that
they're seperate are hidden better. Maybe also use a variety of textures,
computer games never do that due to a lack of VRAM.
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
Rune <run### [at] mobilixnetdk> wrote in message
news:3c6af03e@news.povray.org...
> "Tim Nikias" wrote:
> > It does look really good, but by what I've seen
> > your particle-system do before, I was rather disappointed.
>
> Hmm. I had worked out a system with discs where I was actually under the
> impression that I wouldn't have been able to tell the difference myself,
> apart from the shadows and the places where the particles are intersecting
> with objects. But everyone have very quickly spotted the shortcomings of the
> system... I wonder if I had used a non-moving camera if it would have been
> as easy to tell?
>
> > As others have mentioned already, it looks
> > 3D-Game-esque, not POV-RAY.
>
> 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.
>
> > And you post an animation just as I'm about to take the
> > next two non-computer weeks to work through a printed
> > version of my Particle-System
>
> A printed version of your particle system??? I have no idea what you're
> talking about... :)
>
> > and finally get it finished, now that my IRTC-Entry
> > (my first!) has been sent in...
>
> Good luck with both!
>
> > See ya, and I'll just hope you'll post a media-version
> > in a few days (hey, you've got two weeks, then I'll be
> > back!) ;-)
>
> 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. :)
>
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nice! Reminds me of Mechwarrior 2, only this looks better. Hope you can
figure out the shadow-casting soon. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mark James Lewin" <m_j### [at] yahoocomau> wrote in message
news:3C6AE427.A8FF1A57@yahoo.com.au...
> ...
> My guess is 1.5 - 2 hrs. It really depends on how many particles you have,
and
> whether you are using media or not. I suspect this is not media (discs
perhaps?)
> just because, if you make Al chew gum whilst walking, you would surely
make
> absorbing smoke which would leave a shadow :-)
I suppose your next trick, Rune, will be Al walking along, chewing a fat
smoking joke exploding-cigar...
Mark Hanford
http://www.mrhanford.com/povray
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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] yahoocom" }
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
