 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TinCanMan wrote:
> Very convincing start.
Thanks!
> As for criticism, the smoke shouldn't disappear
> (at least it seems that way in the anim) but rather
> dissipate and spread out (until it loses visibility)
On my monitor that's basically what happens. But when I turn up the
brightness of my screen, the gamma value decreases, and then the smoke
looks much worse and disappears much more suddenly. I'll try to make the
smoke more suitable for a wider range of brightness and gamma values.
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Apr 14)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> As Bill and Jaime pointed out the smoke moving straight
> upwards and getting turbulent after some way is a
> classical effect.
I'm currently rendering my attempt at that effect. :)
> When you model it mathematically this has to do with
> the characteristic length getting longer and at some
> point the flow is reaching a critical rayleigh number
> and changing from laminar to turbulent (from memory,
> not sure if totally correct).
Sure. I think I understood 50% of the above text, but that was mostly
the fill words.
I think I can still simulate the effect in my particle system, but it's
not based on any physical models... As you probably know, my system is
very simplistic.
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Apr 14)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Sure. I think I understood 50% of the above text, but that was mostly
> the fill words.
;-)
> I think I can still simulate the effect in my particle system, but it's
> not based on any physical models... As you probably know, my system is
> very simplistic.
I think in this case an exact physical simulation would be unnecessary.
The optical effect is much more important.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 05 May. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Many others have already mentioned the
turbulences etc.
I wanted to address the 2D-Effect. Sometimes a
turbulence wraps about itself, and it looks like we
see a 2D-Slice of smoke when it does so.
Are you using some triangles for the representation of
the smoke?
Ah well. I'd be testing your system as well as
working on my own, if I wouldn't have too much
work floating around... Definitely need to get my
Computer's harddrive cleaned up from those
"Gerbera" excursions... Instead of cleaning newly
created "garbage", I left it for later, to have more time
for the image...
*sigh*
--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmx de
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Looks nice, especially effective for a demo.
How did you specify the turbulence of the air?
MJL
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> I think in this case an exact physical simulation would be
> unnecessary. The optical effect is much more important.
I hope I can get the optical effect right... :)
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Apr 14)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Nikias wrote:
> I wanted to address the 2D-Effect. Sometimes a
> turbulence wraps about itself, and it looks like
> we see a 2D-Slice of smoke when it does so.
Heh, yeah.
> Are you using some triangles for the
> representation of the smoke?
Yes. Bezier patches actually. I have already made attempts to address
the flat and twisted look, but so far only with limited success. It'll
look a little better in the next animation I'll post though.
> Ah well. I'd be testing your system as well as
> working on my own, if I wouldn't have too much
> work floating around...
And I should study some more for my exams. Nah, I can do that a little
later... ;)
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Apr 14)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Remco de Korte wrote:
> Probably inversion, a layer of warm air on
> top of a colder layer.
You mean like more or less static layers of cold and warm air in the
room? Ah, I thought it might be something more complex, perhaps related
with warm air following the smoke or something like that.
> Nice animation BTW, Rune
Thanks! :)
> it would be great if you could see the nice little
> 'curlies' you see in incense (haven't looked at
> cigarette smoke very closely).
I'm not very sure of what the effect you refer to looks like, but the
animation I'm rendering now is probably a bit closer to it - I hope. ;)
BTW Remco, though it's not very much we hear from you, I've noticed a
few messages from you now and then. It's good to see that you're still
around here in the newsgroups. :)
Are there any projects you're working on at the moment?
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Apr 14)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark James Lewin wrote:
> Looks nice, especially effective for a demo.
Thanks! Before it can be made a demo I have to clean up the code
though... ;)
> How did you specify the turbulence of the air?
Using the vturbulence function in POV-Ray 3.5 for the wind setting in my
particle system. It's a simple concept, but the tweaking of the effect
has been very time-consuming...
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Apr 14)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune wrote:
>
> Remco de Korte wrote:
>
> BTW Remco, though it's not very much we hear from you, I've noticed a
> few messages from you now and then. It's good to see that you're still
> around here in the newsgroups. :)
>
I have used POV a lot (a bit too much) for a project (a series)
I've worked on for about 18 months. I was already working on two
new titles when the publisher pulled the plug. When I started
with it it was the publisher who insisted I use 3D graphics (and
POV was the most obvious choice for me - free).
Now I'm working on another series, for another publisher, and
the man in charge their wants no 3D graphics at all. It's a
fairly low price product where there shouldn't be too much
'fluff'.
I was a bit disappointed at first but actually I'm glad now
because I've been working on it about a year and with 7 titles
on the market and a handfull of other already or almost finished
it is enough work as it is.
I check out these groups once in a while (a bit more frequent
the last few days) as a sort of diversion. I only use POV for
small stuff and I keep a safe distance from the advanced stuff
people like you are working on. It is tempting but way beyond my
scope.
It is still interesting to see what is going here in the
animations department.
Unfortunately I made the mistake of downloading the full version
of "Tripping the Rift" (is that the correct title). Now I know
what I'd _like_ to be doing (but never will).
How are things on your end (besides the continuing stream of
POVxperiments you keep producing)?
>
> Rune
> --
Cheers!
Remco
BTW - about the smoke, I don't really know about the inversion,
it was just the first thing that occurred to me. The part about
the small curls in the smoke is true though. If you don't want
to take up smoking (you could make a living out of it) you could
buy some incense (it's cheap) to check it out. I'm not sure if
that behaves in the same way as cigarette smoke.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
