 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neither I have studied smoke, but here are some guesses:
Your animation:
- Thickness of smoke increases it's brightness. Is this realistic?
- Smoke seems to go upwards a bit too fast.
Smokegen animation:
- Far too thin line of smoke.
Nice to see your system moves to beta stage! :o)
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt wrote:
> Well, as a non-smoker, I can't see why you would
> bother making cigarette smoke out of something so cool.
Err, thanks! ;)
Any ideas what else I could make it into?
[reading down further]
Ah, incense. Any other ideas, just so I have something more to choose
from? :)
> It misses some of the granularity that smoke
> sometimes has, but maybe that's the scale.
I can try to make it more grainy...
> And it seems to go chaotic very quickly. In a still
> room I would expect it to stream a little longer.
Hmm.
> What I would like to see is the kind of double spiral
> that incense in a still room sometimes makes... I've
> seen that go up 3-4 feet before almost exploding into
> turbulence.
As always, it difficult to precisely visualize for my inner eye what
something looks like from a written description, but I can give it a
try.
Anyway, I wonder what it is that causes the turbulence to happen in such
a sudden way...
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> From my onw (big) experience with cigarette smoke,
> it is very realistic.
Weee... :)
> But wait... let me burn one... hmmmm...
I take no responsibility for that. ;)
> Seems that the real one is a bit more chaotic,
> but stays "straight" during a while, before the
> turbulence starts.
That's what Bill said too. I'll have to try to make it do that.
> Anyhow, it's definitely a very good simulation.
Thanks!
The good thing is that it parses and renders very fast because only very
few particles are used, and no media... :D
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" <run### [at] mobilixnet dk> wrote in message
news:3cdfc63f@news.povray.org...
Very convincing start.
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)
-tgq
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune wrote:
>
> Well, luckily I haven't got anyone around me who smoke, so I haven't
> really studied any cigarette smoke in details, but if it is anything
> like the smoke that comes when you blow out a match or a candle, then
> maybe the smoke in this animation could go for cigarette smoke.
>
> Well, obviously from the above, I need a lot of feedback to know if I'm
> on the right track... ;)
>
> [...]
As Bill and Jaime pointed out the smoke moving straight upwards and
getting turbulent after some way is a classical 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).
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hugo wrote:
> - Thickness of smoke increases it's brightness.
Actually it doesn't, but it probably doesn't decrease in brightness as
much as it should.
> - Smoke seems to go upwards a bit too fast.
I agree.
> Nice to see your system moves to beta stage! :o)
You're welcome to help testing it if you want. "Testing" also means to
make your own scenes and animations... :)
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:
>
>
> Anyway, I wonder what it is that causes the turbulence to happen in such
> a sudden way...
>
> Rune
> --
Probably inversion, a layer of warm air on top of a colder
layer.
Nice animation BTW, Rune but my first reaction is similar to
Bill's; 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 have no idea how you would get this effect, but
I'm impressed already.
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
