This is a new attempt, which can be downloaded
from my homepage. The camera moves less, the
emitter is visible and I think it looks better and
more obvious than the former version.

Here's the link:
http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/partixgen/animations/inertia.mpg

Those interested in the description itself just head to:
http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/partixgen/index.html


--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

This looks very nice! :)

I'm not sure though if I like this version or the previous version
better.

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

You really need to take that system out of that rectangular room and put it
in more interesting environments. =)

 - Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

That's the only environment my system may interact
with! Look on my website for details on the system,
you'll notice that its non I/O and cannot handle
any environment after all.

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

> You really need to take that system out of that rectangular room and put
it
> in more interesting environments. =)
>
>  - Slime
> [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
>
>

Post a reply to this message

> *Rune hammered something like*
> This looks very nice! :)

Thanks!

> *And went on rambling...*
> I'm not sure though if I like this version or the previous version
> better.

Then let me tell you, its this version you like
better. The camera moves more smoothly,
its very obvious that the particles are
moved by inertia...

Come on, you like this one better! ;-)

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

It's nice that we have a source object.
Did you say there is also some interaction with a field (besides gravity)?
I'm not nitpicking, but if your algo is that sophisticated, then a
demonstration scene should make this more apparent, say with a "fan" giving
the viewer a visual expectation of the field....


______________
Greg M. Johnson
lone, resentful person

Post a reply to this message

Greg M. Johnson wrote:
>It's nice that we have a source object.
>Did you say there is also some interaction with a field (besides gravity)?
>I'm not nitpicking, but if your algo is that sophisticated, then a
>demonstration scene should make this more apparent, say with a "fan" giving
>the viewer a visual expectation of the field....
>

I'm answering using the beta-posting of the
newsgroups, as I'm at my university...

I don't know where you got that "interactive
field" idea from. The physical simulation, which
only covers bouncing off of an unrotated box (or
the required planes, as single walls/ceiling/floor
may be turned off), only interacts with gravity.
Then there is a simple simulation, which adds
gravitational effects and some sort of wind, though
this is a more artistic than realistic approach.
Finally, you yourself can supply a macro which
has parameters that you can use to define the
path a particle takes.
In all cases, bounding-box and/or -sphere may be
used to keep particles in a confined space.

I have been thinking about trying to make the
physical simulation use wind into account, and
this might even be possible, given the recent
changes I've made to the system's algorithm. But
I'll look into that. But interacting with fields,
like a blowing fan, is definetely a no-no.

I know, thats sad, and after all, I think my
system won't gain much attention apart the
initial "checking-it", but it may become a
nice source for learning, its written and commented
very thoroughly and understandable. I tried not
to be too obfuscated... :-)

Well then, gotta leave!

Tim

Post a reply to this message

"Nikias" <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:web.3dc13d08221d6207dc7e5c90@news.povray.org...
>
> I don't know where you got that "interactive
> field" idea from.
> ...
> Then there is a simple simulation, which adds
> gravitational effects and some sort of wind, though
> this is a more artistic than realistic approach.
>

Okay, I'm saying your code has an added functionality--  "some sort of
wind"-- as you say.   To show off this bell and whistle, put an object that
will give the viewer a reference point for the wind, such as a fan.  Then
the viewer will be more impressed as he or she may understand and expect a
certain effect, rather than simply getting "more confused" if  a force other
than a fall downward is perceived.


______________
Greg M. Johnson
lone resentful person

Post a reply to this message

> Okay, I'm saying your code has an added functionality--  "some sort of
> wind"-- as you say.   To show off this bell and whistle, put an object
that
> will give the viewer a reference point for the wind, such as a fan.  Then
> the viewer will be more impressed as he or she may understand and expect a
> certain effect, rather than simply getting "more confused" if  a force
other
> than a fall downward is perceived.

Eh?
There are no external forces present in this animation. The emitter
moves along the specified railway. Particles are born on the surface
and move with the emitter the instant they are born, but then
have no contact with the emitter in any way.

So. Imagine yourself in a rollercoaster, holding a glass of
water. You know what happens when you're tossed around
in curves, right? That's inertia.

Its not an actual external field in the algorithmic sense of things.
Its the movement the emitter inhibits at the moment the particle
is born. Other than giving some velocity to the particle,
only gravity is applied. Everything else is then just calculated
from then on.

IF you're talking about making an NEW animation, showing off
other aspects than gravity and bouncing off of the boundary-
box, THEN I can only say: Yes, those animations are to come
as well. I'm creating one demonstration of a specific feature at
a time. Rainbow was for custom particles, Drops as a plain
simulation of gravity and rebounce, Inertia shows off the effect
moving emitters may have on particles.

And if I'm still not understanding you, then I don't know what
to think of my brain. ;-)

Apologies if I don't get it, had a hard week so far!

Regards,
Tim

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

>
> Okay, I'm saying your code has an added functionality--  "some sort of
> wind"-- as you say.   To show off this bell and whistle, put an object
that
> will give the viewer a reference point for the wind, such as a fan.  Then
> the viewer will be more impressed as he or she may understand and expect a
> certain effect, rather than simply getting "more confused" if  a force
other
> than a fall downward is perceived.
>

Post a reply to this message

Tim Nikias wrote:
>>> Then there is a simple simulation, which
>>> adds gravitational effects and some sort
>>> of wind,
>Eh?
> There are no external forces present in this
> animation.

Okay, sorry thought there was some sort of wind.  Just an idea for the time
that you do implement some sort of wind.  Nice work once again....

Post a reply to this message