 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Tim Nikias v2 0
Subject: Liquid metal reaction Take 2 (396kb MPG1)
Date: 28 Mar 2003 07:11:44
Message: <3e843c00@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Here's a longer version. As mentioned before,
it seems that the water juggles itself upwards
in the tight back corner, where smoothening
doesn't "eliminate" height (which is normally
a wanted side-effect). I've stopped the simulation
when the liquid metal reached the clipping-object,
since that's just about where the interesting part
ends. After that, it'll just fill up indefinitely.
Nontheless, the waves look convincing, how
they swirl around the cylinder... I like it. :-)
--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: Tim### [at] gmx de
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'water_b4b.mpg' (397 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Florian Brucker
Subject: Re: Liquid metal reaction Take 2 (396kb MPG1)
Date: 28 Mar 2003 07:31:19
Message: <3e844097$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hey tim
that's really cool. i like espescially the moment just when it reaches the
clipping container, with only the "side walls" of the water visible. looks
really nice.
keep up the good work
florian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
So it stabilizes by growing upwards in the shape of the vessel. The last six
frames are intriguing.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Very cool, but as for a liquid metal, per se, the surface tension is wrong.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Tim Nikias v2 0
Subject: Re: Liquid metal reaction Take 2 (396kb MPG1)
Date: 28 Mar 2003 08:41:01
Message: <3e8450ed$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That not really stabilizing, is it? There's a wave
which pushes back and forth between the initial
corner and the first blocking box. Every time it
hits the corner, the higher it rises. This also
happens at the "nozzle", where one section
flows into the other. It would go on rising forever,
I guess, otherwise, it would have stabilized
much earlier.
--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
> So it stabilizes by growing upwards in the shape of the vessel. The last
six
> frames are intriguing.
> Regards
> Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Tim Nikias v2 0
Subject: Re: Liquid metal reaction Take 2 (396kb MPG1)
Date: 28 Mar 2003 08:42:05
Message: <3e84512d@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks. I hope to get this system running by next
week, and then I'll probably start something like a
beta-phase or so.
--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
> hey tim
>
> that's really cool. i like espescially the moment just when it reaches the
> clipping container, with only the "side walls" of the water visible. looks
> really nice.
>
> keep up the good work
> florian
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I don't have any experience with liquid metal, and haven't
seen much aside the VFX shots of liquid metal, so thats
not really something to compare to, right?
And I'm only using reflection to make the surface more
visible, since reflecting looks nicer than gradient colors
for height...
--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
> Very cool, but as for a liquid metal, per se, the surface tension is
wrong.
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:40:01 +0100, "Tim Nikias v2.0" <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote:
>That not really stabilizing, is it?
No, I guess not. What value do you normally use for damping? I have been playing
with the "water effect" and I've some peculiar results with different values.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Tim Nikias v2 0
Subject: Re: Liquid metal reaction Take 2 (396kb MPG1)
Date: 28 Mar 2003 19:42:41
Message: <3e84ec01@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Depends. Most of the time, I'm using .95 as a
dampener, though this error only happened with
1 (no dampening). With .99 it worked fine, though
very fluctuating.
How do these "peculiar" results look like?
--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
>
> >That not really stabilizing, is it?
>
> No, I guess not. What value do you normally use for damping? I have been
playing
> with the "water effect" and I've some peculiar results with different
values.
> Regards
> Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 01:41:42 +0100, "Tim Nikias v2.0" <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote:
>How do these "peculiar" results look like?
>
I did not keep them when I upgraded my PC, but I will start a new thread called
"Things that went wrong" with a mistake in a heightfield generating programme.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
