One thing right away: thats not the sphere
interacting with the surface. Haven't implemented
that yet.
But in cases as these, actual object-water
interaction might be somewhat overkill for the
process. So, what the newest addition does it
take a point, map it onto the surface, and cause
an emitter there. It does this for every calculation
step, but only raises a single point (and the
adjacent ones, the water-algorithm doesn't work
too well with raising only one node). Also, the
magnitude can be adjusted along with a radius.
For example, if the radius of the position just
touches the water, the wave will be smaller than
when the position sits right on the surface. This
also makes it possible to have no wave-emitter when
the path leads too far astray (that animation is currently
being rendered).

For a main part, this new addition was a testing
ground for the object-interaction, cause I needed
to test the accessing of independent steps, and
if the calculations for that would work. It does! :-)


--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'water_path.mpg' (239 KB)

Much more realistic than some of your previous ones :))

would have liked a longer anim tho :P
--
Rick

Kitty5 NewMedia http://Kitty5.co.uk
POV-Ray News & Resources http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037

PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA

Post a reply to this message

Thanks!

Longer? The problem with this simulation
is that once you get a certain degree of
chaotic movement, new waves aren't that
obvious anymore, and the main effect gets
lost in the noise. This is definitely realistic,
but to show off the main effect, short
animations are sufficient.
Aside of that, I like to post very small
animations, so that many may have access.
Longer animations would be put onto my
homepage, but since the system is a WIP,
I'm not creating any longer scenes just yet!

But I might do something big with it, once it
is finished, and when its released, you could
even do something yourself!


--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

> Much more realistic than some of your previous ones :))
>
> would have liked a longer anim tho :P
> --
> Rick

Post a reply to this message

This is getting better and better! I can't wait to see the splash when
something falls into the water.

Mark

Post a reply to this message

Mark Hanson wrote:
> This is getting better and better!
> I can't wait to see the splash when
> something falls into the water.

Not supported very well by the algorithm... For good results you'd have
to combine it with a particle system...

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

Hey! That was for me to reply! You're ripping
me off, taking my fame, you... you... :-)

Hm. But perhaps this time I'll get my system
out in the open earlier than you! :-)

You've kept quiet for some time now... Any
serious RL business? Hope not.


--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

> > This is getting better and better!
> > I can't wait to see the splash when
> > something falls into the water.
>
> Not supported very well by the algorithm... For good results you'd have
> to combine it with a particle system...
>
> 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

Tim Nikias v2.0 wrote:
> Hey! That was for me to reply! You're ripping
> me off, taking my fame, you... you... :-)

Heh...

> Hm. But perhaps this time I'll get my system
> out in the open earlier than you! :-)

As I'm not developing on mine, I think that's likely to happen. ;)

> You've kept quiet for some time now... Any
> serious RL business? Hope not.

Nothing negative, I just feel like focusing more on RL at the moment...
:)

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

Way cool!  Not frozen but looks very real.  ;o)  Now comes the usual
questions: Ease of use, render time? Is it possible to add wind without
slowing down things a lot?  I guess it's easy to add something on the one
side (one angle) that cause disturbance. But the wind needs to continue all
over the area, otherwise it would fade out, the greater distance it reaches,
from the one side... What about making a sinus wind, affecting the points
every X steps? ... just some inspiration for you.

Regards,
Hugo

Post a reply to this message

> Way cool!  Not frozen but looks very real.  ;o)  Now comes the usual
> questions: Ease of use, render time? Is it possible to add wind without
> slowing down things a lot?  I guess it's easy to add something on the one
> side (one angle) that cause disturbance. But the wind needs to continue
all
> over the area, otherwise it would fade out, the greater distance it
reaches,
> from the one side... What about making a sinus wind, affecting the points
> every X steps? ... just some inspiration for you.

Thanks!

Well, parsing time is always the same, cause it has
to check a lot of arrays for cross-referencing, if waves
occur and what to calculate when they do.
When certain arrays don't get modified, they won't be
saved to disk again (which can save considerable parsing
time).

Parsing time?

With 48x48 nodes its just about 10 seconds on my 1.4GHz
Athlon, this includes generating the mesh with my MMM. This
time doesn't vary to great extent. It takes longer when the
environment has to be parsed in the beginning, and when certain
other effects actually happen, they take their time as well, but
I've tried to keep the script checking if they actually need to
calculate that much. The time naturally increases with larger
resolution, but the amount of waves have no effect on the parsing.

Ease of use? Here's an example:

[Some few declarations for creating the initial
surface, like Node-Resolution, corners, etc,
but above all: Filename! like #declare Water_Filename="test"]

Water_Start()

//Whereever the water is inside the environmental object,
// the node is switched to off and never by the wave-calculations.
#declare Environment=
cylinder{<0,-1,0>,<0,1,0>,4 inverse}
Water_Environment("test",Environment")

//Set the rain
#declare Water_Rain_Beg=0;
#declare Water_Rain_End=1/25;
#declare Water_Rain_DropsPerFrame=3;
#declare Water_Rain_Magnitude=<.6,.75>;
Water_Rain("test")

//Default for dampening is .95, and setting it here
//changes that
#declare Water_Dampening=.95;
Water_Step("test")

//Retrieve the data
#declare MeshData=Water_GetMeshDat("test")

Then, MeshData is a 2D-Array with all indices of the
surface-mesh. I use my Mesh-Modifying-Macros
to generate the mesh, and thats it!

I've also got some smaller Macros, like
Water_Stomp("test",Magnitude,Time_Of_Stomp),
which produces a "stomping-effect" near edges of
the environment, the water is raised to create that
Jurassic Park T-Rex-Effect. :-)

I'm also planning on writing some macros to easily
create custom effects (the macros will then help in
modifying the data in the proper way).

After the MeshData is retrieved, you can of course
still alter the nodes, and add wind later on if you
don't want the wind to be calculated inside the
wave-algorithms. For example that multi-sine-wave
simulation for natural ocean waves could just
be superimposed onto the data. Once a wave is
created on the surface via the macros, you can't
modify them. You can just add and subtract heights,
both will move outwards as waves do, so superimposing
might be the way to go for wind.

Regards,
Tim

--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

Very nice effect!

But please, enough of that awful awful marble already. POV scenes end up
looking so cheap with that kind of high contrast low quality stuff..

Post a reply to this message