|
 |
> Actually I figured that your system would be used at some point as well.
> Just like people will use jpatch and Wings3D for modelling. It is nice to
> have a choice of particle systems. I just wanted to know if Tim's system
> would be available with an "openish" license so that we can use it.
Well, my system and Rune's aren't really comparable, they're
completely different in abilities, handling and "up-to-date" coding.
I've begun working on my system about 3 years ago, that was
in Povray3.1g times, and have loaded more and more scripts
onto the same underlying principles. It has a wide range of possible
additions, since I've spread usage of User-Defined macros all
over the place, but it is basically limited to a simple task:
Randomly position "something" in a given area and move it about,
regardless of other "somethings" or other objects.
Still, lots of macros may vary the above in so many different ways
that it might have some benefits. But I haven't looked into the latest
version of Rune's particle system and I'm pretty unsure what is
possible "ad hoc", e.g. without modifications of his core-code.
--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
>
>
> >
> > Now, Tim's system might still be better suited for the project. (There
> > are probably numerous arguments both for and against.) All I wanted with
> > this post was to clear a possible misunderstandings about my I/O
> > particle system.
> >
>
> Actually I figured that your system would be used at some point as well.
> Just like people will use jpatch and Wings3D for modelling. It is nice to
> have a choice of particle systems. I just wanted to know if Tim's system
> would be available with an "openish" license so that we can use it.
>
> --
> Tom
> _________________________________
> The Internet Movie Project
> http://www.imp.org/
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.501 / Virus Database: 299 - Release Date: 14.07.2003
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
Tim Nikias v2.0 wrote:
> Yeah, I was talking about that very last bit
> of way too few calculations steps. I mixed
> "framerate" and "calculation steps" in my
> original post, my mistake.
No problem. But as I said, I don't really think that the linear
interpolation is a problem.
> Aside of that, I think both our systems would
> be suited for the IMP, but you mentioned
> something about mine being better suited.
No, I said that yours *might* be better suited, sort of to make clear
that I didn't make the post to indicate that my own system would be
better, but just to point out the fact about independancy on previous
frames.
Which system is really better suited is not a discussion I feel like
taking part in right now.
> BTW, can you call macro on certain events, e.g.
> when a particle hits a wall?
No, I haven't implemented support for that, though I think it would be
easy to add. (The wall hit that is. I don't know which other events you
have in mind.) I probably could do it if there was a great demand for
it, but in general I see my particle system as a project of the past.
> I've been rendering an animation where my
> particles bounce around in a Cornell-Box
> (the one from my Radiosity Experiments) and
> interact with a water-surface (achieved with,
> what else, my LSSM), and it looks pretty nice
> so far. :-)
Neat. :)
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
|
|
