My dear friend Tim!

I'm so happy for you. This is truly a new beginning.

On with the show...

:-)

Flo


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 18.07.2003

Post a reply to this message

Thank you very much! Not really a new beginning, as
its still the old code, but I'm kinda glad that it didn't
get lost forever. Spent hundreds of hours on it...

-- 
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights


> My dear friend Tim!
>
> I'm so happy for you. This is truly a new beginning.
>
> On with the show...
>
> :-)
>
> Flo
>
>



---
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

Hehe, perhaps you could modify your system so that the gravity is
inverted and much stronger below a given height... :P From my
understanding of your system, it actually should be a possible
modification, right? But probably not worth it... ;)

Ohh, but maybe I should give it a go. My system already has support for
user-defined gravity definitions.

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

Rune scribbled:

> Hehe, perhaps you could modify your system so that the gravity is
> inverted and much stronger below a given height... :P From my
> understanding of your system, it actually should be a possible
> modification, right? But probably not worth it... ;)

Yeah, it should be possible, but there's more work required
than just adding a few lines... And much like you wrote in your
post in the "PartixGen is BACK" thread, I view my particle
system as an (almost) completed project. I just want to wrap
things together, get rid of bugs and unnecessary features (which
can easily be reimported via some macros) and release it.

For my next project involving particles, I plan on doing a massive
I/O project, where particles may even be given away from a
system into an external file, where a different system might look
for it and do things with it. This should make a wide variety
of effects possible, where different effects are done by smaller
include-files. Also, I could achieve effects much more defined to
a certain topic, e.g. in a certain area, particles attract each other,
in a different one, a particle gets split into two different ones,
etc.

> Ohh, but maybe I should give it a go. My system already has support for
> user-defined gravity definitions.

Yeah, definitely! I for one would like to see a proper influence
of the water. :-)

-- 
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights



---
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, it should be possible, but there's more work
> required than just adding a few lines...

Yeah, it was mostly said in fun... :)

> For my next project involving particles, I plan
> on doing a massive I/O project, where particles
> may even be given away from a system into an
> external file, where a different system might
> look for it and do things with it. This should
> make a wide variety of effects possible, where
> different effects are done by smaller
> include-files. Also, I could achieve effects
> much more defined to a certain topic, e.g. in
> a certain area, particles attract each other,
> in a different one, a particle gets split into
> two different ones, etc.

Yeah, that would be interesting. For my system, I decided to draw the
line a specific place. I wanted to have my system have full support for
looping animations, and if other features were incompatible with that,
then I didn't want to implement them. I may sound like a odd feature to
put so much focus on, but its because the looping support actually is
rooted deep in the entire way the system is coded.

The fact that the system is coded this way also makes it efficient for
rendering animations in several passes. The simulation don't have to be
calculated all from the beginning, but only for as long back as a
particle lives. All particles that are dead at the beginning frame of
the animation have no effect on the current state, so they are
disregarded completely.

The main feature incompatible with looping is particle interaction, so
my system has no support for that at all. That puts a great restriction
on my system, but as I said, that's where I chose to draw the line.

Your future particle system project sounds interesting. I've considered
a similar project, but I don't think I'll do it after all. After my last
particle system, I've become a bit tired of making large, generic,
user-friendly and well-documented include files. It's rewarding in the
end, but it's a whole lot of work, and given that the POV-Ray userbase
of users who are both able to and willing to use such advanced include
files is pretty small, I've found that I don't feel it's really worth it
(for me). It's good to know though, that there are others to take over!
;)

In the future I probably will make smaller include files for my own use,
which are very good at performing a very specific task, but which are
not very generic, nor user-friendly, and probably not documented at
all... ;) That will probably save 80% of the workload! I intent to be
more of a programming artist than a developer...

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

The advantage of well-documented code is not only
that its a benefit for others, but also, that you may understand
someday later how you did it, and what you did.

But true, include-files aren't used widely. The problem is:
what do POVers want and need?
Trees and plants, hence the widespread use of TomTree
and MakeTree etc. But particles? How often does a standard
user really need them?
And how often does he need more complicated simulations
with particles?

I'll still do Include-Files though, well documented, with Help
and all. I've found my own help-files pretty useful at times
where I return to an include-set after a long absence. And
perhaps someone does make use of them at some point...

But its good to know that you'll still be in the newsgroups,
you've been of good help, and I'd miss that.

But what about your walking system? Finish that one and
release it, or not?

-- 
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights


> > Yeah, it should be possible, but there's more work
> > required than just adding a few lines...
>
> Yeah, it was mostly said in fun... :)
>
> > For my next project involving particles, I plan
> > on doing a massive I/O project, where particles
> > may even be given away from a system into an
> > external file, where a different system might
> > look for it and do things with it. This should
> > make a wide variety of effects possible, where
> > different effects are done by smaller
> > include-files. Also, I could achieve effects
> > much more defined to a certain topic, e.g. in
> > a certain area, particles attract each other,
> > in a different one, a particle gets split into
> > two different ones, etc.
>
> Yeah, that would be interesting. For my system, I decided to draw the
> line a specific place. I wanted to have my system have full support for
> looping animations, and if other features were incompatible with that,
> then I didn't want to implement them. I may sound like a odd feature to
> put so much focus on, but its because the looping support actually is
> rooted deep in the entire way the system is coded.
>
> The fact that the system is coded this way also makes it efficient for
> rendering animations in several passes. The simulation don't have to be
> calculated all from the beginning, but only for as long back as a
> particle lives. All particles that are dead at the beginning frame of
> the animation have no effect on the current state, so they are
> disregarded completely.
>
> The main feature incompatible with looping is particle interaction, so
> my system has no support for that at all. That puts a great restriction
> on my system, but as I said, that's where I chose to draw the line.
>
> Your future particle system project sounds interesting. I've considered
> a similar project, but I don't think I'll do it after all. After my last
> particle system, I've become a bit tired of making large, generic,
> user-friendly and well-documented include files. It's rewarding in the
> end, but it's a whole lot of work, and given that the POV-Ray userbase
> of users who are both able to and willing to use such advanced include
> files is pretty small, I've found that I don't feel it's really worth it
> (for me). It's good to know though, that there are others to take over!
> ;)
>
> In the future I probably will make smaller include files for my own use,
> which are very good at performing a very specific task, but which are
> not very generic, nor user-friendly, and probably not documented at
> all... ;) That will probably save 80% of the workload! I intent to be
> more of a programming artist than a developer...
>
> 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
>
>


---
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:
> The advantage of well-documented code is not
> only that its a benefit for others, but also,
> that you may understand someday later how you
> did it, and what you did.

Are you sure you don't mean well-commented code? I still want to comment
my code, just not make documentation (or help-files).

> But particles? How often does a standard
> user really need them?

Exactly...

> But its good to know that you'll still be in
> the newsgroups, you've been of good help, and
> I'd miss that.

Aw, thanks. :) You can be sure I'll keep an eye on these groups, even in
periods where I don't seem to post very much.

> But what about your walking system? Finish
> that one and release it, or not?

Unfortunately it's too far from being finished. I can't even call it a
system - it's just some code right now. It's not generic enough, not
user-friendly, and not documented, which means that it's not even close
to being half finished. I don't think I'll continue the development of
it, so it won't be released... :(

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

If you don't want to finish it, then how about
at least preparing the scene with the spider so
that one can declare a surface, a path, and let
the spider crawl? And since the Spider is
probably Inverse-Kinematics, one could also
model one's own spider...

Then we'd (or I, for one) could have at least
look at how you did it and play around with
some spiders. :-)

-- 
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights


> > The advantage of well-documented code is not
> > only that its a benefit for others, but also,
> > that you may understand someday later how you
> > did it, and what you did.
>
> Are you sure you don't mean well-commented code? I still want to comment
> my code, just not make documentation (or help-files).
>
> > But particles? How often does a standard
> > user really need them?
>
> Exactly...
>
> > But its good to know that you'll still be in
> > the newsgroups, you've been of good help, and
> > I'd miss that.
>
> Aw, thanks. :) You can be sure I'll keep an eye on these groups, even in
> periods where I don't seem to post very much.
>
> > But what about your walking system? Finish
> > that one and release it, or not?
>
> Unfortunately it's too far from being finished. I can't even call it a
> system - it's just some code right now. It's not generic enough, not
> user-friendly, and not documented, which means that it's not even close
> to being half finished. I don't think I'll continue the development of
> it, so it won't be released... :(
>
> 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
>
>


---
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

Gulp! :-} I for one am guilty of downloading both of your particle/water systems
and not posting any results. I have played with them to get the technique right
but have not come up with any ideas to incorporate them in scenes that would
either do them justice or look good. I had one project that would have used both
of them but another element scunnered me of the project (HiWire) so it is lying
fallow. 
	Rune I am sorry you don't feel it's worth the effort but for my part it
is. Your particle system will be in my armoury (Not WMD, I hasten to add) and
will be used when I have the time, a more powerful PC and more visits by the
muse. Tim your work is inspirational and I'm glad you found PartixGen.

BTW Now Luis Gomes has released his Insert code for Moray these systems will be
easer to use for some of the non purists. 

Regards
        Stephen

Post a reply to this message

mca### [at] aolcom (S McAvoy) wrote:
> Rune I am sorry you don't feel it's worth
> the effort but for my part it is.

Well, it's not like I've been disappointed or anything. I know there are
some people who use the include, and that's nice to know. :) It's just
that with hundreds of hours invested in a project, it'd be nice if the
amount of active and visible users could be counted in hundreds rather
than in tens, and that's simply not possible within the confinements of
the POV-Ray community.

That, and the fact that my passion is drifting from development to
artistic expression...

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