 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Ricky Reusser
Subject: Much improved fluid animation (~671 kB)
Date: 2 Nov 2004 06:32:12
Message: <41877018@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
One random question first: Why does it always say 671kB on my computer, but
then it says something more in the neighborhood of 800 kb when downloading?
I hate to think I'm deceiving the people with modmems...
But here's an improved animation fresh off the presses. Went all out and
did a 120x120x40 simulation rendered with scattering. The rendering took a
lot longer than the simulation, although I'm sorry to say I don't know
exactly how long the simulation would have taken per frame without
rendering at the same time. There's no problem doing both at the same time
as long as the simulation stays ahead of the rendering. I think it was
about 60-90 sec/frame when working alone.
I know everyone wants the code, but at the moment, the jet is hard-coded
into the c++ program with for loops and such. I also need to take a little
time to figure out the boundary conditions (the edge of the grid) since
there aren't really many options yet and what is there doesn't work too
well. With no further ado, here it is...
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'fluid.mpg' (672 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Ricky Reusser
Subject: Re: Much improved fluid animation (~671 kB)
Date: 2 Nov 2004 06:39:02
Message: <418771d5@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oh, I almost forgot to add that yes, in fact, I am aware of the uncanny
resemblance to the works in the Visual Simulation of Smoke paper. It
seemed like a good way to get this party started.
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Ricky Reusser
Subject: Re: Much improved fluid animation (~671 kB)
Date: 2 Nov 2004 10:33:30
Message: <4187a8ca@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Because news and mail doesn't standardly support binary transfer, so the
> top two bits (for some meaning of the word "top") always have to be
> zero, and get shifted to other bytes, so the file gets 25% larger.
So should this be taken into account when posting? Should I not post
anything larger than about 700-800kb since that gets inflated to around
1Mb? Thanks though. That makes sense even though it seems pretty
inefficient.
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Beautiful!
=Bob=
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: John D Gwinner
Subject: Re: Much improved fluid animation (~671 kB)
Date: 6 Nov 2004 11:26:16
Message: <418cfb28@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, this is going a bit off topic, but it's the ASCII nazi's.
When I was working on VRML, everyone wanted a human readable form. Mind
you, to me 3D data is binary, and it's not THAT hard to build a viewer, but
everyone wanted numbers coded so you could hack a file by hand.
Same technique for all the Web related technologies. I've done an HTTP
server by hand for example with a TELNET session. It IS possible, and the
early protocol builders wanted it that way so they could debug things with
telnet.
== John ==
"Darren New" <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote in message
news:4187b72a$1@news.povray.org...
> Ricky Reusser wrote:
>> That makes sense even though it seems pretty inefficient.
>
> Nobody liked the efficient version (X.400, ASN.1, etc) except people that
> transfer serious amounts of data. Perhaps the internet is starting to
> catch up with the phone system in that respect, but I doubt it.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
