 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hello,
I post a new water surface simulation. It's a water flow that turn a wooden
wheel.
The simulation was very long (around 72 hours). The rendering was quick
(around 10 hours) because I don't use photons or radiosity.
The video is MPEG1 encoded.
Any comment is wellcome.
Regards,
Fidos.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'wheel.mpg' (673 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I post a new water surface simulation. It's a water flow that turn
> a wooden wheel.
>
> The simulation was very long (around 72 hours). The rendering was
> quick (around 10 hours) because I don't use photons or radiosity.
>
> The video is MPEG1 encoded.
>
> Any comment is wellcome.
The "water" looks way too viscous, for the diameter of that pipe I would
expect the flow rate to be much higher. Just my gut feeling, it looks more
like oil.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
it's very good.
I looked at it a long time, and I can't see anything that looks out of
order. I don't think the water is too viscous, it depends a bit on what the
scale is. If the tube diameter is small, then it all looks ok to me. maybe
it looks a little slow. if I play it at 1.25 of normal speed, it looks more
realistic, but it makes it harder to see what's going on then.
It's not easy to make complex fluid simulation look anywhere near realistic.
I'm very impressed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The "water" looks way too viscous, for the diameter of that pipe I would
> expect the flow rate to be much higher. Just my gut feeling, it looks more
> like oil.
I think the viscosity is correct. I think your feeling is more linked to the
fact that there is no splashes or bubbles in the water.
> it's very good.
> I looked at it a long time, and I can't see anything that looks out of
> order. I don't think the water is too viscous, it depends a bit on what the
> scale is. If the tube diameter is small, then it all looks ok to me. maybe
> it looks a little slow. if I play it at 1.25 of normal speed, it looks more
> realistic, but it makes it harder to see what's going on then.
> It's not easy to make complex fluid simulation look anywhere near realistic.
> I'm very impressed.
Thank you for your positive reply.
Regards,
Fidos
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The "water" looks way too viscous, for the diameter of that pipe I
>> would expect the flow rate to be much higher. Just my gut
>> feeling, it looks more like oil.
> I think the viscosity is correct. I think your feeling is more
> linked to the fact that there is no splashes or bubbles in the
> water.
My feeling was more to do with the water coming out the end of the pipe, it
seems to be flowing too slowly to keep the whole diameter filled (if you
know what I mean). For the flow rate that is visible I would expect the
water to be running along the bottom edge of the pipe, not taking up the
whole pipe.
But as already commented, maybe this is because it is not clear what size
the pipe is, if it is a small pipe (eg a drinking straw) then it looks about
right.
Still, excellent work!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <spa### [at] spam com> wrote in message news:444f9a0c@news.povray.org...
> >> The "water" looks way too viscous, for the diameter of that pipe I
> >> would expect the flow rate to be much higher. Just my gut
> >> feeling, it looks more like oil.
> > I think the viscosity is correct. I think your feeling is more
> > linked to the fact that there is no splashes or bubbles in the
> > water.
> My feeling was more to do with the water coming out the end of the pipe,
it
> seems to be flowing too slowly to keep the whole diameter filled (if you
> know what I mean). For the flow rate that is visible I would expect the
> water to be running along the bottom edge of the pipe, not taking up the
> whole pipe.
Problem with flow rate is probably due to the apparent length of the pipe.
To me, it looks like water is being "generated" at the bottom of the pipe,
instead of at the top, where we would expect the reservoir to be. The
kinetic energy of it leaving the pipe doesn't correlate with the length of
the pipe we are seeing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
