 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hello,
A new water animation.
In my previous posts, the fluid simulator save its results in a extended
density file. I rendered the results with Megapov 1.0 and the patch of R.
Suzuki (http://staff.aist.go.jp/r-suzuki/e/povray/iso/df_body.htm).
Now the fluid simulator translate the isosurface in a mesh. It gives much
more freedom for the rendering. I switch to Megapov 1.2.1. It also speed up
a lot the rendering.
The rendering speed up allow me to use radiosity and photons in the same
rendering.
http://perso.orange.fr/fidos/water_mesh_low.mpg : low res MPEG1 (< 1.4 Mo)
http://perso.orange.fr/fidos/water_mesh.mpg : hi res MPEG1 (< 7.3 Mo)
Regards,
Fidos
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
amazing :-)
If I really have to nit-pick:
The refraction of the blue/red particles in the edges of
the box is probably correct, but still confusing. (to me)
Maybe it would look better if the container had some
rounded edges on the outside ?
or is the IOR of the container something unusual ?
jaap.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Looks fantastic to me. :-)
--
William Tracy
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|a|f|i|s|h|i|o|n|a|d|o|@|g|m|a|i|l|.|c|o|m|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|w|t|r|a|c|y|@|c|a|l|p|o|l|y|.|e|d|u|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
You know you've been raytracing too long when your idea of a complete
computer is a fast CPU, lots of RAM, and a means of running POVray.
Aaron Gage a.k.a Slartibartfast
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Now the fluid simulator translate the isosurface in a mesh. It gives much
> more freedom for the rendering. I switch to Megapov 1.2.1. It also speed
> up
> a lot the rendering.
I have to admit I'm new to 3D graphics but I have to say that looks
absolutely excellent. How good does it look with less turbulence? I'm
assumnig it's fairly processor-intensive so not great for large volumes? or
?
either way, amazing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jaap" <jws### [at] yahoo com> wrote:
> amazing :-)
>
> If I really have to nit-pick:
> The refraction of the blue/red particles in the edges of
> the box is probably correct, but still confusing. (to me)
> Maybe it would look better if the container had some
> rounded edges on the outside ?
> or is the IOR of the container something unusual ?
>
> jaap.
Thank you.
The confusing effect is perhaps due to some particules that are "inside" of
the tank. It is because I remove a small layer of the water bulk before to
render it and so the particules inside that layer are located in the tank.
Regards,
Fidos
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Simon" <povray@NOSPAM|SOWare.co.uk> wrote:
> > Now the fluid simulator translate the isosurface in a mesh. It gives much
> > more freedom for the rendering. I switch to Megapov 1.2.1. It also speed
> > up
> > a lot the rendering.
>
> I have to admit I'm new to 3D graphics but I have to say that looks
> absolutely excellent. How good does it look with less turbulence? I'm
> assumnig it's fairly processor-intensive so not great for large volumes? or
> ?
>
> either way, amazing.
I have no control on the amount of turbulence, the simulation run alone
without any user control.
You are right, the problem with large volume is the memory and cpu needs. A
8 time large volume (equivalent to 8 times more grid points) should be
possible. For larger volume, special technics should be used (octree,
etc.).
Regards,
Fidos.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"fidos" <fid### [at] wanadoofr> wrote in message
news:web.46421d5dc45a160a8959a0270@news.povray.org...
> "Simon" <povray@NOSPAM|SOWare.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Now the fluid simulator translate the isosurface in a mesh. It gives
>> > much
>> > more freedom for the rendering. I switch to Megapov 1.2.1. It also
>> > speed
>> > up
>> > a lot the rendering.
>>
>> I have to admit I'm new to 3D graphics but I have to say that looks
>> absolutely excellent. How good does it look with less turbulence? I'm
>> assumnig it's fairly processor-intensive so not great for large volumes?
>> or
>> ?
>>
>> either way, amazing.
> I have no control on the amount of turbulence, the simulation run alone
> without any user control.
> You are right, the problem with large volume is the memory and cpu needs.
> A
> 8 time large volume (equivalent to 8 times more grid points) should be
> possible. For larger volume, special technics should be used (octree,
> etc.).
>
> Regards,
> Fidos.
Understood. I still think it's amazing. :)
Regards,
Simon
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You can add my name to the list of amazed admirers.
As for the appearance of the red and blue particles at the edge of the
container, two thoughts come to mind. First, when we see a great animation
like this, we stare at it over and over again in a way that doesn't happen
in "real life", so we take extra note of details of our perception that
would go largely unanalyzed in our day to day experience. Second, the
container itself, although quite suitable for purposes of the demonstration
at hand, is unlike most of the transparent containers that we would compare
it to from our memories in that it is a single piece with transparent edges.
One possible approach would be to add some simple metal edges to the
container so that it would look like an ordinary aquarium and the
distraction of refracted particle images in the edges, accurate though
those images might be, would just go away. The animation is still quite an
admirable achievement as it stands. Congratulations.
Regards,
Mike C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
