 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I was fooling with Chris Huff's particle stream patch and got this far
before deciding to give up. Looks like it has possibilities. (Jpeg
compression was not kind to this image.)
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'waterfall.jpg' (81 KB)
Preview of image 'waterfall.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
How long did that picture take to render?
Brendan
Mike Wilson wrote:
> I was fooling with Chris Huff's particle stream patch and got this far
> before deciding to give up. Looks like it has possibilities. (Jpeg
> compression was not kind to this image.)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [Image]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
About 4.5 hours on a 300 Mhz PII.
Mike
Andrea Ryan wrote:
> How long did that picture take to render?
> Brendan
>
> Mike Wilson wrote:
>
> > I was fooling with Chris Huff's particle stream patch and got this far
> > before deciding to give up. Looks like it has possibilities. (Jpeg
> > compression was not kind to this image.)
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > [Image]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oh, my God, that looks beautiful... I was just about to start work on one
myself. Could you please post the source?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>(Jpeg compression was not kind to this image.)
That's because of the green and red.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hmmm, I wouldn't expect this to have started with white frothy water were it
just meant to be the beginning of flow. So it looks like it's under pressure
and spraying out from the cylinder. The dynamic look to it is fascinating to
see in a POV-Ray render.
A regularly patterned texture backdrop might have been able to show the water
better, since it has refraction.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Agreed. This image doesn't quite correspond to my original idea.
I had planned to to put the source further "upstream" and just give the particles
enough push to reach the edge of the dropoff and let gravity take over. I had
thought that a low elasticity and small environment collison factor would make
them flow along the top of the falls, but apparently the particle system doesn't
work quite like that.
The particles just dropped right through the falls object unless I gave them a
fairly significant downstream velocity (equal to gravity) and made the collision
factor fairly large. As it stands now, the particles are already within the
collision zone as they exit the emitter. Gravity and intial velocity drive them
into the falls object at a 45 degree angle where they immediately collide. Since
elasticity is set fairly high, they bounce back up again and go over the edge.
(At least I think that's what's happening.) It might look ok if there was a rock
or something there that would justify this, but as I said, this was just a test.
Bob Hughes wrote:
> Hmmm, I wouldn't expect this to have started with white frothy water were it
> just meant to be the beginning of flow. So it looks like it's under pressure
> and spraying out from the cylinder. ...
>
> Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Wilson" <maw### [at] iastate edu> wrote in message
news:396B222C.9B2802B4@iastate.edu...
|
| The particles just dropped right through the falls object unless I gave them
a
| fairly significant downstream velocity (equal to gravity) and made the
collision
| factor fairly large. As it stands now, the particles are already within the
| collision zone as they exit the emitter. Gravity and intial velocity drive
them
| into the falls object at a 45 degree angle where they immediately collide.
Since
| elasticity is set fairly high, they bounce back up again and go over the
edge.
Thanks for the explanation. I hadn't thought about it being both a momentum
plus bounce for what it looked like at the top edge of the waterfall.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <396B222C.9B2802B4@iastate.edu>, Mike Wilson
<maw### [at] iastateedu> wrote:
> The particles just dropped right through the falls object unless I
> gave them a fairly significant downstream velocity (equal to gravity)
> and made the collision factor fairly large.
The next version will have a more precise collision algorithm, which
should fix this. It also eliminates the need for a collision distance
parameter.
--
Christopher James Huff - Personal e-mail: chr### [at] maccom
TAG(Technical Assistance Group) e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
Personal Web page: http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG Web page: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That'll be great. I really like this patch.
Chris Huff wrote:
>
>
> The next version will have a more precise collision algorithm, which
> should fix this. It also eliminates the need for a collision distance
> parameter.
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
