 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris, have you given any thought to contacting the other POVers who are
working on cloth right now? It would be ideal if all of the implementations
could be merged, preferably as you have implemented it, in-POV.
As the French say: A+ :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christophe Bouffartigue wrote:
> Well, as the author of this patch
I have a question: How similar is this to what Chris Huff did with his in-POV
particle simulations?
Did you do something similar with just spring forces & such?
> Just an example of what can be achieved....
Nice!!, very nice
--
Bye,
Pabs
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Pabs wrote:
>
> I have a question: How similar is this to what Chris Huff did with his in-POV
> particle simulations?
> Did you do something similar with just spring forces & such?
Well, actually, except for the syntax and the particles creation, it's
very similar: just forces applied to "particles".
Bouf.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" wrote:
>
> Chris, have you given any thought to contacting the other POVers who are
> working on cloth right now? It would be ideal if all of the implementations
> could be merged, preferably as you have implemented it, in-POV.
If you think about Jerome's Cloth Simulator, the 2 projects had the same
purpose: an IRTC image. But, our programming skills are different, and I
went the "easy (and lazy) way": patching an already existant code, and
reusing POV's intersection routines.
Another issue is that my patch is an extremely specialized patch, and I
don't think that this kind of thing has to be implemented in POV. Always
the same thing: POV is a renderer, not a modeller.
I think Jerome's implementation is much more versatile than mine, but he
has to rewrite a lot of code (and know a lot of math) to provide new
object collision detection.
What would be ideal is a POV cloth simulator (like Jerome's), with a POV
object (script langage) as input, and OpenGl Preview, wind description
as a pigment, cloth description "a la mesh2" (that would allow any shape
for the cloth, not only rectangular), contraints (hanging points, for
instance), .... and so many things, and finally a mesh file as output,
that can be used directly in POV...
> As the French say: A+ :)
:)
A+
Bouf.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3a91ca30$1@news.povray.org>, Pabs <"pabs3"@ no spam thanx
dot crosswinds.net> wrote:
> I have a question: How similar is this to what Chris Huff did with
> his in-POV particle simulations?
> Did you do something similar with just spring forces & such?
Probably extremely similar, just using different spring forces and with
the particles linked to each other in a different way...with cloth, a
particle is always linked to specific neighboring particles, but with my
patch, particles are affected by any nearby particles.
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] mac com, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas Charron wrote:
>
> Out of
> curiousity, will you be releasing a version merged into Megapov? I remember
> reading something about it in p.u.p., but I can't seem to find the thread
> anymore in my newsreader.. :-(
I promised to merge clothray with next version of my POVMan patch (which
will be based on MegaPov 0.7), but haven't got time to do it. Hopefully
this week (or weekend). I'll make note in p.u.p., when it's ready.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3A92255A.8DF771CE@nanterre.marelli.fr>, Christophe
Bouffartigue <Chr### [at] nanterremarellifr> wrote:
>Another issue is that my patch is an extremely specialized patch, and I
>don't think that this kind of thing has to be implemented in POV. Always
>the same thing: POV is a renderer, not a modeller.
As someone who types everything and can't draw, I disagree with this.
For me, POV *is* a modeler, and anything POV can do to help me model is
good. This cloth patch looks awesome to me, based on the results it is
producing.
Jerry
--
http://www.hoboes.com/jerry/
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, and you've
depleted the lake."--It Isn't Murder If They're Yankees
(http://www.hoboes.com/jerry/Murder/)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jérôme M Berger
Subject: Re: Clothray cloth simulation patch..
Date: 23 Feb 2001 09:27:35
Message: <3A967356.501@iname.com>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christophe Bouffartigue wrote:
> What would be ideal is a POV cloth simulator (like Jerome's), with a
> POV object (script langage) as input, and OpenGl Preview, wind
> description as a pigment, cloth description "a la mesh2" (that
> would allow any shape for the cloth, not only rectangular),
> contraints (hanging points, for instance), .... and so many things,
> and finally a mesh file as output, that can be used directly in
> POV...
>
I agree completely. Unfortunately, for this to be possible would require
either a change of the POV license or a special exception. Moreover, *I*
wouldn't want to do it until POV is written in C++ (which should allow a
much easier reuse of code)
Jerome
--
* Abandon the search for truth, * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
* Settle for a good fantasy. * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
*********************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jerry wrote:
> As someone who types everything and can't draw, I disagree with
> this. For me, POV *is* a modeler, and anything POV can do to help
> me model is good. This cloth patch looks awesome to me, based on
> the results it is producing.
>
As someone who also types everything and nearly can't draw, I have to
disagree. POV is most definitely *not* a modeller (this doesn't mean
that you have to use a modeller to create objects or scenes, you just
use the tools that work best for you). POV is a rendering engine: its
function is to take a scene description and output an image or a
sequence of images, since a cloth simulator outputs a mesh (or a set of
points) it has no place inside a rendering engine and should be used as
an external tool.
All this of course is my own personal opinion and anybody is free to
disagree.
Jerome
--
* Abandon the search for truth, * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
* Settle for a good fantasy. * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
*********************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
<ber### [at] inamecom> wrote:
> POV is a rendering engine: its function is to take a scene
> description and output an image or a sequence of images, since a
> cloth simulator outputs a mesh (or a set of points) it has no place
> inside a rendering engine and should be used as an external tool.
And why shouldn't cloth be part of the scene description? Just because
it's reduced to a mesh? Then what about height fields and bezier patches?
I see the scene language as just another way of accessing the render
engine, and think that this type of thing has every right to be
there...it just makes the language more flexible.
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
