 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It took me the whole afternoon to write this macro (which is not a new
version of the clutter macro but a completely new one).
It's not that physically correct, but it's geometrically correct and, with
not too many objects, it works fine.
Of course it works with any object, despite its complexity.
Parse time was under the minute.
I will post more interesting examples later.
Comments?
--
Jonathan.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'shangai.jpg' (90 KB)
Preview of image 'shangai.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Here's another simple example. As you can see, some boxes seem to float in
the air (and some seem to sink into the plane... hmm I'll have to
investigate), which is due to the algorithm implemented: first a random
position is chosen. Then the closest point of contact is found. Finally
other two close points are taken to calculate the normal of the plane
passing through them, so that I can align the object's axis to it with the
Reorient_Trans macro. Thus, the first point of contact is never left, which
leads to that problem. I think I'll have to find another solution if I want
to get more realistic results... any suggestion? Should I go through all
those calculation of the mechanical momentum? I always try first the
geometrical way, because it's a lot faster (this one took about 30 seconds
to parse) and often less approximative.
TIA,
--
Jonathan.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'blocks.jpg' (47 KB)
Preview of image 'blocks.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Looking good, but some objects are blatantly disregarding the local laws of
physics ;)
-tgq
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
perhaps if your implaneted a little physics, and drop objects into position
--
Rick
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It looks very impressive (despite some isolated violations to physic laws)!
Those "erasers" look very chewable!!! :)
Fernando.
"JRG" <jrg### [at] hotmail com> wrote in message
news:3bf84c20@news.povray.org...
> Here's another simple example. As you can see, some boxes seem to float in
> the air (and some seem to sink into the plane... hmm I'll have to
> investigate), which is due to the algorithm implemented: first a random
> position is chosen. Then the closest point of contact is found. Finally
> other two close points are taken to calculate the normal of the plane
> passing through them, so that I can align the object's axis to it with the
> Reorient_Trans macro. Thus, the first point of contact is never left,
which
> leads to that problem. I think I'll have to find another solution if I
want
> to get more realistic results... any suggestion? Should I go through all
> those calculation of the mechanical momentum? I always try first the
> geometrical way, because it's a lot faster (this one took about 30 seconds
> to parse) and often less approximative.
> TIA,
>
> --
> Jonathan.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
