"Hohum" <hoh### [at] spamlesshotmailcom> wrote in message
news:4071c018@news.povray.org...
> The packing algorithm got me interested too, and I've delurked after
several
> years to make my first post. One even has mirrored spheres ;)

Interesting results with the cones.
Not a natural looking pack though, since if these were plants, there would
be smaller ones within the larger one's "kill zone", and the kill zones
would be a little irregular and inconsistent.

Still, nice image, and solid algorithm for mechanical bits.

Post a reply to this message

"Hohum" <hoh### [at] spamlesshotmailcom> wrote in message
news:4071c018@news.povray.org...
> The packing algorithm got me interested too, and I've delurked after
several
> years to make my first post. One even has mirrored spheres ;)

   Heh, I was going to ask Michael...  "Can different objects be
loaded at the same time?

    But you've answered my question. Is there some code around for
this? It would be appreciated.


> I hope I post this right....

   You did.  ;)

   ~Steve~


>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Michael Andrews wrote:

> Hi Folks,
> 
> I've modified my previous 'binned' packing attempt to handle more 
> general criteria. The four images show spheric, conic, cylindric (2d 
> circular) and cubic (2d square) packing of differently sized objects 
> just from defining a different intersection macro.
> 
> The next step will be to allow all of these interactions in one set of 
> objects ...
> 
> The four frames took 1hour (3582 seconds) to parse on my 2400+ Athlon XP 
> laptop.
> 
> Comments, etc?

I hope this message doesn't look like bandwidth-waste, but I gotta say 
that this thread is turning into one of the coolest threads I've ever seen!

-- 
Respectfully,
Dan P
http://<broken link>

Post a reply to this message

"Hohum" <hoh### [at] spamlesshotmailcom> wrote in message
news:4071c018@news.povray.org...
> The packing algorithm got me interested too, and I've delurked after
several
> years to make my first post. One even has mirrored spheres ;)
>
> First one, simple packing, took a few seconds to parse.
>
> Second one, variable sized spheres. 20,000 of them. Badly optimized code
> took 15 hours. It taught me to save the coordinates to a file and load
them
> again for rendering though.
>
> I hope I post this right....

I really, really like these...

I'd love to see a set done in pure white, sitting in a shallow tray on a
little round table topped by a mozzaic of ceramic pieces, at rest on the
balcony of a house clinging to the patched cliffs of Atrani, overlooking the
ocean.  With radiosity, of course.

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com

Post a reply to this message

> little round table topped by a mozzaic

-z

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com

Post a reply to this message

"Lance Birch" <-> wrote in message news:40722a1f@news.povray.org...
> > little round table topped by a mozzaic
>
> -z

Ah the result of hanging around the mozdev site too long.  After looking
through these posts again, and after having a coffee, I realised it should
be an s, not a z.  *shakes head*  8|

That aside and back on topic, I was wondering:  would it be possible to
adapt this to 3 dimensions?  I.e. filling a box with objects, rather than a
square?  I'm getting images in my head of a glass cube filled with hundreds
of other glass cubes of various sizes.  Sure, it'd be a pps=0 nightmare, but
it'd look cool!

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com

Post a reply to this message

Dan P wrote:


> I hope this message doesn't look like bandwidth-waste, but I gotta say 
> that this thread is turning into one of the coolest threads I've ever seen!

Actually, the coolest thread will be the one in scene-files, where we 
find out how this is done (hint, hint!)

Dave Matthews

Post a reply to this message

"Dave Matthews" <dma### [at] nospamnet> wrote in message
news:4072d986$1@news.povray.org...
>
>
> Dan P wrote:
>
>
> > I hope this message doesn't look like bandwidth-waste, but I gotta say
> > that this thread is turning into one of the coolest threads I've ever
seen!
>
> Actually, the coolest thread will be the one in scene-files, where we
> find out how this is done (hint, hint!)
>
> Dave Matthews
>

Your wish is my command.
My less than optimal code in is now p.b.s-f, but it gets the job done.
Micheal Andrews results seem more flexible than mine, and faster too.

My code could be altered to do 3D checks, I believe it's the same principle
to check spherical clearance in 3D as it is for disc clearance in 2D.

taking x=difference in x coords of test points, etc
clearance is half the diameter of each object
2D
if x^2 + y^2 < clearance^2 then you are too close.
3D
if x^2 + y^2 + y^2 < clearance^2 then you are too close, I think.

Post a reply to this message

Hohum wrote:

> Your wish is my command.
> My less than optimal code in is now p.b.s-f, but it gets the job done.
> Micheal Andrews results seem more flexible than mine, and faster too.
> 
> My code could be altered to do 3D checks, I believe it's the same principle
> to check spherical clearance in 3D as it is for disc clearance in 2D.
> 
> taking x=difference in x coords of test points, etc
> clearance is half the diameter of each object
> 2D
> if x^2 + y^2 < clearance^2 then you are too close.
> 3D
> if x^2 + y^2 + y^2 < clearance^2 then you are too close, I think.
> 
> 

Thanks!

Dave Matthews

Post a reply to this message

"Dave Matthews" <dma### [at] nospamnet> wrote in message
news:40742e4c$1@news.povray.org...

> Thanks!
>
> Dave Matthews
>

If you make a cool image I'd love to see it.

Post a reply to this message