 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/10/12 05:38, Samuel Benge wrote:
> [...] Will there ever be a Windows build? :)
I think Koppi has successfully built it on Windows, or at least his
building-howto seems to suggest it. But I'm guessing he is not planning
to distribute and support binaries... will ask him anyhow, to see if we
can at least have some unofficial binaries to distribute here.
> I was having that problem with Blender's Bullet implementation. I was trying to
> use mesh links as well, but they would break sometimes. Do you have an option of
> increasing the sim's accuracy? It might help.
Well, I was referring to accuracy of the meshes, not the simulation:
I discovered that just subdividing the problematic parts of the mesh was
enough to make it more resistant to breaking. The breaking seemed to
occur at places were both bodies didn't have vertex to collide with.
I also discovered that size really matters too... don't make your
objects too small. At first, I started with the default Wings3D scale of
1-2 units, but later scaled it x10 and things seem to work better.
One last note: I also noticed that centering the mesh model seems
important for the mass-center of the object later on the simulation.
> Nice test scenes, BTW.
Actually, I've rendered a lot more, mostly "piles of things" using
existing models of mine, but didn't want to flood the newsgroups with
them (I should update my web site ASAP, if I can get out of the playground).
> The chain material looks a bit like lead, though
Yeah... reflections were taking too much time, so I used just
metallic specular albedo.
> (despite the interior rust).
That was a nice trick with a scaled spherical pattern, profiting from
the object specific shape... no uv_mapping at all.
> raise the reflection, add a tiny bumps normal, and render the scene with focal
> blur.
Yes, and wait until next week for the image, I guess... ;)
> The pearls look good as well, almost photographic.
#declare n_pearl=
normal{
radial sine_wave
frequency 36*4
rotate 90*z
}
#declare t_pearl=
material{
texture{
pigment {
aoi
color_map{
[0 Wheat*.5+Coral*.5]
[1 White]
}
}
normal{n_pearl .05}
finish{
specular albedo .25 metallic roughness .025 diffuse .75 brilliance 2
reflection{0,1 metallic}
conserve_energy
irid {
0.35
thickness .1
turbulence .5
}
}
}
}
Got it just by trial&error...
> I wonder how several concentric, translucent and refractive spheres with that pearl
texture would
> turn out...
Hmmm... no time to try it now, but it's a nice suggestion that I will
surely try out.
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16-10-2012 12:48, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> Well, I was referring to accuracy of the meshes, not the simulation:
> I discovered that just subdividing the problematic parts of the mesh was
> enough to make it more resistant to breaking. The breaking seemed to
> occur at places were both bodies didn't have vertex to collide with.
Good point. This is also very important with cloth simulation in Poser.
>
> I also discovered that size really matters too... don't make your
> objects too small. At first, I started with the default Wings3D scale of
> 1-2 units, but later scaled it x10 and things seem to work better.
idem.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignorancia org> wrote:
> Anyhow, if you want to try it, you may need to put some hard work to
> get it compiled. The author has not wrote anything into the wiki howto,
> but seems he plans to... the problems is that he is unreachable until
> mid-december. I really don't know for sure, but I think all the
> libraries used in the project must be available for OS X, and gcc too,
> so it should be relatively easy if you already have experience compiling
> from sources on OS X.
>
> In any case, if you manage to compile it, then contact me for the
> fixes I did to the current code on github, else you will not be able to
> do much with it.
I made a lot of progress on an OS X build last night. There are still some
missing header files, I'll keep at it. Once I get it working, I would like to
merge your changes in with the changes I needed to make for OS X, so far just
the location of header files.
Henry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/10/12 20:09, HenryW wrote:
> I made a lot of progress on an OS X build last night. There are still some
> missing header files, I'll keep at it. Once I get it working, I would like to
Great news... seems that soon I will not be the only user of this
app... ;)
> merge your changes in with the changes I needed to make for OS X, so far just
> the location of header files.
>
No problem, the changes are really few, mostly on viewer.cpp. In
fact, most of the changes were commented-out code which I removed,
because it was not specific for the program, but for some experiments
made by Koppi.
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
> On 16/10/12 20:09, HenryW wrote:
> > I made a lot of progress on an OS X build last night. There are still some
> > missing header files, I'll keep at it. Once I get it working, I would like to
>
> Great news... seems that soon I will not be the only user of this
> app... ;)
>
> > merge your changes in with the changes I needed to make for OS X, so far just
> > the location of header files.
> >
>
> No problem, the changes are really few, mostly on viewer.cpp. In
> fact, most of the changes were commented-out code which I removed,
> because it was not specific for the program, but for some experiments
> made by Koppi.
Another evening of keeping at it, made progress, but not there yet. I'm running
into linking errors with MIDI libraries. May be due to OS X handling sound
differently. Does the app have sounds? I'm going to comment out that code.
Henry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/10/12 15:40, HenryW wrote:
> Another evening of keeping at it, made progress, but not there yet.
> I'm running into linking errors with MIDI libraries. May be due to
> OS X handling sound differently. Does the app have sounds? I'm going
> to comment out that code.
>
No, I think MIDI and "robots" support where added by Koppi to create
some "hard-wired" animations... I was tempted too to take it out,
but was afraid to mess up the project files. If you are successful at
it, please let me know so I can do the same.
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 17/10/2012 15:40, HenryW a écrit :
> The first one consists of a lathe object shaped into a bulb, referenced with a
> negative scale component to create a hourglass shape then a scaled down version
> (0.995) is differenced from it. You can see banding which looks to me as if the
> glass does not have a uniform thickness.
Hint: if you scale, the object get a dilatation.
E.g. Value of 1 scaled 0.995 becomes 0.995
Value of 10 scaled 0.995 becomes 9.95
Value of 100 scaled 0.995 becomes 99.5
Width at 100 / scaled : 0.5
width at 10 / scaled : 0.05
width at 1 / scaled : 0.005
If you want a constant "horizontal" thickness, you need to translate the
curve of the lathe BEFORE rotating it. (assuming a vertical axis for the
lathe / sor )
(it's only horizontal : the slant of the curve might very well impact
the overall perception of thickness, you would need to draw a second
curve using fixed-width-discs along the first curve to really have a
uniform thickness: I can do it on a paper, but it's a nightmare to
program that for all possible curve )
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-10-2012 16:02, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 17/10/2012 15:40, HenryW a écrit :
>> The first one consists of a lathe object shaped into a bulb, referenced with a
>> negative scale component to create a hourglass shape then a scaled down version
>> (0.995) is differenced from it. You can see banding which looks to me as if the
>> glass does not have a uniform thickness.
>
>
>
> Hint: if you scale, the object get a dilatation.
>
> E.g. Value of 1 scaled 0.995 becomes 0.995
> Value of 10 scaled 0.995 becomes 9.95
> Value of 100 scaled 0.995 becomes 99.5
>
> Width at 100 / scaled : 0.5
> width at 10 / scaled : 0.05
> width at 1 / scaled : 0.005
>
> If you want a constant "horizontal" thickness, you need to translate the
> curve of the lathe BEFORE rotating it. (assuming a vertical axis for the
> lathe / sor )
> (it's only horizontal : the slant of the curve might very well impact
> the overall perception of thickness, you would need to draw a second
> curve using fixed-width-discs along the first curve to really have a
> uniform thickness: I can do it on a paper, but it's a nightmare to
> program that for all possible curve )
>
Well... this is an answer to Stephen's lathe problem ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/10/2012 3:02 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 17/10/2012 15:40, HenryW a écrit :
>> The first one consists of a lathe object shaped into a bulb, referenced with a
>> negative scale component to create a hourglass shape then a scaled down version
>> (0.995) is differenced from it. You can see banding which looks to me as if the
>> glass does not have a uniform thickness.
>
>
>
> Hint: if you scale, the object get a dilatation.
>
> E.g. Value of 1 scaled 0.995 becomes 0.995
> Value of 10 scaled 0.995 becomes 9.95
> Value of 100 scaled 0.995 becomes 99.5
>
> Width at 100 / scaled : 0.5
> width at 10 / scaled : 0.05
> width at 1 / scaled : 0.005
>
> If you want a constant "horizontal" thickness, you need to translate the
> curve of the lathe BEFORE rotating it. (assuming a vertical axis for the
> lathe / sor )
> (it's only horizontal : the slant of the curve might very well impact
> the overall perception of thickness, you would need to draw a second
> curve using fixed-width-discs along the first curve to really have a
> uniform thickness: I can do it on a paper, but it's a nightmare to
> program that for all possible curve )
>
As Thomas pointed out, you have hijacked HenryW's thread. I blame
Thunderbird. ;-)
Yes I agree with you. I had just hoped that it wouldn't have been so
obvious. Possibly the inner curve extends beyond the outer one at some
points. I have moved on to using two curves.
Thank you.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> As Thomas pointed out, you have hijacked HenryW's thread. I blame
> Thunderbird. ;-)
It started as Jaime's thread for the cool work he is doing with complex objects
in Bullet Physics Playground. I hijacked it for how to compile the code on my
Mac, so I can play with Bullet Physics too :)
Henry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
