 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On 07/24/2013 08:15 PM, Alain wrote:
>> To enhence the impression that the jar was toppled over, I'd place the
>> lid upside down and relocate it in front of the jar's oppening.
>
> Thanks for the ideas etc ... I think I'm getting close
>
I totaly agree :)
Now, add a few translucent jelly beans mixed with those mints...
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/01/2013 02:33 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
> <snip> and thought the image was cool enough to
> share. It's a work in progress so I'm not entirely sure where it will
> end up.
Well I'm calling this one final (except for the image size) ... photons,
area_light and subsurface (jelly beans) took 27hr 40min 45 sec. I was
using the system off and on so probably not a fair benchmark.
Thanks y'all for the feedback, I'm happy how it turned out!
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'work.png' (771 KB)
Preview of image 'work.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/08/2013 9:36 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
> Well I'm calling this one final (except for the image size) ... photons,
> area_light and subsurface (jelly beans) took 27hr 40min 45 sec. I was
> using the system off and on so probably not a fair benchmark.
>
> Thanks y'all for the feedback, I'm happy how it turned out!
That is very, very good. But could you do something about the jelly
beans all being perfectly balanced, in the same plane?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/02/2013 05:32 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 02/08/2013 9:36 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
>> Well I'm calling this one final (except for the image size) ... photons,
>> area_light and subsurface (jelly beans) took 27hr 40min 45 sec. I was
>> using the system off and on so probably not a fair benchmark.
>>
>> Thanks y'all for the feedback, I'm happy how it turned out!
>
> That is very, very good. But could you do something about the jelly
> beans all being perfectly balanced, in the same plane?
>
I dropped them vertical (points up and down) and that's how they settled
... they even oscillated back and forth before they settling. I had to
play around with mass and friction settings to keep them from scattering
all over the place. I suppose I could change the mass of /some/ of them
and maybe get a few to pile on top of the others, but I'm not sure the
shape (basically round) would behave that way naturally.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/08/2013 12:15 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
> I dropped them vertical (points up and down) and that's how they settled
> ... they even oscillated back and forth before they settling. I had to
> play around with mass and friction settings to keep them from scattering
> all over the place. I suppose I could change the mass of /some/ of them
> and maybe get a few to pile on top of the others, but I'm not sure the
> shape (basically round) would behave that way naturally.
I've not tried bullet-physics-playground, yet. It is definitely on my to
do list. I agree about the shape, can you offset the centre of gravity,
inside the bean?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
