It's always interesting to see something that looks like real physics, 
but isn't. (Wolfram has a cellular automaton that simulates liquid 
turbulence, of all things! Extremely simple to set up, but looks great...)

Post a reply to this message

What about defining shapes (cubic_sweeps, maybe?) going from each brick to
it's "starting" location, filled with media. Each brick would leave a trail
of dust in the air. :-)

It would probably be more work that it's worth, though.

William

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> As an aside to playing with knots, I've also been experimenting with objects
> constructed from bricks - specifically, perturbing the bricks based on
> their location.
> 
> The two examples here are based on the bricks' distance from a line. The
> closer a brick is to the line, the more pronounced its displacement in the
> direction of the line (more precisely, within a cone aligned with the
> line). The displacement drops off with distance d from the line as exp(-d).
> 
> The cannonball just puts the whole exercise into context. Fun, isn't it? I
> could spend a whole evening carefully building brick structures in POV and
> then blowing holes in them! Plenty of scope for variations, too - could
> make things explode from a point, fall apart across a plane, be sucked into
> a black hole...
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

This simply great (fun I guess)!
Please shot some more images ;-).

Sebastian

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht
news:web.43c7769cf370361a731f01d10@news.povray.org...
> As an aside to playing with knots, I've also been experimenting with
objects
> constructed from bricks - specifically, perturbing the bricks based on
> their location.
>
> The two examples here are based on the bricks' distance from a line. The
> closer a brick is to the line, the more pronounced its displacement in the
> direction of the line (more precisely, within a cone aligned with the
> line). The displacement drops off with distance d from the line as
exp(-d).
>
> The cannonball just puts the whole exercise into context. Fun, isn't it? I
> could spend a whole evening carefully building brick structures in POV and
> then blowing holes in them! Plenty of scope for variations, too - could
> make things explode from a point, fall apart across a plane, be sucked
into
> a black hole...
>
> Bill
>
Just fascinating! Very smart!

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Animatable?

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> The two examples here are based on the bricks' distance from a line. The
> closer a brick is to the line, the more pronounced its displacement in the
> direction of the line (more precisely, within a cone aligned with the
> line). The displacement drops off with distance d from the line as exp(-d).
>
> The cannonball just puts the whole exercise into context. Fun, isn't it? I
> could spend a whole evening carefully building brick structures in POV and
> then blowing holes in them! Plenty of scope for variations, too - could
> make things explode from a point, fall apart across a plane, be sucked into
> a black hole...
>
> Bill

Hey,
That looks quite nice, do the bricks also rotate correctly?

BTW, I thought that this was about an actual cannon - like this one here :)



My civ3-units - modelled and animated with pov-ray:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2036938&postcount=4

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'debangimage.png' (38 KB)

Preview of image 'debangimage.png'

"Afishionado" <afi### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> What about defining shapes (cubic_sweeps, maybe?) going from each brick to
> it's "starting" location, filled with media. Each brick would leave a trail
> of dust in the air. :-)
Interesting idea, but each brick's displacement is a straight line, so it
would look a bit strange. If this were based on a physics simulation it
would look great! One thing I had considered was putting some smoke or dust
around the impact point, but since I've not really tried smoke before I
thought I'd stick to the bricks for now.

Bill

Post a reply to this message

"aaglo" <aag### [at] jippiifi> wrote:
> Hey,
> That looks quite nice, do the bricks also rotate correctly?
Not really. I give them a random rotation based on their displacement
distance. If they haven't moved much, they don't rotate much. That's about
as complex as it gets!

Bill

Post a reply to this message

Mike Williams <nos### [at] econymdemoncouk> wrote:
> It would be easier, and might produce a better result, to take a mesh
> object and apply the method to the individual triangles or
> smooth_triangles. I'd use a mesh, rather than a mesh2 so that the
> triangles come apart when displaced, rather than being joined at the
> vertices.
I think the realism would depend on what the object in question was meant to
be. If I were to divide a rectangle up into a random mesh it would be a
very realistic glass-shattering effect, for example. Must try that...

Bill

Post a reply to this message

Wasn't it Bill Pragnell who wrote:
>"Afishionado" <afi### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> What about defining shapes (cubic_sweeps, maybe?) going from each brick to
>> it's "starting" location, filled with media. Each brick would leave a trail
>> of dust in the air. :-)
>Interesting idea, but each brick's displacement is a straight line, so it
>would look a bit strange. If this were based on a physics simulation it
>would look great!

You don't need much of a physics simulation. If you use your existing
calculated displacement as representing an initial velocity, and ignore
collisions and drag, the mathematics of the parabolic trajectories are
pretty simple.

The horizontal components of the velocity of a brick would be considered
constant, so the X and Y distances are just Vx*frame_number and
Yy*frame_number. The brick accelerates vertically at a constant rate, so
we can use S=ut+0.5*at^2 to give 
        Vz*frame_number-0.5*G*pow(frame_number,2)
with G being adjusted for the scale and frame rate.

-- 
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure

Post a reply to this message