 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"aaglo" <aag### [at] jippii fi> wrote:
> That's quite a lot of debris.
Some of it will be from the other side of the tower!
> Have you tried your code, when there already exists a hole (like a window
> hole) in your tower? And if so, how does it look then?
I haven't tried it, but I know what will happen. The bricks closest to the
trajectory will be disturbed slightly, or more, depending on the radius
parameter. The cannonball won't fly innocently through open windows I'm
afraid!
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> The macro simply defines a translation as a function of how close a given
> point is to a straight line (the 'bullet' trajectory). This translation is
> calculated and applied to bricks as they are generated when building the
> chimney. ...
That's quite interesting. I had originally thought that you had built the
chimney first, loaded all those brick locations into an array, and then
called them all later for the destruction. An extra, unnecessary step, as I
see now.
Ken
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Here's a little more wanton destruction for you all. I must profess to be a
> little concerned at the eagerness for more of these pictures fro some of
> you! ;)
>
> Bill
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
As I was looking at the image, something looked weird to me.
It looks as if the tower is 'bowed' towards the impact site.
From your description of the routine, this is to be expected.
To get closer to real life, you may want to allow the user to define the
falloff distance factor (how distance from impact effects disturbance).
You may even consider allowing a limiting factor - at this ditance,
there is no effect.
Just some thoughts.
Tom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
