![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Vortex structure of flow around a cube. Not happy with it since it's
begging for scattering, but I thought I'd plug the simulation results in to
POV-Ray and get something pretty. This took a while, so I might never get
around to animaing the other 199 frames. Seemed worth sharing.
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'test2.jpg' (86 KB)
Preview of image 'test2.jpg'
![test2.jpg](/povray.binaries.images/attachment/%3Cweb.462cabe63ecf3a93efa9f3280%40news.povray.org%3E/test2.jpg?ttop=443866&toff=3850&preview=1)
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
"triple_r" <rre### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> Vortex structure of flow around a cube. Not happy with it since it's
> begging for scattering, but I thought I'd plug the simulation results in to
> POV-Ray and get something pretty. This took a while, so I might never get
> around to animaing the other 199 frames. Seemed worth sharing.
>
> - Ricky
This looks neat--but maybe you could explain what you mean by "vortex
structure of flow"? Just curious--sounds interesting.
-- Kirk
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
It's explaned in the following link somewhere in the middle, but it
basically amounts to the vorticity minus the shear, leaving the rotation.
Not my paper of course, but I just tried (unsuccessfully) to replicate the
results. I couldn't get mine even close to turbulent.
http://www.bgu.ac.il/~yakhot/homepage/publications/JFM_2006.pdf
Say, does anyone know how to get decent render times out of good-looking
media? Method 3 tends to give me 'slices' and Method 2 needs too many
samples. Here are my current settings for a smokey-looking wake, but it's
taking quite a while. Maybe that's to be expected.
media {
method 3
intervals 30
ratio 0.9
samples 4,4
jitter 1.0
aa_level 3
aa_threshold 0.05
emission <1,1,1> * 8
absorption <1,1,1> * 2
scattering {
1, <1,1,1>*10
extinction 2.5
}
confidence 0.99
variance 1/100
density {
density_file df3 "output.df3"
interpolate 1
color_map {
[0.0 rgb 0]
[1.0 rgb 1]
}
}
}
- Ricky
"Kirk Andrews" <kir### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> "triple_r" <rre### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> > Vortex structure of flow around a cube. Not happy with it since it's
> > begging for scattering, but I thought I'd plug the simulation results in to
> > POV-Ray and get something pretty. This took a while, so I might never get
> > around to animaing the other 199 frames. Seemed worth sharing.
> >
> > - Ricky
>
> This looks neat--but maybe you could explain what you mean by "vortex
> structure of flow"? Just curious--sounds interesting.
>
> -- Kirk
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
"triple_r" <rre### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> It's explaned in the following link somewhere in the middle, but it
> basically amounts to the vorticity minus the shear, leaving the rotation.
> Not my paper of course, but I just tried (unsuccessfully) to replicate the
> results. I couldn't get mine even close to turbulent.
> ...
> - Ricky
>
>
> "Kirk Andrews" <kir### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> > "triple_r" <rre### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> > > Vortex structure of flow around a cube. Not happy with it since it's
> > > begging for scattering, but I thought I'd plug the simulation results in to
> > > POV-Ray and get something pretty. This took a while, so I might never get
> > > around to animaing the other 199 frames. Seemed worth sharing.
> > >
> > > - Ricky
> >
> > This looks neat--but maybe you could explain what you mean by "vortex
> > structure of flow"? Just curious--sounds interesting.
> >
> > -- Kirk
Oops, I top-posted. Sorry.
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
triple_r wrote:
> It's explaned in the following link somewhere in the middle, but it
> basically amounts to the vorticity minus the shear, leaving the rotation.
> Not my paper of course, but I just tried (unsuccessfully) to replicate the
> results. I couldn't get mine even close to turbulent.
>
> http://www.bgu.ac.il/~yakhot/homepage/publications/JFM_2006.pdf
>
> Say, does anyone know how to get decent render times out of good-looking
> media? Method 3 tends to give me 'slices' and Method 2 needs too many
> samples. Here are my current settings for a smokey-looking wake, but it's
> taking quite a while. Maybe that's to be expected.
>
First thing first, try:
intervals 1
samples 120
This should be faster and give better results than your settings.
Then, try to play with the samples (only one number has meaning with
method 3), but *keep the intervals at 1*.
Jerome
- --
+------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+
| mailto:jeb### [at] free fr | ICQ: 238062172 |
| http://jeberger.free.fr/ | Jabber: jeb### [at] jabber fr |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGLPhEd0kWM4JG3k8RAoXFAJ0UlUrW5Mx3cTzqW1KxhYiGljzK1QCeIUjW
Cd0bugVY444F8rRb2phoAUI=
=1aeC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
triple_r nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 23-04-2007 10:05:
> It's explaned in the following link somewhere in the middle, but it
> basically amounts to the vorticity minus the shear, leaving the rotation.
> Not my paper of course, but I just tried (unsuccessfully) to replicate the
> results. I couldn't get mine even close to turbulent.
> http://www.bgu.ac.il/~yakhot/homepage/publications/JFM_2006.pdf
> Say, does anyone know how to get decent render times out of good-looking
> media? Method 3 tends to give me 'slices' and Method 2 needs too many
> samples. Here are my current settings for a smokey-looking wake, but it's
> taking quite a while. Maybe that's to be expected.
> media {
> method 3
> intervals 30
> ratio 0.9
> samples 4,4
> jitter 1.0
> aa_level 3
> aa_threshold 0.05
> emission <1,1,1> * 8
> absorption <1,1,1> * 2
> scattering {
> 1, <1,1,1>*10
> extinction 2.5
> }
> confidence 0.99
> variance 1/100
> density {
> density_file df3 "output.df3"
> interpolate 1
> color_map {
> [0.0 rgb 0]
> [1.0 rgb 1]
> }
> }
> }
> - Ricky
When using method 3, intervals >1 is a NO-NO.
Leave it at 1 and increace samples, MUCH faster!
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
My toes were playing the piano under the blankets.
They made so much noise that I woke up singing.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
> When using method 3, intervals >1 is a NO-NO.
> Leave it at 1 and increace samples, MUCH faster!
>
> --
> Alain
Thanks for the advice. Seems to work even if the colors are a little dull.
It was faster though. I guess inefficiency is what you get for
once-every-couple-months pov-ing. As for an animation, that still may take
a while.
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'qvol2.jpg' (41 KB)
Preview of image 'qvol2.jpg'
![qvol2.jpg](/povray.binaries.images/attachment/%3Cweb.462d89029d51d7caefa9f3280%40news.povray.org%3E/qvol2.jpg?ttop=443866&toff=3850&preview=1)
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
The first version was pretty, but this one is genuinely cool. Now the
media feels genuinely 3D.
--
William Tracy
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|a|f|i|s|h|i|o|n|a|d|o|@|g|m|a|i|l|.|c|o|m|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|w|t|r|a|c|y|@|c|a|l|p|o|l|y|.|e|d|u|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
You know you've been raytracing too long when you boot up in the morning
and your computer has a message waiting for you that says "Come on buddy
get a life !".
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
triple_r wrote:
>>When using method 3, intervals >1 is a NO-NO.
>>Leave it at 1 and increace samples, MUCH faster!
>>
>>--
>>Alain
>
>
> Thanks for the advice. Seems to work even if the colors are a little dull.
> It was faster though.
...and with the greater volumetric effect, it's much more illustrative.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Do plan on sharing your code, or at least do a large render? I wouldn't
mind this as a desktop bg.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |