My particle system has reached a stage where it's ready for a beta
release. I need help to test the system, the sample files and the
documentation for bugs, correctness, usability etc. so I hope I can get
help to beta test the system.

Beta testers should preferably not just have a quick look at the system
and sample files but also make their own scenes and animations with it
so that it can be tested properly for practical purposes.

Anyone interested can contact me per email.

Thanks in advance,

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:  http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Apr 14)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring:  http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

I forgot to say that it requires POV-Ray 3.5...

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:  http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Apr 14)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring:  http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

YES! Count me in:
Pentium IV/2.2 ready and waiting.
Best,
Dennis


"Rune" <run### [at] mobilixnetdk> wrote in message
news:3cdae158@news.povray.org...
> My particle system has reached a stage where it's ready for a beta
> release. I need help to test the system, the sample files and the
> documentation for bugs, correctness, usability etc. so I hope I can get
> help to beta test the system.
>
> Beta testers should preferably not just have a quick look at the system
> and sample files but also make their own scenes and animations with it
> so that it can be tested properly for practical purposes.
>
> Anyone interested can contact me per email.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Rune
> --
> 3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
> Rune's World:  http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Apr 14)
> POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
> POV-Ray Ring:  http://webring.povray.co.uk
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Hi,

I haven't got that much time for serious work - with the household
and my daughter ( 16 months ) to care for - but if that's all right
with you than I would very much like to participate ...

Greetings
Karl Anders

--
The two most common things in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.
(H.Ellison)

Post a reply to this message

"Rune" <run### [at] mobilixnetdk> wrote in message
news:3cdae158@news.povray.org...
> My particle system has reached a stage where it's ready for a beta
> release. I need help to test the system, the sample files and the
> documentation for bugs, correctness, usability etc. so I hope I can get
> help to beta test the system.

Is it appropriate to use the particle system for images as opposed to anims? For
example, to generate some nice smoke?

Post a reply to this message

Tom Melly wrote:
> Is it appropriate to use the particle system for
> images as opposed to anims? For example, to generate
> some nice smoke?

Yes, the system works as well for images as it does for animations.

Of course you still need to think in terms of time and movement and it
can be convenient to consider the image to be like a frame from an
animation.

But you only need to render a single image because the particle
calculations are independent on the number of frames used. (This is
contrary to some other systems such as SmokeGen.) So the particle system
is well suited for creating images.

Let me know if you're interested in beta testing it. :)

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:  http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated May 20)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring:  http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

"Rune" <run### [at] mobilixnetdk> wrote in message
news:3cee5846$1@news.povray.org...

<snip>

Sounds good to me - count me in (you should have got an email from me by now).

As a general discussion on this, and recalling the smoke anim. you posted (or
was it on your site?) using your particle system (which IIRC had a rather dodgy
start), is it fundementally easier to simulate a still image of smoke by using
systems such as your own, as opposed to some clever function to shape the
column?

The dodgy start to your anim. would imply that, even for still images, a
particle system has many advantages.

Also, what exactly was that smoke? A particle system implies particles, but it
looked more like media. What, roughly, was going on in that anim? (the only
thing I can think of that makes sense would be a merge of particles containing
media, but waddaiknow?).

Post a reply to this message

Tom Melly wrote:
> As a general discussion on this, and recalling the
> smoke anim. you posted (or was it on your site?)
> using your particle system (which IIRC had a rather
> dodgy start), is it fundementally easier to simulate
> a still image of smoke by using systems such as your
> own, as opposed to some clever function to shape the
> column?

I'm not sure which of my smoke animations you are referring to. But I
would say though that in all cases it would be quite possible and
probably relatively easy too to create the smoke for an image without
the use of a particle system, by using scripting with splines or similar
instead. However, when using a particle system, it is easier to quickly
change things like how strong the gravity or wind should be or how far
up the smoke should rise.

In my opinion, a particle system can be very useful for images, but has
it real strength in animations.

> The dodgy start to your anim. would imply that, even for still
> images, a particle system has many advantages.

As stated above, I agree.

I'm not very familiar with the word "dodgy" though. Out of curiosity,
what exactly do you mean?

> Also, what exactly was that smoke? A particle system implies
> particles, but it looked more like media. What, roughly, was going on
> in that anim? (the only thing I can think of that makes sense would
> be a merge of particles containing media, but waddaiknow?).

Which smoke animation are you referring to? It could be:
* Smoketrail (smoketrail after a simplistic missile)
* Cigarette Smoke (no cigarette yet, but smoke that could come from one)
* Explosion (camera rotates around a gray box being blown up)
* Blow Up (shaky camera filming realistic building being blown up)

Three entirely different methods were used to create the smoke in these
four animations (the two last were created using the same technique).

Anyway, though term particle in the real world implies something very
small, it doesn't have to literally be that way in a particle simulation
as I understand it. The smoketrail animation was made using several
spheres filled with media. The cigarette smoke animation was made by
connecting the particles with bicubic patches, but I also consider that
a rather unusual approach myself. The explosion animations could have
been made with media if I felt like waiting for weeks, but it was
instead made using textured spheres with the textures facing the camera.
It still takes many hours...

Anything else you'd like to know? I'm always happy to answer questions.
:)

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:  http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated May 20)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring:  http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

"Rune" <run### [at] mobilixnetdk> wrote in message
news:3cee9088@news.povray.org...
>
> > The dodgy start to your anim. would imply that, even for still
> > images, a particle system has many advantages.
>
> As stated above, I agree.
>
> I'm not very familiar with the word "dodgy" though. Out of curiosity,
> what exactly do you mean?
>


 (dodgier, dodgiest)
1  colloq. awkward, unreliable, tricky.
2  Brit. cunning, artful.
"The Concise Oxford Dictionary,"

In this context I meant "awkward" - as in "that shot with the dove in 'Blade
Runner' looked a bit dodgy"

>
> Which smoke animation are you referring to? It could be:
> * Smoketrail (smoketrail after a simplistic missile)
> * Cigarette Smoke (no cigarette yet, but smoke that could come from one)
> * Explosion (camera rotates around a gray box being blown up)
> * Blow Up (shaky camera filming realistic building being blown up)

The cigarette smoke.

> spheres filled with media. The cigarette smoke animation was made by
> connecting the particles with bicubic patches, but I also consider that
> a rather unusual approach myself.

So the particles act as guide points - or are all the points of the patch
defined by particles ?

Ah - I'll render myself and try and work it out (is the ciggy smoke
included?).

Post a reply to this message

Tom Melly wrote:

>  (dodgier, dodgiest)
> 1  colloq. awkward, unreliable, tricky.
> 2  Brit. cunning, artful.
> "The Concise Oxford Dictionary,"
>
> In this context I meant "awkward" - as in "that shot
> with the dove in 'Blade Runner' looked a bit dodgy"

Ah, ok. It was the start of the smoke animation that was dodgy, right?
Your sentence could also be interpreted differently, that the beginning
of [the development of] my particle system was dodgy, but considering
the context I find that less likely... ;)

> The cigarette smoke.

Ok.

> So the particles act as guide points - or are all the
> points of the patch defined by particles ?

No, more like guide points.

> Ah - I'll render myself and try and work it out
> (is the ciggy smoke included?).

Not yet, but it will be in one of the next betas...

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:  http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated May 20)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring:  http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message