POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.newusers : animation question Server Time
29 Jul 2024 02:24:13 EDT (-0400)
  animation question (Message 11 to 16 of 16)  
<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Initial 10 Messages
From: bob h
Subject: Re: animation question
Date: 19 Jan 2002 19:50:42
Message: <3c4a1462$1@news.povray.org>
"Deaken" <dwy### [at] sw-techcom> wrote in message
news:3C495FC2.470A0742@sw-tech.com...
> Chris Howie wrote:
> >
> > rotate <0,clock,0>  // move clock into the desired axis
>
> That's the second time I've seen that particular rotate used in this
> thread.  Well, the first one was "rotate clock * y".  In neither case was
> there a Start_ or End_Clock mentioned.
>
> Am I a complete idiot for using "rotate <0, 360*clock, 0>", or did two
> people make the same mistake?  Both of these options?  Neither?

If you're asking whether or not clock by itself will rotate 360 degrees,
then no.  Not necessarily anyway, unless you specify a Intitial_Clock=1 and
Final_Clock=360 for INI file.
If you asked if rotate clock * y is same as <0,clock,0> then the answer is
yes.  Or in your example, rotate 360*clock*y.

bob h


Post a reply to this message

From: Deaken
Subject: Re: animation question
Date: 19 Jan 2002 20:12:21
Message: <3C4A19A2.115686BF@sw-tech.com>
Lothar Esser wrote:
> 
> Deaken wrote:
> 
> > Chris Howie wrote:
> > >
> > > rotate <0,clock,0>  // move clock into the desired axis
> >
> > That's the second time I've seen that particular rotate used in this
> > thread.  Well, the first one was "rotate clock * y".  In neither case was
> > there a Start_ or End_Clock mentioned.
> >
> > Am I a complete idiot for using "rotate <0, 360*clock, 0>", or did two
> > people make the same mistake?  Both of these options?  Neither?
> 
> rotate clock * y is an alternative to rotate <0,clock,0> as y = <0,1,0> .

Right.  I'm sorry, I was unclear in my question.  My point was not that the
individual x/y/z names are shorthands for the vectors, it was that some
people multiply by the clock, whereas I multiply by (the clock times 360). 
In fact, I had originally written "y*360*clock", but changed it for the sake
of clarity.

> rotate clock * 360  / n * y   //  where clock goes from 0 to n. 

The general form of what I use.  I am not good enough to generalize the
method and use clocks that are not simply 0-1.

Deaken


Post a reply to this message

From: Deaken
Subject: Re: animation question
Date: 19 Jan 2002 20:16:39
Message: <3C4A1AA4.2AB969B9@sw-tech.com>
bob h wrote:
> 
> "Deaken" <dwy### [at] sw-techcom> wrote in message
> news:3C495FC2.470A0742@sw-tech.com...
> > That's the second time I've seen that particular rotate used in this
> > thread.  Well, the first one was "rotate clock * y".  In neither case was
> > there a Start_ or End_Clock mentioned.
> >
> > Am I a complete idiot for using "rotate <0, 360*clock, 0>", or did two
> > people make the same mistake?  Both of these options?  Neither?
> 
> If you're asking whether or not clock by itself will rotate 360 degrees,
> then no.  Not necessarily anyway, unless you specify a Intitial_Clock=1 and
> Final_Clock=360 for INI file.

Actually, I was asking if my belief (that this was incorrect) was correct.

I think that means the same thing as what you said...

Deaken


Post a reply to this message

From: Chris Howie
Subject: Re: animation question
Date: 20 Jan 2002 14:16:53
Message: <3c4b17a5@news.povray.org>
> Am I a complete idiot for using "rotate <0, 360*clock, 0>", or did two
> people make the same mistake?  Both of these options?  Neither?

No, you're right.  It escaped me again.  360*clock IS correct.

Sorry about the error.

__________________
Chris Howie
cra### [at] yahoocom
http://winimizer.virtualave.net


Post a reply to this message

From: Deaken
Subject: Re: animation question
Date: 20 Jan 2002 23:10:40
Message: <3C4B94F2.54415E25@sw-tech.com>
Chris Howie wrote:
> 
> > Am I a complete idiot for using "rotate <0, 360*clock, 0>", or did two
> > people make the same mistake?  Both of these options?  Neither?
> 
> No, you're right.  It escaped me again.  360*clock IS correct.
> 
> Sorry about the error.

Oh, no need to apologize.  Being a rank amateur, I wanted to make sure that
I wasn't  doing something that merely LOOKED like it was working, or
overworking the problem (a major fault of mine), or something along those
lines.

Deaken


Post a reply to this message

From: Dennis Miller
Subject: Re: animation question
Date: 3 Mar 2002 23:21:47
Message: <3c82f65b@news.povray.org>
Try this:

http://www.mol.biol.ethz.ch/wuthrich/software/molmol/

d.
  "Michael DiDonato" <did### [at] scrippsedu> wrote in message 
news:3C48BA7A.B612C665@scripps.edu...
     
    > ******************************** 
    > 
    Not sure how your scene is  structured but one thing that comes to 
mind 
    would be to put all your objects into a union like 
    union { 
       sphere ... 
       triangle ... 
        //  up to here are your objects 

       rotate  clock * y 

    } 
    Read the part about animation in the manual of povray. There is a 
clock 
    variable that can be set and if you use povray's animation feature 
this 
    variable is increased 
    with each new frame. 
    Of course one could mention that there are macromolecular graphics 
    programs that support animation with povray in one form or other. 
    Hope this helps. 

     Lothar. 

    -- 
    Dr. Lothar Esser 
    NIH / NCI 
    Tel. 301-435-6163 
    email les### [at] helixnihgov

  Do you know of any? 
    
-- 
*********************************
Michael DiDonato, PhD
The Scripps Research Institute
Department of Molecular Biology 
Maildrop MB4
10550 North Torrey Pines Road
La Jolla, CA, 92037

Tel: (858) 784-9261
FAX: (858) 784-2277

http://www.scripps.edu/~didonato
*********************************


Post a reply to this message


Attachments:
Download 'iso-8859-1' (3 KB)

From: Chris Howie
Subject: Re: animation question
Date: 20 Jan 2002 14:19:21
Message: <3c4b1839@news.povray.org>
(Sorry about the multiple-postings... didn't realize he sent it to multiple
groups.)

> Am I a complete idiot for using "rotate <0, 360*clock, 0>", or did two
> people make the same mistake?  Both of these options?  Neither?

No, you're right.  It escaped me again.  360*clock IS correct.

Sorry about the error.

__________________
Chris Howie
cra### [at] yahoocom
http://winimizer.virtualave.net


Post a reply to this message

<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Initial 10 Messages

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.