Greg M. Johnson wrote:
>It's nice that we have a source object.
>Did you say there is also some interaction with a field (besides gravity)?
>I'm not nitpicking, but if your algo is that sophisticated, then a
>demonstration scene should make this more apparent, say with a "fan" giving
>the viewer a visual expectation of the field....
>

I'm answering using the beta-posting of the
newsgroups, as I'm at my university...

I don't know where you got that "interactive
field" idea from. The physical simulation, which
only covers bouncing off of an unrotated box (or
the required planes, as single walls/ceiling/floor
may be turned off), only interacts with gravity.
Then there is a simple simulation, which adds
gravitational effects and some sort of wind, though
this is a more artistic than realistic approach.
Finally, you yourself can supply a macro which
has parameters that you can use to define the
path a particle takes.
In all cases, bounding-box and/or -sphere may be
used to keep particles in a confined space.

I have been thinking about trying to make the
physical simulation use wind into account, and
this might even be possible, given the recent
changes I've made to the system's algorithm. But
I'll look into that. But interacting with fields,
like a blowing fan, is definetely a no-no.

I know, thats sad, and after all, I think my
system won't gain much attention apart the
initial "checking-it", but it may become a
nice source for learning, its written and commented
very thoroughly and understandable. I tried not
to be too obfuscated... :-)

Well then, gotta leave!

Tim

Post a reply to this message