Archive: This one Has Got to be a Winner!
crisshadnick
22nd November 2002 04:05 UTC
This one Has Got to be a Winner!
I'm patting myself on the back right now...
This one is meant to be viewed at about 8-11 fps...so size accordingly.
Enjoy.
Oh, and a challenge: an atom with it's electrons rotating around it...one of you AVS nuts ought to be able to do that...if it's been done already, post it here will ya?
Shad~
Diesto
22nd November 2002 14:21 UTC
Re: This one Has Got to be a Winner!
Oh, and a challenge: an atom with it's electrons rotating around it...one of you AVS nuts ought to be able to do that...if it's been done already, post it here will ya?Hey, we all know that this classical picture of rotating electrons isn't correct. What about a visualization showing the s-, p-, d-orbitals?!
Shad~ [/B]
Jaheckelsafar
22nd November 2002 15:32 UTC
Not bad. Simple, and it looks decent. Still waiting for something that's all you though.
Diesto
22nd November 2002 15:37 UTC
Originally posted by JaheckelsafarI'd love to do. Unfortunately I'm not that experienced. Still trying to improve my leaves. They got a texture now by varying the green-level. Looks better now.
Not bad. Simple, and it looks decent. Still waiting for something that's all you though.
crisshadnick
22nd November 2002 19:15 UTC
"Not bad. Simple, and it looks decent."
Wahoo!!:D
I'll take that.
----------------
Even if the atom would be incorrect, it would look cool as the classical atom...with the electrons doing something to the beat...
What leaves?
jheriko
23rd November 2002 11:23 UTC
atoms and electrons? i'll make that later if i can be bothered. it can be done and has been done and isn't really tricky.
Warrior of the Light
23rd November 2002 15:10 UTC
Perhaps you two could join forces? say the one makes the electrons and the neutrons, the other the protons and the background...
It's a nice one to study on..
crisshadnick
23rd November 2002 17:29 UTC
The start of an atom?
my beginnings...
things that need help(!):
1. sometimes only one of the superscopes shows up when I load the avs. Don't know why...but if I change a variable in the init to 1, then back to 0, it shows up...why??
2. the orbits of the electrons need a bulge at the point where the circle is being drawn to represent the actual electron.(possibly something that reacts to the beat?)
3. should the orbits be more static?
Perhaps there's an entirely better method...make some changes to this one, or make your own...but let's see it either way!
crisshadnick
23rd November 2002 17:46 UTC
follow-up to my last...
perhaps all three superscopes are showing up, but stacked in exactly the same location??
jheriko
23rd November 2002 18:35 UTC
its because they all start in the same position and are copies of each other. changing the init string effectively restarts the ssc.
crisshadnick
23rd November 2002 20:10 UTC
sounds pretty much like what I just said...
so, got a good one yet? send it up!
jheriko
24th November 2002 01:55 UTC
i'll make one after i finish tackling my current annoyance (which is trying to make a decent 3d morphing scope with a nice variety of shapes and an acceptable framerate and reasonably high point count)
crisshadnick
24th November 2002 03:11 UTC
You said it has been done before...do you have that one? could you send it up?
jheriko
24th November 2002 03:23 UTC
I lost it ages ago... I made one but it was basically like yours except it used dots instead of lines and all of the rings were one superscope. I'll make a fresh 3D one in the morning, using spheres with electrons that change shells. I just finished my huge morphing scope... if you care about that it is attached.
Right now I'm off to bed. Its 03:23 over here. :)
Jaheckelsafar
25th November 2002 00:26 UTC
Hey man, that's pretty nice. The ends of the scope don't meet in the taurus configuration though.
Change the starting position of the scopes and you've got a decent beginning there chriandnick. Give it an interesting movement and it cout look pretty sweet.
jheriko
25th November 2002 01:06 UTC
Well here is my atom... its a helium atom and it will go into the minipack that I'm working on at the moment. It doesn't get amazing framerates - 16.8 @ 320x240 for me and my 1GHz box, but I think that it looks pretty cool and is fairly reactive.
Diesto
25th November 2002 11:48 UTC
nice, but classical so far.
back to quantum mechanics: the attached pic shows the first six orbitals (projection) for an H-atom. I'm looking for the formula (probability density).
If the electron falls back from a higher level to a lower level a photon will be emitted. The color (wavelenght) depends on the energy difference between the two levels.
Diesto
PS:
http://www.chm.davidson.edu/Chemistr...als/index.html
nixa
25th November 2002 12:35 UTC
Correct me if I am wrong but I dont think an atom can be animated actualy the whole movement whithin an atom hasnt even been calculated for anything except H.
Jaheckelsafar
25th November 2002 14:22 UTC
I don't think AVS is up to the task of creating an proper replica of a modern atom. Classical is probably the best you can hope for.
Diesto
25th November 2002 17:35 UTC
This is Quantum Mechanics ...
==============================
... and therefore a little bit boring.
The ground state is the 1s-orbital. If the music gets loud (|v|>0.35) (or by random) the electron is excited to a 2p-orbital. After a random time (per frame: rand(100)<1) the electron falls down to the ground state. A photon is emitted (okay, just a simple line).
Next steps:
- more orbitals
- many moving atoms
- stimulated emission
- photon color according to energy difference
Diesto
jheriko
25th November 2002 17:59 UTC
The thing is that AVS isn't really a simulation environment... its meant to look really cool. I think that the classical atom has far more potential as a visually pleasing preset. Just my opinion.
The other thing is how to represent an electron (or any particle) accurately since it is (apparently) a particle and a wave (a contradiction no doubt resulting from masses of assumptions and tiny errors... in maths we would accept this as definate proof that something is wrong but physicists are above logic it would seem) so how would you do it? make a particle which looks like a wave shape, which moves along a wavy path or make a particle which simply behaves like a wave? So how can we represent an atom correctly if we can't represent its constiuents correctly?
crisshadnick
26th November 2002 01:27 UTC
Ok people...I was talking about the 'classical' atom...I think it's sometimes been shown as a symbol for radiation? ...nucleus, and a few electrons in orbit...
jheriko-whoa...overboard I'd say.
diesto-um...underboard?
so...nucleus, orbital lines for the electrons, and the electrons moving along those lines. the beat having some effect on it all...
ps~ever read 'Galapagos'?
crisshadnick
26th November 2002 01:32 UTC
ah-ha...
but with the electrons showing...
dirkdeftly
26th November 2002 02:52 UTC
except that's a really crappy idea because you can't represent it in 3D very well.
crisshadnick
26th November 2002 03:04 UTC
why not?
just have the orbits moving on the z also right?
dirkdeftly
26th November 2002 07:06 UTC
the problem is it'll look really ugly as a 3D animation (it being the 'classic' atom).
crisshadnick
26th November 2002 14:29 UTC
elaborate...
Diesto
26th November 2002 14:45 UTC
This is Quantum Mechanics!!!!
=============================
Five moving Hydrogen atoms.
The ground state is the 1s-orbital.
Higher orbitals: 2s 2p 3s 3p 3d (projections to x-y-plane).
Rnl (=Rn*Fl) and Yml should be correct except for the normalization.
The state changes with loud music (v>0.4) or by chance 1:1000.
If the new energy level is lower than the previous one, a photon is emitted (okay, just a simple line).
3 => 1 violet
3 => 2 red
2 => 1 green
If you want to see more details of the orbitals, increase n for one SuperScope. Unfortunately it will be less often exicted (dunno why). So decrease the value 0.4 in per frame: ex=bor(above(abs(v),0.4).
(c) Diesto
crisshadnick
26th November 2002 15:35 UTC
now you've gone overboard too...
should be:
a few complex superscopes...but
~a simple look
~entertaining!
~not realistic...
Jaheckelsafar
26th November 2002 16:10 UTC
Cool, but a little slow.
dirkdeftly
26th November 2002 17:52 UTC
uhh...HELLO? This is what we're trying to tell you; your idea isn't 'realistic' in the first place!
It's pretty simple, criss. Just imagine the 3D image of a dot with little dots flying around it in rings. Even if the rings move, it's really ugly and boring.
Diesto
26th November 2002 19:21 UTC
Originally posted by crisshadnickDepends on the viewer: For a physician it's entertaining because it IS realistic. Otherwise I wouldn't have done it :)
should be:
a few complex superscopes...but
~a simple look
~entertaining!
~not realistic...
dirkdeftly
26th November 2002 20:19 UTC
For the last fucking time, 'major dude' is just a ranking based on post count. That doesn't mean we have the power to solve every single one of your problems.
crisshadnick
27th November 2002 00:51 UTC
but if the physician was at a party...and that atom was showing on a big screen, would he be entertained then?
doubtful.
UnConeD
27th November 2002 00:55 UTC
If a physician at a party is still so much a physician that he bothers with the physical correctness of the visuals, then he needs to get out more :).
crisshadnick
27th November 2002 01:48 UTC
thank you! my point exactly.
so...a little more imagination people!:eek:
dirkdeftly
27th November 2002 02:49 UTC
I'm not saying it'll be incorrect, I'm saying it'll be ugly... Even if it WAS correct it'd be ugly.....
Jaheckelsafar
27th November 2002 08:43 UTC
I dunno Artero. It's not exctly ground breaking, but it doesn't look too bad.
Diesto
27th November 2002 09:47 UTC
Originally posted by crisshadnickYours or mine? I doubt that anybody would be entertained by a central sphere and rotating circles. Especially if the movement is not at all related to music!
but if the physician was at a party...and that atom was showing on a big screen, would he be entertained then?
doubtful.
Diesto
27th November 2002 10:07 UTC
Originally posted by AteroOoops, and I thought I could become a Major Dude just because of programming skills. But then: there is your demand for aesthetics. May I quote from your posting regarding my Trance preset?!
For the last fucking time, 'major dude' is just a ranking based on post count.
Originally posted by AteroFortunately aesthetics is a very subjective sense. I like the Trance preset, you don't. Just fair. But I think resolution and frame rate are quite objective aspects of aesthetecis:
Just because it's hectic doesn't mean it has to go with trance, and just because you want a trance preset doesn't mean you have to make it hectic. We're going for aesthetics here, and (no offense) that's not what you have in your trance preset.
'major dude' is just a ranking based on post count. That doesn't mean we have the power to solve every single one of your problems.You are not supposed to solve any of my problems! I just asked questions, that could be also seen as suggestions. So if you know the answer, I would be pleased to know. If the suggestions have already been made, forget it. But I don't think so, because I haven't seen them in UnConed's updated wishlist. So he might consider to add them.
Jaheckelsafar
27th November 2002 17:01 UTC
Next version of my atom, with proper rotation of the electron paths, speed improvements, strobe-a-riffic background, plus a new Electron!!!! (ohhh, ahh)
dirkdeftly
27th November 2002 19:42 UTC
Diesto:
You probably like your own presets because you made them, and you're proud of them. That doesn't mean anybody else will like them. I've made a lot of stuff (not just AVS) in my life that I thought was pretty damn kickass, and had everyone tell me it sucks. That's just how it goes.
Also, resolution has just about zero to do with aesthetics. You can look at the Mona Lisa from 40' away or 2", it's gonna look the same. Also, have you ever even seen a preset with 3D ANYTHING? Low framerates simply come with decent 3D in AVS, period. But 3D is a whole lot more aesthetic than 2D.
If you're just watching AVS on your computer (and you have your screen set to 800x600 like a sensible person), then 320x240 is just fine. If you're VJing parties and wanna get paid big bux, then you want really fast twin processors and a lot of RAM so you can get 20-30 FPS at, say, 1152x864 with high-quality DM gridsizes.
crisshadnick
28th November 2002 01:59 UTC
atom2....best yet.
need more positive thinking out there. :up:
Diesto
28th November 2002 09:13 UTC
Originally posted by JaheckelsafarI dared to accelerate your preset from 8 to 32 fps (320*240 1Ghz) by:
Next version of my atom, with proper rotation of the electron paths, speed improvements, strobe-a-riffic background, plus a new Electron!!!! (ohhh, ahh)
Jaheckelsafar
28th November 2002 11:48 UTC
GJ. Dunno why I didn't see that I could stick everything in the same effect list. Thanks.
I still like having the fadeout though.
Diesto
28th November 2002 12:08 UTC
four more versions
- 'explosion'
- moving atom
- two moving atoms
- QM version
:)
Diesto
crisshadnick
28th November 2002 17:15 UTC
Now we're getting somewhere! I like the 'exploding' ones.
Where's mr. negativity?
anyway, good work.
(couldn't understand why all the effects lists either)
Jaheckelsafar
28th November 2002 19:46 UTC
Now with occlusion behind the nucleus :) (still needs a little work though)
The reason for the effect lists was so the electons would leave a kind of burn effect.
Jaheckelsafar
29th November 2002 02:15 UTC
Fixed the occlusion and tweaked it a bit. This one is going to go into my pack. :)
crisshadnick
29th November 2002 02:47 UTC
you know, I think this whole atom idea of mine may have run its course...(yes, I know its been done before)
:winamp:
I-Did-Your-Mom
12th July 2003 07:55 UTC
I made one that totaly blows
mikm
12th July 2003 15:35 UTC
Don't revive dead threads!!
Phaze1987
12th July 2003 16:17 UTC
You could show the preset to us I-Did-Your-Mom...Just a hint.
Raz
12th July 2003 18:32 UTC
Maybe you shouldn't use what looks like moving particles to make the electrons?
mikm
12th July 2003 18:46 UTC
he did...it was in another thread. somebody lock this.
Fork me on GitHub