Archive: Can anyone do anything with this.
Jaak
12th January 2003 21:40 UTC
Can anyone do anything with this.
:(
I made something 3D and added some pasic things, but it just not it (it not soundrepsonsible, its boring etc.). Maybe u all can hint me littlebit. And how can i make this ssc little more solid (more dots) without having major slowdown.
And plz dont judge me hard (i know that this is #ßçNÈñ AVS and im newbe).
VisualAgnosia
12th January 2003 21:57 UTC
Go for some background visual to go with it, layer it ontop of another preset you make that is a good background, using the |+| button on the control screen and go into preset and you can add a whole preset to another good for part-ones that you make ...You can stitch them together. If you didn't know that already ....
Cool :)
anubis2003
12th January 2003 21:59 UTC
To make it more soundresponsive you can either use the on-beat box to do different things(change velocity, position, rotation, etc.) or use the getosc/getspec functions or use v. In order to increase the number of dots without sacrificing speed you will have to take other things out (blurs slow it down a lot). Also, optimizing your code can help some.
KiD cHaMeLeOn
13th January 2003 00:52 UTC
Ummm...Glanced at the superscope and said wow.
So i just modded it seeing as how the SSC was really complicated..
Looks nice actually check it out
anubis2003
13th January 2003 02:48 UTC
No offense kid, but your remix isn't that great. You really can't see much of anything because of the blur/water/color clip combination. It really hides the superscope which now looks like a blur of color in the middle.
KiD cHaMeLeOn
13th January 2003 03:17 UTC
Thanks i geuss..
Yea i really needa learn dont i lol..
Thanks for the critasism <===== i dont know how to spell
Raz
13th January 2003 04:52 UTC
criticism^, according to ms word, still dont look right tho. Then again, does it really matter.
Anyway as for the remix annubis is right, cant see the superscope at all, the colours are quite nice but colours cant hold up forever. anyway you get a nice phsycadelic effect with the superscope in the middle if you take away some of the effects.
anubis2003
13th January 2003 04:59 UTC
Agh, too much white! Another side effect of water with a colorfade. It is better now that you can see the SSC though. Instead of using the built-in effects use a DM. I'll post one if I get around to making it.
Jaheckelsafar
13th January 2003 06:06 UTC
I dunno. Nifty stff can be done with builtins. You just have to know how to use them right.
Anyway, didn't change any code or add any dynamic stuff. I liked your half cube. It ain't much, but it's five minutes of my time.
Raz
13th January 2003 07:18 UTC
Its kinda nice but i can only see the cube if i squint and look at it for about 20 secs, maybe its just cause my computer sucks ass but thats what i can see.
Jaak
13th January 2003 12:25 UTC
VisualAgnosia - i can't find good background for it, it just melts together with it and the point of this AVS is gone. But i WILL make some-kind-of-like-good-bascground for this AVS
anubis2003 - I knew that (i gess).
KiD cHaMeLeOn - the ssc is not that complikated, my coded is just this part:
x1 = r * sin(p2 * i * 500 + s);
y1 = r * sin(r * i * (s + 10));
z1 = r * cos(p2 * i * 10);
s = bnot(s);
And colours.
All the rest comes from EL-VIS
The "s = bnot(s)" is used to get kind of "solid" cube.
s returns 1 if s == 1 or 0 if s != 0 (U know what i mean).
Jaheckelsafar - uuu.. Nice but ssc dont show out very well.
As soon as i get time ill wodify (!spelling!) AVS: make some background, make it more dynamick and and eeee...
:winamp: avs is love :winamp:
anubis2003
13th January 2003 12:27 UTC
Jaheckelsafar, It's definitely my favorite of the bunch submitted so far. The convolution filter really helps a lot, but it hides the superscope some. Good job.
Jaak
13th January 2003 12:32 UTC
I gess next time i will read my REPLY before i submit this
:weird:
Jaak
13th January 2003 15:19 UTC
OK...
There is new peace here.
I added Con. filter(like i know what is this doing) and Colour reduction and more minore changes(spelling) in ssc.
Tell my :up: or :down: than the last one (my one).
Tell me ur opinion.
I wont stop before its someting good.
Jaak
13th January 2003 15:21 UTC
Uuu...Uuu....
Try to change ssc-s draw stile to lines...
anubis2003
13th January 2003 21:10 UTC
Convolution filter makes it too grey. I like how it makes it look like it's a full cube though.
Why do you say "Uuu...Uuu...?"
Jaak
13th January 2003 21:36 UTC
I gess it sounds bad in english. In estonian people understand that I express my feeling what bla..bla..bla. I mean u cant undrstand that and it was my momentic feeling bla, bla, bla...SORRY...
In lines it gives bretty good efect, try to add "set rendel mode".
Yea it makes it grey and i like full cube more i guess I just keep trying to get rid of my newbyness and make this look better...
May anyone hint me with making 3D ssc-s Anubis2003 u did it onese but i cant find enything useful there for making good AVS ssc.
Jaheckelsafar
14th January 2003 04:47 UTC
I like that last version. :up
What are you trying to make with the 3D scc?
dirkdeftly
14th January 2003 06:29 UTC
The scope is nice, and no, there's no way to add more dots without adding more dots :p
Check out the Cubism (Artist-like) preset from my second pack (get it somewhere here), it's got a nice cube-effect (though that's all it's got :rolleyes: )
Jaak
14th January 2003 13:07 UTC
Ur 100% right Atero there is no way, if i start think logicaly(SPELLING?).
Jaheckelsafar:
Lets take it step by step
I : I want to know how 3D/2D translator works
II : How can I make ssc move
III : I want to know ALL (i guess that its impossible) about ssc (and dm but i take learning step by step).
Ill keep mod.-ing my "cool" (:blah:) AVS.
dirkdeftly
14th January 2003 20:03 UTC
check out my avs primer :down: which will be updated soon (I'm giving up on AVSP2, btw, it's going to be something more like 1.43)
Jaak
14th January 2003 21:59 UTC
Thnx...
Really good stuff for beginners.
Allready waiting for update
Jaheckelsafar
15th January 2003 01:39 UTC
Snagged this link from the FAQ. It's a a 3D SCC tutorial by El-vis. His code might not be the best, but it's a start.
link
Jaak
15th January 2003 15:19 UTC
Atero thnk u again. I read all about everything and I feel 10 times smarter than i was before. Now I get the 3D ssc main idea
x = x1 / (z + 2);
y = y1 / (z + 2);
but the rotation part
a = a1 * sin(t) + b1 * cos(t);
b = a1 * cos(t) - b1 * sin(t);
is still little fuzzy (i donno how it works), but i guess that isnt ment to be known for me...
Jaheckelsafar if u look at my preset u will see that i have allready read EL-VIS real_3D_tutorial...
:winamp: AVS is ART :winamp:
anubis2003
15th January 2003 20:58 UTC
The rotation part comes from the multiplication of the rotation matrices and the 3-D coordinates. However, since avs doesn't support matrices, they had to be converted into this format which is a lot harder to use (IMHO). You can find out more about this in almost any 3-D programming tutorial. Just search the web.
dirkdeftly
15th January 2003 22:23 UTC
you know what...i honestly don't *really* know how it works either, nor have I been able to find a proof of it's correctness. i'm gonna remove that piece of shit page from the tutorial about translation and rotation... :hang:
anyway, basically if you want to rotate an object on the X/Y plane, you need to replace a1 and b1 with x1 and y1, the coordinates of the original image.
if you absolutely must, you may use the code given in the tutorial, but i strongly suggest you try to figure it out before you use it :)
anubis2003
16th January 2003 00:27 UTC
Yeah, There are very few who do know exactly how it works (Unconed does). Most of us just trust them that it does work and use it with the knowledge we have. I've tried figuring it out on my own, but I could never get it to look right. By trying, however, it helped me out a lot with understanding other peoples code because there were some similarities.
Jaak
16th January 2003 11:24 UTC
OH my GOD!
Atero are U joking, please say this is a joke, that U are going to remove the translation and rotation part from "AVS Primer"...
This part IS (atleast for me) the MOST useful (I dont say that other things are useless) part of Ur tutorial. How the f***k are newbs (like I am) going to learn the 3D ssc-ing?
No way remove it, make it better ,biger, clearer etc.
And don't worry about that that im going to do just copy_paste from Ur tutorial (I bear math stuff bretty well in my mind) and I dont like to copy from others stuff (it just makes me feel empty) and I get the 3D thing bretty well, exept that rotaton part...
I have noticed that ELVIS uses same code for rotation, doesn't he?
And once again dont U, Atero, never remove this part from your "AVS Primer"...
Anubis im gonna ceck it out as soon as I start learning 3D scriting in C++
dirkdeftly
16th January 2003 18:11 UTC
jack, it's totally and completely incorrect. it'd be much better if I just put a clear, consise explanation of the equation and how to use it.
and everyone uses the same code for rotation, those rotation matrices are the fastest way to rotate an object. to be honest, el-vis's code really isn't that great. for one thing, it's not as fast or as dynamic as it could be, and it isn't even that special in and of itself.
btw, I know HOW the rotation matrices work, I just don't know WHY
Jaak
16th January 2003 19:22 UTC
Woof...
U mad me wordless...OK if this is the best and fastest way ta do 3D rotation, ill just leve it where it is and dont try to make it clear for me... :hang:
nixa
16th January 2003 19:29 UTC
Atero here is the proof:
Lets take the x,y<->d,r formula as a prooved fact:
We will start from
d=sqrt(x1*x1+y1*y1);r=atan2(x1,y1)+t;
x2=sin(r)*d;y2=cos(r)*d;
and
x2=x1*sin(t)+y1*cos(t);y2=y1*sin(t)-x1*cos(t);
this means that
sin(r)*d=x1*sin(t)+y1*cos(t);
cos(r)*d=y1*sin(t)-x1*cos(t);
rise this to the power of 2 and you will get:
sin^2(r)*d^2=x1^2*sin^2(t)+2*x1*y1*sin(t)*cos(t)+y1^2*cos^2(t);
cos^2(r)*d^2=x1^2*cos^2(t)-2*x1*y1*sin(t)*cos(t)+y1^2*sin^2(t);
now add one equalation to the other
d^2(sin^2(r)+cos^2(r))=x1^2(sin^2(t)+cos^2(t))+y1^2(sin^2(t)+cos^2(t))
now becouse of the sin^2(alpha)+cos^2(alpha)=1 its proven that
d^2=x1^2+y1^2
and since d=sqrt(x1^2+y1^2) you can write this as
x1^2+y1^2=x1^2+y1^2
or
0=0
what is true and that means that
x2=x1*sin(t)+y1*cos(t);y2=y1*sin(t)-x1*cos(t);
is true too
dirkdeftly
16th January 2003 20:02 UTC
yeah, but that's like saying "since x=x, x must equal x."
nixa
16th January 2003 21:08 UTC
It mathematicly proofes that rottation matrix works.
Isnt this what you asked for?
Jaak
17th January 2003 15:44 UTC
Hehe...
Well yea...
OK...
I got nothing to say... (because I got now TOO many things to ask, say, tell...).
:(
anubis2003
17th January 2003 16:39 UTC
Jack, that post was completely useless. Nixa was proving that the 3-D rotation equations are true. And Atero, I think Nixa did answer your question. If you want personal proof, just sit down and try to figure it out yourself. This is what I did and although I did it wrong I was easily able to figure out how they actually do work by looking at the equations in you're primer and elsewhere.
dirkdeftly
18th January 2003 19:47 UTC
the reason it doesn't work is because you're assuming it's true before you prove it, then using the matrix to prove itself. you can do the same thing with any arbitrary formula.
nixa
18th January 2003 22:18 UTC
So all proofes made by mathematical induction are wrong then?
anubis2003
18th January 2003 22:26 UTC
No, all proofs using that which is to be proven to prove them are only using circular logic. However, looking back at your post I don't think you did this.
UnConeD
19th January 2003 05:03 UTC
Actually it's in between.
The only things nixa proved is that if we know that cos^2+sin^2 = 1, then the formula for rotation doesn't modify a point's distance to the origin, which means it was either rotated around the origin, or not moved at all.
However he didn't prove that a point was rotated around the specified angle ;).
I believe Jheriko will post the actual proof soon in the "AVS Primer - now hiring" thread. I'd post it if I'd remember it from high school ;). In that same thread I've already explained how you go from the rotational formula to a matrix btw.
dirkdeftly
20th January 2003 08:46 UTC
aww damn...you learn that in the trig course i never finished, don't you? ;)
hungryskull
8th February 2003 22:26 UTC
Atero,are there actually any more ways to rotate a superscope then the way described in the AVS Primer? If you want you could
remove rotation from the AVS Primer but it would be a good idea to leave 3D-2D tranlation in it.
Fork me on GitHub