nice, moves a little too fast to be metaball-ish but still good idea.
My very-first AVS pack
48 posts
Thanks guys you have helped me alot.
😁
😁
Ive made pretty cool DM, but there seems to be few defects:
If distance goes too small (camera moves too much back) then the hole thing seem to deform 😕 .
And I sill cant make rotating DM - s 😔.
But still, it looks nice enough (dont laugh, for me I ment) 😛.
If distance goes too small (camera moves too much back) then the hole thing seem to deform 😕 .
And I sill cant make rotating DM - s 😔.
But still, it looks nice enough (dont laugh, for me I ment) 😛.
What do you mean by "deform"? If you're referring to the zigzagging edges, it is because of a bug with the DM. You can fix this by increasing grid size. This does, however, slow the preset down.
The other option that will help hide it is to use a more realistic fog. Yours has definite starting pts. Instead, use something that doesn't jump straight from 0 to 1. I attached an example to help you out.
The other option that will help hide it is to use a more realistic fog. Yours has definite starting pts. Instead, use something that doesn't jump straight from 0 to 1. I attached an example to help you out.
Thanks, actualy i wanted roof too but it looks petter without it. 😉
Well yea, about the deforming: The hole surfase messes up when the DM zooms too much out, I can make it to zoom less out but there must be other solution.
Well yea, about the deforming: The hole surfase messes up when the DM zooms too much out, I can make it to zoom less out but there must be other solution.
Yeah, I didn't do both surfaces because I'm lazy.😛 By the hole, you are talking about the black part in the back, correct? It doesn't deform on my computer.
nope, no black bart, nothing wrong with the fog....
Deam. Well, how do i say that, emmmmm.... Deam english!
Ok, perspective of the surface will be messed up and lines will be ****d up, well, deam, how do I say that. Well listen Korn of something with heave beat.
Im same lazy as U, I know the feeling of beeing lazy 😁 😁
OH! Im a member now, cool...
Deam. Well, how do i say that, emmmmm.... Deam english!
Ok, perspective of the surface will be messed up and lines will be ****d up, well, deam, how do I say that. Well listen Korn of something with heave beat.
Im same lazy as U, I know the feeling of beeing lazy 😁 😁
OH! Im a member now, cool...
I'm not positive what you are saying(probably because of translation difficulties), but I believe it is because of the gridsize. And oddly enough I was listening to Thoughtless, by Korn, at the time.
thoughtless - korn \m/🙂\m/
I remixed it a little, there are now 4 colours to the squares and the foggy type stuff changes colour
I remixed it a little, there are now 4 colours to the squares and the foggy type stuff changes colour
I think it's cause by you z value getting to large. I can't explain why right now. Maby I'll have more luck tomorrow when I'm more awake. It has to do with deviding by a larger z value making the DM get point closer to the zero line.
Hi, I brought up this old thread pecause it was pointless to wast hole thread for simple question, here it is:
We have 2 lines, we only know the coordinates of the lines, these lines cross in the point X, how can i calculate the point X coordinates olny by using the two points for each line?
Down here is pic. of it. Thank you.
We have 2 lines, we only know the coordinates of the lines, these lines cross in the point X, how can i calculate the point X coordinates olny by using the two points for each line?
Down here is pic. of it. Thank you.
If you use the functional equation of a line (y in terms of x), you get:
y = mx + d
m is the slope of the line. This is 0 for horizontal (because the y value is constant across all x-es). It's impossible to have vertical lines with this formula because m would have to be infinity.
d is a vertical offset of the line and is the y coordinate of the point on the line with x coordinate 0 (after all, for x=0 the formula gives y = m*0 + d = d). A line that goes through the origin has d=0.
For a line between (x1,y1) and (x2,y2) this formula becomes:
(y - y1) = ((y2-y1)/(x2-x1))*(x - x1)
If we simplify it by separating the slope:
m = (y2-y1)/(x2-x1)
it becomes:
y - y1 = m*(x - x1)
so we know
d = y1 - m*x1
Now to solve your problem. You need to find the intersection point, or in other words the x value for which the y value of both lines is the same.
If m1 is the slope of line1 and d1 is the offset of line1 (m2 and d2 for line two), you need to solve:
m1*x + d1 = m2*x + d2
or
x = (d2 - d1) / (m1 - m2)
This is the x coordinate of the intersection point. To find the corresponding y coordinate you fill in this x coordinate in either the formula for line 1 or 2 (they intersect at that x, so it doesn't matter which one you pick).
Note that this assumes your two lines extend toward infinity in both directions, so check if the resulting point is actually on your lines and not outside them.
If the two lines are parallel (m1 == m2), then you get a division by zero in the result (logical: there is no intersection point)
If the two lines are equal, then you get a 0/0-type undefined result.
y = mx + d
m is the slope of the line. This is 0 for horizontal (because the y value is constant across all x-es). It's impossible to have vertical lines with this formula because m would have to be infinity.
d is a vertical offset of the line and is the y coordinate of the point on the line with x coordinate 0 (after all, for x=0 the formula gives y = m*0 + d = d). A line that goes through the origin has d=0.
For a line between (x1,y1) and (x2,y2) this formula becomes:
(y - y1) = ((y2-y1)/(x2-x1))*(x - x1)
If we simplify it by separating the slope:
m = (y2-y1)/(x2-x1)
it becomes:
y - y1 = m*(x - x1)
so we know
d = y1 - m*x1
Now to solve your problem. You need to find the intersection point, or in other words the x value for which the y value of both lines is the same.
If m1 is the slope of line1 and d1 is the offset of line1 (m2 and d2 for line two), you need to solve:
m1*x + d1 = m2*x + d2
or
x = (d2 - d1) / (m1 - m2)
This is the x coordinate of the intersection point. To find the corresponding y coordinate you fill in this x coordinate in either the formula for line 1 or 2 (they intersect at that x, so it doesn't matter which one you pick).
Note that this assumes your two lines extend toward infinity in both directions, so check if the resulting point is actually on your lines and not outside them.
If the two lines are parallel (m1 == m2), then you get a division by zero in the result (logical: there is no intersection point)
If the two lines are equal, then you get a 0/0-type undefined result.
Thanks UnConeD, that was really helpfull.
I thought long to post this socalled ssc, to show u if i understand u correctly . This ir REALLY *****y AVS but i hope U can understand this.
I only wanna know if I understood UnConeD correctly.
NB! Sometimes its really hard to guess what point is that correct.
I thought long to post this socalled ssc, to show u if i understand u correctly . This ir REALLY *****y AVS but i hope U can understand this.
I only wanna know if I understood UnConeD correctly.
NB! Sometimes its really hard to guess what point is that correct.
Something is wrong with this. I know the slope equation you have is messed up (y4-y2😉
I just spent a long time trying to figure it out, and for some reason my method isn't working, even though it should be. Can you figure out why??
I just spent a long time trying to figure it out, and for some reason my method isn't working, even though it should be. Can you figure out why??
Hmmm, yea, britty stupid mistake but, I dont care, because I just made program in Turbo Bascal 7.0 (yea, yea i know thats old and crap and etc.) and it works.
About ur method I feel that im too stupid to understand whats wrong with it...🙄
My (well better lets say UnConeD's) method is working correctly (thanks Anubis), BUT sometimes it doesnt show the X point if it chould 😕
About ur method I feel that im too stupid to understand whats wrong with it...🙄
My (well better lets say UnConeD's) method is working correctly (thanks Anubis), BUT sometimes it doesnt show the X point if it chould 😕
Can you post the working version? That way I might be able to help you.
Here it is.
It does it sometimes when everything chould work (the poin X must be at view), it just doesnt show out that point, sometimes the other points are missing too but it rare.
It does it sometimes when everything chould work (the poin X must be at view), it just doesnt show out that point, sometimes the other points are missing too but it rare.
It seems like when the points are very near to eachother, it may be messing up. Can't figure out why though. Sorry.