Hi all,
I have added a patch to the tracker that automatically sets the number of
subframes for SPH simulations.
http://projects.blender.org/tracker/index.php?func=detailaid=27442group_id=9atid=127
This tends to make the simulations stable, while minimising processing time.
I would
Was it/Is it reproducible now ?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:16 AM, Alex Fraser adfr...@vpac.org wrote:
Hi all,
I have added a patch to the tracker that automatically sets the number of
subframes for SPH simulations.
I don't have the expertise to review the code, but I've been playing
with the patch and it certainly makes fluid particles a lot more
stable. One more step towards making particle fluids usable, IMO. :-)
--Nathan
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Alex Fraser adfr...@vpac.org wrote:
Hi all,
I
- Original Message -
From: Nathan Vegdahl ces...@cessen.com
I don't have the expertise to review the code, but I've been playing
with the patch and it certainly makes fluid particles a lot more
stable. One more step towards making particle fluids usable, IMO. :-)
Great! Thanks for
Not sure if it's necessarily because of this commit, but for me at least, the
splash now autoscrolls non-stop when Blender first loads. Interestingly, this
doesn't happen if you view the splash from Help-Splash Screen. Am I the only
one this is happening to?
Ton Roosendaal t...@blender.org wrote:
No, I mean is it deterministic?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Alex Fraser adfr...@vpac.org wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Nathan Vegdahl ces...@cessen.com
I don't have the expertise to review the code, but I've been playing
with the patch and it certainly makes fluid particles
I constantly need to input decimal values smaller than the precision
shown in the UI. I propose making the precision dynamic. Normally it
shouldn't need more than 0.0 but if you type 0.0015 it should get that
amount of decimal spaces. BTW the rounding up of visible values is
terrible, by far not
- Original Message -
From: Shaul Kedem shaul.ke...@gmail.com
No, I mean is it deterministic?
From one run to the next, yes, you should get the same result.
In terms of being predictable, I did some tests with the TwoPipe demo, in which
water drains through a hole (you may need to
What he means is that if you run two sims with the exact same settings, will
the results be exactly the same? This is pretty important.
cheers
Matt
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Alex Fraser adfr...@vpac.org wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Shaul Kedem shaul.ke...@gmail.com
Very much +1!
I'm not familiar with the implementation behind the scenes, but the issue of
decimal precision in the UI seems to be dealt with in a piecemeal fashion.
e.g. the Merge Limit in the Mirror modifier has 1E-6 precision, vs.
Subsurface Scattering Scale's 1E-3 precision, though I usually
I have done a little test using this already
http://vimeo.com/24544354
and yes if you keep the same value the results are predictable and
consistant
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Matt Ebb m...@mke3.net wrote:
What he means is that if you run two sims with the exact same settings,
will
the
- Original Message -
From: Matt Ebb m...@mke3.net
What he means is that if you run two sims with the exact same
settings, will
the results be exactly the same? This is pretty important.
Ah, good point. I think the answer is yes, but this discussion makes me realise
that there's a
Committed an improvement to precision calculation r37286, so small
numbers don't display as zero, note that this isn't applied to values
like 100.1, which will display as they did before.
There is one case where its not working as it should be:
0.0001 displays ok, but 0.0005 becomes 0.00050.
13 matches
Mail list logo
