Re: something fishy

Date : Fri, 2 Feb 2007 18:16:01 +0000
To : XSI(at)Softimage.COM
From : "Matt Morris" <mattmos(at)gmail.com>
Subject : Re: something fishy
You're a true gent Kim.


On 02/02/07, Kim Aldis <XSI(at)kim-aldis.co.uk> wrote:

The problem with align on velocity is that whatever the defined upvector for the calculation is, it's going to be wrong for something. Best bet is to add a scripted op to re-align them along the velocity vector using an upvector of your own choosing. I'm sure someone's posted one here but if not give me a shout off-line and I'll knock one up for you. It's only 20 minutes of work.

 

 

 

From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM [mailto: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of Matt Morris
Sent: 02 February 2007 17:25
To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
Subject: something fishy

 

Well its shoals of fish time here, have tried a couple of methods, and got some semi-workable results, but I keep getting inconsistent flipping from time to time.

Curent workflow is to create particles, give them a goal, align on velocity. I've tried then either just adding instance groups or using the sub AttachToParticles() script and then direction constraining them to an upvector, neither has been totally successful.

Anyone been using a particular method they find works best? Or are there some flocking tools around which might be more useful than this approach? (haven't got time to get anything running in behaviour unfortunately).

Rob's suggesting get basic movement ok'd first and plot to curve where there's more reliable upvector control, might be the best solution til we get a shiny new particle system?


cheers
matt




--
www.mattmos.com | www.xsilondon.com




--
www.mattmos.com | www.xsilondon.com

Search the XSI List archives here or use the advanced search form to search across mailing lists. Searching help is available.
This site supposedly brought to you by Benjamin Grosser and the Imaging Technology Group.