Received: from relay2.UU.NET (relay2.UU.NET [192.48.96.7]) by keeper.albany.net (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id RAA27965 for <dwarner@albany.net>; Sun, 17 Dec 1995 17:44:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from garcia.com by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP
id QQzuof25709; Sun, 17 Dec 1995 17:23:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost) by garcia.com (5.x/SMI-SVR4)
id AA06780; Sun, 17 Dec 1995 17:23:38 -0500
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 17:23:38 -0500
Errors-To: dwarner@albany.net
Message-Id: <199512160713.CAA14176@bort.mv.net>
Errors-To: dwarner@albany.net
Reply-To: lightwave@garcia.com
Originator: lightwave@garcia.com
Sender: lightwave@garcia.com
Precedence: bulk
From: Mark Thompson <mark@fusion.mv.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lightwave@garcia.com>
Subject: Re: Droplets
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status:
Andrew Hofman <andyh@erinet.com> writes:
>>To do it cheaply, isolate the areas where the
>>droplets hit and use a separate surface for them....blah, blah, blah
>I thought of one small twist to this method: Using Surface Morph and a
>repeating envelope, why not have each ripple area morph back to the larger
>puddle surface in between ripples? That way the ripple areas don't stand out
>when they are quiet.
It is necessary that you design your image sequences and surfaces such that
they don't stand out anyway (other than the ripples themselves). So the
morph is solving a problem that you should not have in the first place.
>Or, greatly exaggerate the ripple depth and then only
>morph 50% into it.
You could do the same thing more efficiently by altering the bump amplitude.
The only reason for a morph would be to alter the bump amplitude over time,
which could ease the effort of making your puddle rings dissipate.
>Hope I didn't come off sounding like a jerk, Mark. If it hadn't been for
>your idea, I would never have thought of this one.
Hey, this forum is for discussion, which leads to new ideas and methods.
I'd be lying if I said I never got any ideas from hearing posts from