That is most interesting. When trying to make a 64 frame animation for a nuclear explosion, I was thinking of using RVK… but I never thought of breaking the mesh into a series of small meshes, and then RVKing those.
I have visited this page at 3d-synthesis. I have seen also the blender documentation about R-AVK. Here i can read that through this tool i can animate the number of vertices of a mesh.
I have done a lot of tests but animating vertex count don’t work.
What i want to do is a emitter of bullets starting from a grid. The bullets have his own IPO. Particles (with Norm: 0.0) don’t works here because the IPO location curves appears as not active in a dupliverted object through a particle system.
So, i was thinking on a mesh that builds progressively in a Build-Effect way through animating his vertex count. Dupliverting the object parented to this mesh, the copies of the object may be created also progressively according to Parent mesh growth.
but…
Relative Vertex Keys means that the verts are animated Relative to the Object Center measured between Keys. Absolute Vertex Keys does the same thing but it uses Absolute coordinates; the center of the scene. Therefor Verts cannot be added or removed after the Base Keyframe is set. They only take the evolving positions of vertices into account and not metadata. So Dupliverts will retain their position relative to their parent vert and cannot be animated beyond that.
Maybe, I’ve never tried, if you delete all faces and edges and are left with a pointcloud of verts, each their with Dupliverts, then you could use AVK (or Shapes in 2.4) to animate them individually.
I’d just model a bullet then add some RVKs that progressively flatten it out into a plane (i.e. in the opposite way it will be animated).
Then, place the bullet at or slightly behind the wall (since it’s flat you won’t be able to distinguish it from the wall, and slowly turn the RVKs so that it turns into a bullet. Swap with a particle bullet and viola! It’ll look like the wall deforms and emits a bullet.
thanks for the fast replies. Okey, I can’t add or remove verts from the reference key.
But, going backwards, is true that dupliverted objects in particle system can’t have its own location coordinates animation? or is simply i don’t know the way?
The Instanced Object (the child that is Dupliverted) can have it’s own IPO’s which will affect all the Duplis the same; ie, you can’t have one rotating one way and another rotating the other. You can however “Make Duplis Real” with Alt-C and each Dupli becomes an Object.
yes, rotating you’re saying, but translating appears as not possible. I come from test this another time:
1- start blender, move the cube to the left.
2- at frame 1 insert location key, go to frame 11, move the cube and insert another location key
3- at frame 1 give some rotation to the cube, insert rotation key, go to frame 11, rotate again the cube and insert another rotation key
4-create a plane, apply particle system to him.
5-parent the cube to the plane and activate dupliverts in the last one.
6- Play animation: the cubes generated rotates, but not moves
simply but causing headage.
I want to move particle dupliverteds because the Nor parameter appears as too hard to adjust precisely. The only thing that interest me of particle system is the diachronic object generation. Here the blend file.
they move on the z axis because the nor parameter of the particle system. Set it to 0 and the cubes will not move. I’m sorry but is like that.
I don’t know what can we do to animate particles in this way. Perhaps in the new release this is solved.
Glaurung
if you are talking about what i think you are talkinbg about than i thought the same thing exactly! i used that tool to make an animation of a man turning into a wolf! looked very neet unfortunatly i lost the file and didnt upload it because i didnt know of a good uploading place
Yes, my mistake. So you want the Dupliverted particle, after it is emitted. to move along the Z-Axis using the force of the Particle settings, and along the X and Y axii using IPO’s. This is not possible because they are particles and only obey the particle settings. (the “Loc” IPO’s only change the location of the Dupli object relative to the Emitter object. The direction (rumbo) of the emitted particle is the Normal of the face.
If you want a random trajectory of the particle after it is emitted then you can use Texture instead of Norm to give the Velocity (speed) value and use either RGB or Grad instead of Int. In 2.37 you will need to put that texture in the 8th texture slot. But it’s never going to be as accurate as IPO’s would be if the worked.
Using a deformed mesh to support the dupliverted object instead of a particle generator, will allow you a total control on each particle or area in the cloud of particles.
Look at my movie named the “Construction site”: the cloud of dust, the sparks of the electric welder, the smoke in background and the small stones emitted from the hole in the ground under the jackhammer are done using this method.
The sparks of the welder are small cubes with an emitting factor of 1, dupliverted on a mesh deformed by AVK.
This allow to make them fall and bounce exactly the way I wanted.
The Computing power is negligible compared to particles.
For my own, I quite never use particles any more since I discovered AVK!
The only interest of particles is static particles… and random behavioour, but in your case, you want a control on particles, not a random behaviour, so try AVK!
yes, A-RVK as particles is a very interesting tool, seriously i no doubt. :-). But i think i do not explain good enough my issue. Finally I have solved this by dupling bullet-object, parenting, and delaying time respect to parent.
The idea is make bullet falling on the ground, but in a “film look” the bullets cannot fall all the ones at the same time. It matters that falls each one after other. Particles could help here, but it appears as finally not.
Thanks for the translation Fligh. You are’nt spanish, true? I’m catalan and, altough my language is catalan, most of we know also spanish language. Is curious, you’re translating terms 0% confusing between spanish and english, but this don’t care. Matters attitude :-). Thanks again.
Glaurung
