In case of a cascade of emission with such bounces, it could be useful. But actual particles are not able of that.
2016-06-05 20:43 GMT+02:00 Ronan Ducluzeau <[email protected]>: > When you are using emitter particles, your main interest is particles flow. > You don't really care of particle-to-emitter collision, most of times > emitter is not rendered. > > Particles can be ejected from somewhere. Most of times, emitter is out of > sight. > They are raindrops that comes from sky or balls that comes > hole of a bag or sparks from a fire or solar arborescence ... > > If your emitter is supposed to be hole or a plasma thing, you don't expect > to see a barrier that allows emission of particles in one direction but > blocks them in the opposite direction. > > A simple planar surface is easier to manipulate to indicate emission > direction than adding vertex group or texture to limit emission to a small > part of a complex mesh. > Use case of particles on a complex mesh is often synonym to a > disintegration of that mesh through an explode modifier. > Here is could be useful. > But we have a fracture modifier build that will give better rigid bodies > collisions taking account shapes of fragments. > > In 2.4x, particles could be emitted from dying particles. > We could emit raindrops that would die on floor and then provoke emission > of smaller more numerous particles. > > 2016-06-03 3:05 GMT+02:00 David Jeske <[email protected]>: > >> Lukas, thanks for your response. >> >> At the root of my puzzling is the question... Is an explicit check to >> assure a particle system only collides with a collision modifier on it's >> emitter that appears *before* itself sufficient to allow self collisions? >> It seems like it might be, and I'm wondering if there is any specific >> reason it's not (situations where the collision modifier 'save state' >> might >> be invalidated during the evaluation of modifiers that come after it on >> the >> stack). >> >> I could see how manual initial particle collision avoidance control could >> be useful, and it would be pretty easy to add. Is this something artists >> would like to have? Likewise, do you know if artists miss the fact that >> particles don't currently have support for collision groups? >> >> The applicability of the billiard ball example is lost on me, as afaik, >> blender doesn't currently support particle-to-particle collisions. >> >> I should disclaim that I don't have a stance on whether >> particle-to-emitter >> collisions are good to add or not. Some part of me wants them in so to >> make >> blender more consistent, but I recognize that isn't always a good reason >> to >> add the complexity. >> >> For me this is currently a fact-finding mission to better understand >> particle-to-emitter collision issues, because I would like to have >> hair-to-emitter collisions. They are motivated by an actual use case, >> whose >> value I think is more obvious. However, after experimenting with >> hair-to-emitter collisions, it appears that current interpenetration >> problems with the cloth/hair sim need to be fixed before hair-to-emitter >> collisions would be practically useful. >> _______________________________________________ >> Bf-committers mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers >> > > _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
