ICE, not so NICE?

#41

Just to recreate most of the examples (including Verlet algorithm and flocking) you just need to understand some math (linear algebra, vectors and matrices mainly) and physics at high school level at most, so it’s not that bad. IMO the bigger problem is getting your head around implementation in ICE and how the nodes work together, at least initially.

And, as said above, 90% of the time there is no need to know even that. You can’t randomly type code and get results, in ICE you can almost randomly connect nodes and come up with something.

For me personally ICE is a godsend ;)… I really don’t like typing code and especially debugging (had enough headaches on uni), even if I’d use ICE just to prototype stuff, it can save a lot of time and stress - and it’s fun after all.

#42

I’m curious how people go from say, a white paper on a specific graphics technique/technology (like Gerstner Waves for ocean simulation or fluid sim based on particles (both easy to find on the net)) to creating a plugin or ICE tree.

I know that its probably more than a one step process. I imagine you break down the formulas into pseudo-code and then try to rebuild it in an ICE tree/C++. Does anyone have a link to a tutorial or a book that explains this process?

My biggest problem isn’t ICE, it’s my lack of knowledge. I’d love to get into CG/3d maths more but I think I need to start off close to the start line…

#43

ICE,

I was so excited when i heard of this feature, I think it’s just a different way to approach particles. Scripting hard logarithms is for smart people, ICE can make sense in the long run.

enqore

#44

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.