This was created with AwakeParticles, which is part of the AwakeLib. I'll release it soon :-)


From right to left: Emitter with circle option; PlaneX emitter and 5 attractors, including a changebmp for the smoke; point emitter with a add_vel attractor on top; point emitter with shield attractor on top

Code:

---

AP_EmitterCreate( vector(120, 80, 0), AP_EmitterLifetimeInfinite, 20, TestParticleFireRed, AP_EmitterEmitTypeTube, 20, 200, 0, 0 );

AP_EmitterCreate( vector(80, 0, 0), AP_EmitterLifetimeInfinite, 2, TestParticleFireRed, AP_EmitterEmitTypePlaneX, 8, 8, 0, 0 );
AP_EmitterCreate( vector(80, 0, 0), AP_EmitterLifetimeInfinite, 1, TestParticleFireYellow, AP_EmitterEmitTypePlaneX, 8, 8, 0, 0 );

AP_EmitterCreate( vector(0, 0, 0), AP_EmitterLifetimeInfinite, 2, TestParticleFireRed, AP_EmitterEmitTypePoint, 0, 0, 0, 0 );
AP_EmitterCreate( vector(0, 0, 0), AP_EmitterLifetimeInfinite, 1, TestParticleFireYellow, AP_EmitterEmitTypePoint, 0, 0, 0, 0 );

AP_EmitterCreate( vector(-80, 0, 0), AP_EmitterLifetimeInfinite, 2, TestParticleFireRed, AP_EmitterEmitTypePoint, 0, 0, 0, 0 );
AP_EmitterCreate( vector(-80, 0, 0), AP_EmitterLifetimeInfinite, 1, TestParticleFireYellow, AP_EmitterEmitTypePoint, 0, 0, 0, 0 );


AP_AttractorCreate( vector(80, 0, 30), AP_AttractorRangeTypeDistance, vector(20, 0, 0), AP_AttractorEventTypeAddSize, 0, 0.8, 0, 0 );
AP_AttractorCreate( vector(80, 0, 50), AP_AttractorRangeTypeDistance, vector(20, 0, 0), AP_AttractorEventTypeWind, 1, 0, 0, 0 );
AP_AttractorCreate( vector(80, 0, 80), AP_AttractorRangeTypeDistance, vector(20, 0, 0), AP_AttractorEventTypeChangeBmap, AP_AttractorCreateEventBmap("AP_TestParticle3.tga"), 0, 0, 0 );
AP_AttractorCreate( vector(80, 0, 80), AP_AttractorRangeTypeDistance, vector(12, 0, 0), AP_AttractorEventTypeAddAlpha, 2, 0, 0, 0 );
AP_AttractorCreate( vector(80, 0, 80), AP_AttractorRangeTypeDistance, vector(20, 0, 0), AP_AttractorEventTypeAddSize, 0.1, 0.6, 0, 0 );
AP_AttractorCreate( vector(80, 0, 80), AP_AttractorRangeTypeDistance, vector(60, 0, 0), AP_AttractorEventTypeWind, 2, 0.5, 0, 0 );

AP_AttractorCreate( vector(0, 0, 40), AP_AttractorRangeTypeDistance, vector(20, 0, 0), AP_AttractorEventTypeAddVel, -1, 0, 0, 0 );

AP_AttractorCreate( vector(-80, 0, 50), AP_AttractorRangeTypeDistance, vector(20, 0, 0), AP_AttractorEventTypeShield, 20, 20, 0, 0 );

---

Very nice, thank you.

OrangeBrat:

Its funny how often you say "Conitec should..". Not because I don't agree with you, but how often you say this. I think Conitec should judge what to do next by themselves.

Particles are quiet fast. People arguing that drawing many many many particles at the same time is very fps consuming compared to other engines could be right, but most often people tend to overuse particles or dont know how to decrease particle's without decreasing the actual number of particles or bmap ressources to use them - by keeping up the quality on the same level.

The most common things which affect particles can be done with the current particle system. Things like wind or so are very simple: take a global vector which represents the wind direction and by it's length the strength. Each particle event function which should be affected by this calls a function with a particle parameter (PARTICLE* p) which modifies the particle's velocity parameters, etc. The same for much other things - the benefit you get from touching it by yourself is that you have 100% control over it.

Though, I can understand that an advanced particle system could help modeling better effects and a lot of people don't have the knowledge or the pleasure (like I have) to write it down.

Maybe Bloodline's plugin is able to help the few people which are _really_ in the need for such particle systems.

@Bloodline/TWO

Maybe you can shorten the function names and constants of that plugin. The lines are a bit too long for my taste for such simple instruction. Just as a hint.. I love short lines

Hehe, it's part of a huge library with a strict notation. But maybe I can shorten the constants a bit, I'll try

BTW thanks Orange Brat, your idea inspired me to write the code.

@TWO: That looks promising. Thanks for posting.

@HeelX: My frequent use of "Conitec should.." should actually be interpreted as "Conitec should consider.." but I'm simply leaving out the "consider." This is what I've always meant when using that phrase. I'll try and remember this in the future. Regardless, Conitec should consider all ideas I throw their way because they're usually good ones.

It seems there have been a rash of users misinterpreting some of the things I say in posts here lately. I'm not sure why, but I'm guessing it's some kind of "lost in translation" type situation given most of those who are slapping me on the wrist are not native English speakers. Just remember that I always tell it like it is and don't care if the person on the receiving end (or the community) likes it or not.

Nice job TWO