Hmmm. I feel guilty for seeing such a cool thing and asking for:
Surface tension, viscosity, air bubbles, foam, loss of energy, 3D liquid (matching the depth of my phone), sound, momentum haptic feedback, and orientation appropriate light beams.
Also, choice of water, beer, wine or whiskey.
Exceedingly exceptionally cool things raise requests for far more features than they deliver!
I’m curious about what’s the best way to go about gathering user feedback and feature requests. You can’t develop a product for people to use behind closed doors, because you run the risk of building the wrong product. Conversely, if it’s too out in the open then anyone and their parents might have suggestions to improve which will drag you away from the core thesis of your product/PMF.
I guess another way to ask my question is - is the aforementioned sequence of steps (please add X, string of +1s, PRs welcome, etc) a bad thing?
> I’m curious about what’s the best way to go about gathering user feedback and feature requests.
IMO, building in the open is still the best way. But to ensure that you don't end up with a mongrel of a thing that tries to do every single thing requested by everybody, It does help to have a rigid set of goals about what we want to build. And the courage to say NO to feature requests that stray too far from the original design goals.
I believe the latest Rich Hickey talk ‘Design in Practice’ might answers your questions in detail - I haven’t seen it recently, but it says something along the lines of don’t build features because they were requested, but instead ask why were said features requested, what’s the reason behind that and solve that problem.
As every Hickey talk, I can only recommend watching the whole thing, it is not clojure-specific at all if that were off putting for you.
Wow, that is so cool! I’ve fiddled with Conways game of life a lot, implementing it recursively in SQLite, various languages, explored variations of it; I knew you could simulate it inside the game, but this is mind blowingly cool! And it’s so smoothly done, it’s like stepping through the looking glass.
I had seen the one layer before, but they way they get it to go forever and make it work so smoothly by dynamically adjusting the speed is pure genius!
I would like to check later on if the rules for this "cellular automata" (if it is one) are documented and the fractal nature naturally concludes from it or whether the fractal was simply manually forced when you zoom a certain level.
This little app makes me feel, perhaps more than I ever have before, that CA might be what's under the hood of the whole universe. (Not a Wolfram fanboy, just reporting on a new sense of awe and mystery!)
the Bell Inequality is one of the things that really puts a damper in that idea. It's like OK everything is local with a speed limit, but there is a little but of superluminal stuff it's just not actually useful in any way except to wet blanket ideas like this.
Funnily this is usually something you need to fix in water simulations like this one since a lot of solutions have artificial too rapid energy loss. So the fact that it acts this way is sign of more mastery rather than less (it’s trivial to reduce energy faster).
Came here with the same nitpick. It settles down too slowly. Also takes too long to start moving after changing angle. So it's in this weird spot where it's both more + less reactive than real water.
I looks like it is more compressible and elastic than normal water which may cause the behaviour shown. If I'm not mistaken normal water is very hard to compress.
What's the point of this comment?
Are you worried that someone wouldn't know that it doesn't look realistic? And might get sick by drinking something with fluid dynamics that resemble the simulation?
My dad worked on the Apollo program In The 60s. They were using analog computers to simulate fuel slosh in the tanks. He also had a flight sim display that allegedly could go from space (earth as a circle?) To low level horizon and grid. I never saw either but am about to toss schematics for the later with the rest of his stuff. Personal note - he died in '03 and I'm done hanging on to stuff. :-)
I don't have the domain expertise or interest to know what's important or rare, and I can completely understand not wanting to hang on to it personally any longer, but that sounds like something a lot of people might be interested in, that ought to be exhibited somewhere, if (as it sounds like) it's work-oriented and not too personal.
If you are planning to toss schematics used in the Apollo program, I would love to frame something and put it on the wall. I understand the weight of historically significant junk (and I don't think I would want to have tons of it myself), but that's very different from a piece of engineering history.
I’m sure there are historians or historical societies that would love that stuff. Please don’t trash them. I’d recommend that you go to the AskHistorians subreddit and ask who would want them. I’ve seen people ask similar questions there and they seem to usually find a good home for the stuff. It would just be a little more effort than throwing it away but could mean a lot to future generations of historians.
I sent you an email -- happy to help (virtually) with finding a good home for these. Cleaning out a lost relative's possessions can be hard. I think a lot of other people here might be able to help in some ways too.
Sorry for my ignorance, I don't pretend to be rude, but is this not just the same as one of the first iPhone apps where you pretended to drink a beer? I understand it was impressive 15 years ago, but I don't get why is so impressive today. Again, I don't pretend to be rude, just to understand why is people so impressed by this.
Well, it looks like something, but if you're not talking to me that it's water, I can not say. I just have a strange feeling about it. It's not water, it's something different. I don't know why, maybe it's the way you visualize, or maybe it's just the two-dimensional nature of the simulation. Or maybe it's the reflection, maybe it's the post-processing procedure. We don't have some ray tracing, we don't have those normal calculations, reflection index, all those crazy stuff.
This actually strikes me as a good example (analogy?) to illustrate quantum effects -- if you let it sit it mostly approaches a flat average level, but there's still occasional "random" splashes that can reach much higher than you'd expect. Makes me think of things like electron tunneling
This should make a lot of sense. Quantum is particles acting like waves. Then remember that absolute zero was originally formulated as the impossible state of no particles moving. But I'd also be careful taking this as a great analogy to quantum because really what you're just seeing is wave effects (which is really important to quantum) but not seeing some of the other effects. Especially the weird ones.
At first I thought this was SPH (smooth particle hydrodynamics) but the site says it is PIC (particle in cell).[0]
The motion doesn't even work running Bromite on Android, presumably because of the fingerprinting protection.
Its crazy how our phones have all these sophisticated sensors, yet they are mostly used for something related to tracking for ads. So much so that I don't notice when its blocked.
It used to be available as standard on both but iOS locked it down after some truly insane demos showing how it could be used for fingerprinting or (IIRC) even detecting what users were typing.
Very cool, beautiful. I did a kids toy kind of thing like this using Unity for Android taking input from the handheld's accelerometer to make a sphere (ball) roll around (according to how the handheld device is tilted) and bump into targets.
As regards to "the water should eventually stand still" I found the accelerometer input to be sooo sensitive that even when you placed the handheld on a level surface (sussed out with a carpenter level) the sphere would slow down a lot but never stop moving.
A glass of water placed on a table eventually stops moving - according to our senses. But does it really?
Interesting. Sometimes pockets of not-water (vacuum?) appear in the middle of the liquid. Based on observation of real water, such cavitation would not form in water splashing around in a bucket.
The term bubble implies that the not-water is (mostly) air. But these voids are appearing in the middle of the water, there is nowhere for the air to come in from.
I'm confused by the labelling, normally "super" implies speed but here the interaction gets slower while the pixels increase. Maybe Max is a better descriptor?
For a similar simulation but using a different method, you can find one here[0]. It obviously lacks the force control, but has the viscosity tunable parameter.
When people talk about us living in a simulation...you have to wonder if they have ever tried to simulate real liquids (e.g. computation fluid dynamics).
Computer graphics in films gives people an unrealistic expectation of what we can do. I would think a lot of people look at this CGI and then think such things are possible in real-time gaming/simulation.
The damping could use some extra value. Cool to see it move with my phone. I would like to see more love on the CSS of the selection radios though. Surely you can do better. My phone lost 35% of its battery on this. Happily lost.
I thought the same thing when looking at my pool the other day. I found it very realistic that the water was still after no movement in it after a period of time.
My point is that we don’t know the forces that the simulation is intending to model. There may be water flowing in/out along the z-axis, for example. Or there could be wind. Assuming that the author intended to simulate the same conditions in your pool, and then criticising them for not modelling it accurately enough, makes no sense to me.
(More seriously - you need to provide more information. On Windows 10, Firefox 116.0.1, it does not crash. But it's a laptop so there's no device motion.)
I always took water for granted. In my country where I grew up, we had water available to us in the sink 24/7, 365.
Pure, clean. Drinkable.
As I am now traveling the world, I am experiencing places where water is not to be taken for granted. But only in mild ways. Not in actual life-or-death ways. That happens in countries I have not yet visited.
It’s weird. Most of my time at work I deal with pretty mundane things. And if I am thirsty, water is always available.
Water simulations are extra interesting to me now, because I am realising that in the future maybe I can help bring water to places where people are struggling because of unreliable access to water.
I think it would be very nice to be able to help other people on that way.
Surface tension, viscosity, air bubbles, foam, loss of energy, 3D liquid (matching the depth of my phone), sound, momentum haptic feedback, and orientation appropriate light beams.
Also, choice of water, beer, wine or whiskey.
Exceedingly exceptionally cool things raise requests for far more features than they deliver!