Gravity 3D - Galaxy Collision Simulation - MUST SEE

WhiteZero · Jul 1, 2005

After watching Will Wrights presentation on Spore and algorythm/procedural based graphics, animation, etc. I started looking around for any cool techdemos that do such.

Finaly I ran accross a page that had a list of pretty cool apps that simulate various things. The most entertaining I've foudn to be one called Gravity 3D, which simulates what happens when 2 Galaxies collide with eachother.
You can download it here:
http://www.adrian.lark.btinternet.co.uk/PWGravity3D.htm

Be sure to read the ReadMe!!
One setting in the Gravity3d.txt file (the apps config file) is the very first line that tells the app how many thousands of stars to use to make up the galaxies. By default when I used it, it was set to -18, which instad of determining the ammount of stars, tries to figgure out the ammount of stars to use in order to achive the FPS equal to the -number that you put. This just caused the app to not even run at all, so I had to change it.

Note that you'll need a decent processor and RAM to run this with a large ammount of stars. I can run a total of 1,500,000 stars will very little slowdown on my system. I could go higher, but 2mil+ stars just makes everything look white from the sheer ammount of dots.

Anyway, everytime you run the app or hit Spacebar to reset it, it will simulate a different collision, resulting to interesting patterns. Heres one of my favorites that I've made:

Hope you guys enjoy this as much as I do.

Gray Fox · Jul 1, 2005

how strong is your cpu and how much ram do you have.
Oh yeah and what number did you change it to., wait you just change the -18 to some other number. only if you set it to low like 15 or 30 the galaxies will just disperese, oh and why is it that when i set 15, I see a lot more starts then 15.

WhiteZero · Jul 1, 2005

Well, if you read the ReadMe you'd know why. The nummber you put in translates to thousands. So 15 = 15,000

CPU: 3.0Ghz
RAM: 1gig

SimonomiS · Jul 1, 2005

WhiteZero said:
Well, if you read the ReadMe you'd know why. The nummber you put in translates to thousands. So 15 = 15,000

CPU: 3.0Ghz
RAM: 1gig

That's me out.

Looks pretty though...

WhiteZero · Jul 1, 2005

SimonomiS said:
That's me out. Looks pretty though...

You'll be able to sill run it, just with less stars.

Also, you might want to redownload with the new link, since it's a newer version.

Pesmerga · Jul 1, 2005

VERY sweet, I wish I could use this for my screen saver.

Shodan · Jul 1, 2005

Its.... beautiful!

*Seizure.

I want to see how much this can take.

Moto · Jul 2, 2005

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/6973/g15ke.jpg

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/2135/g25gq.jpg

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/8499/g36kj.jpg

Really neat program.

kirovman · Jul 2, 2005

Well analytical solutions cannot solve 3 gravitational bodies interactions with each other so the numerical solutions of galaxies of billions of stars must be grossly inaccurate.

It uses the gravity equation F=G*M1*M2/R^2

Naaaaaaaaaaaah, it's some numerical solution of the many-body sum of that equation. They don't actually use that equation like they say.

Although I look forward to seeing it soon when I can be bothered to download it soon (I'm drunk and my computer cannot get internet connection ;()

Pesmerga · Jul 2, 2005

---------------------------------------------------------
http://img274.imageshack.us/img274/7442/gravity014sp.png
http://img274.imageshack.us/img274/8766/gravity021cz.png
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/9827/gravity038ki.png
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/5890/gravity045gi.png
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/9695/gravity055nx.png
---------------------------------------------------------

Fun fun! Great find, WhiteZero.

Naudian · Jul 2, 2005

Be sure to mess around with the different controls they give you to see the stars clearer/brighter/more colorful/from better angles...

Awesome program

Almost as extreeeeme as my avatar

Qwert93 · Jul 2, 2005

This must be the time waster I'm looking for...

Thadius Dean · Jul 2, 2005

With a .787 Ghz processor and 256MB of RAM, this runs pretty well

CyberPitz · Jul 2, 2005

Those pics look awesome, I may have to get the proggy just for a good background

Hazar · Jul 2, 2005

this is really awesome, but nothing updates in real time for me

looking on their website for help

WhiteZero · Jul 2, 2005

Heres the one I made that I'm using for my current desktop (Featuring 1,000,000 stars)
(High Res, 1280x1024, ~1MB):
http://www.ilrpg.com/~whitezero/Desk.jpg

WhiteZero · Jul 2, 2005

kirovman said:
Well analytical solutions cannot solve 3 gravitational bodies interactions with each other so the numerical solutions of galaxies of billions of stars must be grossly inaccurate.

Which is why this program uses far less than billions...

Naaaaaaaaaaaah, it's some numerical solution of the many-body sum of that equation. They don't actually use that equation like they say.

What makes you say this?
Did you decompile the program and find this out or are you just guesstimating?

WhiteZero · Jul 2, 2005

Pesmerga said:
VERY sweet, I wish I could use this for my screen saver.

They are working on a screensaver version (see bottom of the linked download page)

dream431ca · Jul 2, 2005

My god this is awesome..thanks dude

dream431ca · Jul 2, 2005

Wow...I wonder if this really happened during about 3 million years after the big bang, when galaxies actually formed. Just remember that 1 second is the equivalent of at least 800 million years.

kirovman · Jul 2, 2005

WhiteZero said:
Which is why this program uses far less than billions...

What makes you say this?
Did you decompile the program and find this out or are you just guesstimating?

Well computers use numerical methods to calculate the solutions, so some kind of numerical interpretation of this analytical solution will be used...

It just seems more logical, especially since you'd have to do loops to sum over all gravational masses.

I've done similar simulations before (albeit less complex) and I would guess they would follow similar numerical methods. Unless they programmed it in Maple or something.

Anyway I'll check it out later, sounds cool.

RakuraiTenjin · Jul 2, 2005

It's funny to think that years ago (1970's, etc) millions/billions would be payed by groups like NASA to just run a program like this.

Was watching a documentary on the Apollo 13 mission. NASA's giant super computers at that time had 1/100th the processing power of your average PC Processor nowadays. :O

Raziaar · Jul 2, 2005

This program is awesome! So beautiful!

Murray · Jul 2, 2005

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/3183/galaxycollision3kk.gif

My attempt on 12 galaxies with 1000 thousands of stars per galaxy.

EDIT: Whoa, I almost made it look like the Firefox logo:

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/6850/galaxycollision21yt.gif

JellyWorld · Jul 2, 2005

Murray said:
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/3183/galaxycollision3kk.gif

My attempt on 12 galaxies with 1000 thousands of stars per galaxy.

I set that as my wallpaper and now it looks like my display is corrupted

kirovman · Jul 2, 2005

I've just tried it and it looks stupendously awesomely extreme!

Sorry for being pedantically drunk last night.

gh0st · Jul 2, 2005

what the hell how come theirs look way nicer... look at some of the shots on their website.

Raziaar · Jul 3, 2005

Maybe they used blur. How come blur crashes my program, guys?

WhiteZero · Jul 3, 2005

Ummm... BTW: The number that you put in for the stars, is the total ammount of stars, not stars-per-galaxy.

Also, to those who doubt that the guy actually used the F=G*M1*M2/R^2 equation, I sent him an eMail about it, and he has personally confirmed that he used it.

kirovman · Jul 3, 2005

Sorry, I thought that they would involve 3 or more bodies in a mutual orbit (which is pretty much unpredictable with that formula), but obviously, from the simulation, they are not. The formula is fine to use with high velocity collision, which are greater than orbital velocities.

PvtRyan · Jul 3, 2005

kirovman said:
(I'm drunk and my computer cannot get internet connection ;()

And yet, you are able to say this:

Well analytical solutions cannot solve 3 gravitational bodies interactions with each other so the numerical solutions of galaxies of billions of stars must be grossly inaccurate.

Naaaaaaaaaaaah, it's some numerical solution of the many-body sum of that equation. They don't actually use that equation like they say.

kirovman · Jul 3, 2005

PvtRyan said:
And yet, you are able to say this:

I hate it when that happens

Ermac · Jul 3, 2005

kirovman said:
I hate it when that happens

HAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHHA!!!

:E :E HAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHHA!!!

:E :EHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHHA!!!

:E :EHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHHA!!!:laughh: :E :EHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHHA!!!

:E :EHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHHA!!!

:E :EHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHHA!!!:lah: :E :EHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHHA!!!

:E :EHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHHA!!!

:E :EHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHHA!!!:laughh: :E :EHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHHA!!!

:E :EHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHHA!!!

:E :E

WhiteZero · Jul 3, 2005

Another quote from the dev:
"I think any doubt is from the fact that there are too many stars in the
simulation for it to be running in realtime and using that equation. I do
make it clear in the software description that I do not give the stars any
mass, this means the equation is only calculating the force between the
stars and the black holes, not between each star."

kirovman · Jul 3, 2005

WhiteZero said:
Another quote from the dev:
"I think any doubt is from the fact that there are too many stars in the
simulation for it to be running in realtime and using that equation. I do
make it clear in the software description that I do not give the stars any
mass, this means the equation is only calculating the force between the
stars and the black holes, not between each star."

Ah, that makes more sense to me. Thanks.

Raziaar · Jul 3, 2005

Hey... look at my favorite one I did

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/8807/galaxies4kq.jpg

Filesize is about 1 meg!

It was done with 5 million stars. I set it as my background because its so purty!

Looks exceptionally beautiful when its small.

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/1338/galaxiessmall1do.jpg

Greatgat · Jul 4, 2005

My galaxies missed each other the first time I loaded it up. I'm like, "Ooo-kayyyy."

But yes, a pretty cool program.

OCybrManO · Jul 4, 2005

Raziaar said:
Looks exceptionally beautiful when its small.

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/1338/galaxiessmall1do.jpg

The small version looks like a picture of someone waving lights around in the dark.

Gray Fox · Jul 4, 2005

can soeone tell me precisly how they made ttheri screenies, and if it is possible on a medium home pc in reasonable time, casue I don't get much info from this:

These images were created using a modified version of the Gravity3D software which simulates galaxy collisions using the Gravity equation. The same simulation was run many times and the images were combined to produce the final images you see below. Each image is made up of hundreds of millions of stars.

In some images the colour is mapped to the star's acceleration in others it was mapped to velocity.

http://www.adrian.lark.btinternet.co.uk/PWGallery.htm

Kitfox · Jul 5, 2005

i hooked my pc up to my 43" lcd hdtv widescreen tv and played this little simulation... OMG IT"S SO BEAUTIFUL

Gravity 3D - Galaxy Collision Simulation - MUST SEE

Tank

Newbie

Tank

Tank

Tank

Newbie

Tank

Tank

Tank

Newbie

Tank

Newbie

Newbie

Party Escort Bot

Tank

Tank

Tank

Tank

Newbie

Newbie

Tank

Tank

I Hate Custom Titles

Tank

Newbie

Tank

Newbie

I Hate Custom Titles

Tank

Tank

Party Escort Bot

Tank

Newbie

Tank

Tank

I Hate Custom Titles

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Spy

Similar threads