Please, How to control the SPACING between particles in Bomber FF 3.0?

This may be another lame brained comment but it seems that applying curves to noise - like the Blocks- seperates and might be able to keep particles from overlapping? Maybe I am reading it wrong but this image shows the Blocks component with 100% contrast without a curve and then with one. It seems that by adjusting the curve you affect the distance around an object and avoid overlapping (only managed a quick example as I am stealing a moment at work to do this so some overlap but tweaking the curve changes that) - or am I reading the results wrong? If a curve could be used to define the space around an object to some degree then maybe adding a curve node to the Bomber would be useful?

This may be easier to achieve with the new loop component, but there will obviously be a limit to the number of particles.

I still wish and think that it would be the best thing and very useful if there could be some "Spacing" control inside the bomber made by FF developers

IN FF 3.0 bomber was greatly updated with the VERY useful of having multiple images input but the problem I find is that they are very randomly positioned when the particles are high, I mean when you rise density.

Or if they do not want to make it or can´t, maybe an alternative group of components that could be used to control the spacing in the bomber result as have already been shown

Quote
This may be easier to achieve with the new loop component, but there will obviously be a limit to the number of particles.

Is this true? Would this be possible in some way with the loops component?

Of course that the would be a limit, but is really not needed a higher number of particles to make something useful

Ultimately given how FF behaves / works, it's really difficult to chew into the request here. I see it doable in logic. In practice, the whole limitation is basically a brick wall.

I had 5 sets of bombers in a row and some fancy gradient look-up for the distance to nearest particle. Already slow at this point. Colors are different Bomber passes.

The above example is done with big shapes, if you reduce the size of these shapes it will be reduced the overlapping and would solve in some way the problem, but reducing the size also will add more empty space between the elements and add more distance between them

ALSO is important that all the above examples are done all with exactly same size, and maybe it will be even more difficult with variable sizes

So I have made an update to the filter to include also the Variable Size inside the bomber with Size Chaos

And have also added the corresponding presets with the Size Chaos too

Now instead of the checkbox to add rotation chaos you have the following

Rotation/Size chaos slider in se ttings

1 - Normal
2 - With rotation chaos
3 - With rotation chaos and size chaos

Non-overlapping Particles - Another - Images_2.ffxml

Although the ThreeDee atempt is good and well thought, as I have tested with the 3 post showing the available examples I have put above, is not good for images, only can be good for shapes when reducing the source size a little, and so after testing this I agree totally with Skybase and what he have written above

Quote
Skybase Turns out it's extremely involving. Basically in order for this whole spacing thing to work, the program basically needs to know what the distance between two items

I think that this may seem something not very difficult, but I think that is much more complex and difficult to make than it seems as you have to know not only the distance between the two items, you must also analyse and know the whole and full shape contour and know all the space it fills so no other shape, fills the same space, and making circles none overlapping is much more easier, than making non-overlapping other shapes, or even more complex using irregular shapes.

ONLY REAL POSSIBLE WAY WITH FF IS WITH A LUA SCRIPT?

I do not want that this is considered as something I am requesting for others to do, is like a challenge, and of course that I will never ask and request that you make it, is just optional to anyone that would like and know to do it, but is not needed that you spend the time making this and do not bother otherwise

I think that the only way to make a working non-overlapping filter with FF is to make it with some LUA script that have one of the already done special algorithm that have been done by others experts and available on internet. Although I really do not know if there could be some possible way to convert an algorithm from the original source language to lua.

Sorry that I do not know nothing about Lua script, and do not know how different is this from the Processing.org language, because I know that there are already

Compilation of Random Space Filling Tiling articles for FF Filters

For examples of algorithms already done, examples are shown on this other thread

Other threads related to this one

ThreeDee made this other thread - Pattern Filling

How would you make this variable dots pattern in FF?

Make this in FF? - Digital Circlism - Artwork with hundreds of circles

Here is the filter I have done based on ThreeDee source and that it uses images instead of dots or shapes

Thanks to ThreeDee

Non-overlapping Particles - Another - Real Images.ffxml

I have thought that as there is still some overlapping, it would be good idea perhaps to add some drop shadows and add some depth and separate the particles in layers, but when adding the drop shadows I got a bad thing, the result takes nearly 4 TIMES MORE to render than without shadow and is only using one blur component

I have used the most simple drop shadow as shown by crapadilla in his wiki page



If Threedee was thinking that his filter was slow, wait until you add drop shadows this way and multiply nearly by four the time

Really quick self note about the method above: Impractical but works with imagery.

SR, ThreeDee's method relies on gradients. Each iteration needs a much more distinguished boundary to feed into chance. Otherwise it's not doing justice.

Quote
voldermort Could my filter framed tile snippet be used for your spacing by using an alpha instead and individual sliders for the scale options?

Thanks or the suggestion and answering, but I have seen your filter, but I am sorry that I do not understand what you mean by using an alpha instead (instead of what?), and even if I could add individual sliders, this is not using the bomber, so all the images are always straight, and there is no random rotation or random resize, and how would you multiply the images so they they are not always in a square pack fixed?

And in your filter you can only use one image alone, so you would have to multiply the components for each image you want to add, and then how would you mix them? The only way I know to mix multiple images is the bomber, because the multiblend would not work.

So I am sorry that I do not know how your filter could be used for the spacing, ir you could explain it more, would.be good, Thanks

Part of the reason why I don't upload stuff on public space these days isn't about trying to keep secrecy, it's more that I have difficulty uploading source material that have certain commercial value, provided some of the works were used commercially as well. However, it is more so that I simply hope to encourage people to work out their own solutions and methods for their filters rather than stuff becoming a "copy-and-paste and modify" snippet thing. As much as I encourage openness, it should also be noted that I sometimes feel people rather just find their own ways with their work. While certain things like equations, algorithms, and base recipes remain fundamental, I strongly feel certain specifics should remain rather an inspiration for new ideas.

With it being impractical, the issue is more so the amount of control you have with the whole thing. It's kinda mediocre in terms of effort.

Lastly, it's not really wrong, more like it doesn't spare the effect of them looking like "separate entities", rather ended up looking like a result from 1 bomber with the density set at 2.

Thanks to Skybase that have made me go the right way, when I have seen that it was much better to put the shadows AFTER the bomber and not before I have made a new version that works faster and gives better shadows than before and I have added also the color customization, so you can have only one source but can have it with up to 5 colors

And as you can see in the screenshot below the render time is now more than half less than before and this is considering that now there are 5 individual shadows groups and before was only one but before bomber (it may be only one although maybe is really like 5, as it had links to each bomber)

Note to me: It must be considered and think carefully WHERE you put the components and how they work together combined and not put it in anywhere inside the filter, even if you get a good result, because there can be others better and more efficient ways to do it.