[Bf-committers] rest spring length for new softbody objects
bjornmose at gmx.net
Sat Nov 19 01:01:34 CET 2005
Ack! I was using web-email at work --> strange name in from field =
'somw WUND'( i usally don't do blender stuff at office but reading news
while i wait for projects to compile .. a complete release build for our
mayor product takes 20 min )
but i was a bit anrgy about beeing blamed for things i did not do.
things went wrong here-->
- some cleanup of softbody code, was rather splintered and call
path was twisted and confusing. reworked main object step
routine to do things in a more obvious and consistent manner
and without duplicate code
well i should have been complaining when i saw that, but was too busy
and kind of shocked that softbody code should be that bad; with all that
meaningfull named helper functions you/me built in, sweeped off by that
'humm.. ' i thought 'if that's the way clean blender code looks like ..
may be i'm wrong here'
some Wund wrote:
>>--- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ---
>>Von: Ton Roosendaal <ton at blender.org>
>>An: bf-blender developers <bf-committers at projects.blender.org>
>>Betreff: Re: [Bf-committers] rest spring length for new softbody objects
>>Datum: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:01:26 +0100
>>Hi Jens Ole,
>>I would appreciate some more comments from you in the code...
if it was mine there would be, sure!
>>- What are the position vectors origS, origE and origT again?
> (Goal)Position at Start of frame, at End of frame , linear interpolated in
> Time. The solver needs to take smaller time steps than one frame.
> Calulating goal spring forces uses the interpolated positions.
>>- You added a pointer to "rcs" to several calls, it seems to be for
>>edge calculus, but why?
> I did not want to throw away the default calculation, before this discussion
> was finished so i used "rcs" to signal if springs are already calculated or
> "default" should do it.
>>We could better define that for each call to "remake softbody", the
>>spring lengths should be set OK, and not leave this to some later
>>stage... otherwise we don't know for sure the original edge sizes.
>>I got confused a bit here, the lattice code you added makes springs,
>>initializes them, but doesn't set the spring length (which is a
>>constant even!). The Mesh code does set spring lengths however.
> It all was there once *sigh*
> Revision : 1.44
> Date : 2005/8/18 11:4:22
> Author : 'zuster'
> State : 'Exp'
> Lines : +3 -12
> Description :
> - remove redundant calculation of spring length
>>You agree with removing the 'rcs' variable, and set spring length in
>>each "make softbody" calls? I can fix that :)
> Definitly, that's how it was before Daniel *optimized* it all away.
> Well i was a little frustrated then and decided to wait until that modifier
> stack hype was over. So now i speak up.
> jens ole
Please don't get me wrong, i'm the 'manager' of a pro software team, all
scientists! *sigh* and i know all that blaming stuff like 'B says: if A
didn't do things like i told him/her to do; no wonder my code does not
work' (/me extra personal shudder)
Neither i want to blame any coder to commit code in best intentions, but
beeing wrong in details he/she did not see. I did that too often :)
I could have fixed it myself, but i did not want to get stuck between
opinions the one and the other coder has, on what is the 'good' way to
do it. So i did voice up to have a it decided here.
After all i try to be constructive without choking running development.
jens ole (bjornmose) .. some times (some WUND)
More information about the Bf-committers