[Bf-committers] Bullet physics plans/status/update
matt at mke3.net
Tue Oct 10 03:08:23 CEST 2006
On 10/10/2006, at 09:41 AM, bjornmose wrote:
> Sure erwin is doing excellent work, but asking for a 'one physics
> engine fits all' is like all physisists asking for GUT (grand
> unifing theory).
> The search for it is what the best (and lower) paid heads in
> physics are working for and i guess it needs another bored swiss
> patent office bureaucrat to be struc by the grand insight before we
> will see the light and beauty of it...
> And even if, i doubt that any CG software is able to struggle its
> way throug the maze of 'total antisymmetrische Masstensoren' to get
> any usable result.
> So for time beeing, i'd suggest we'd better stick to what CG needs:
> Fake it! and fake it the best you can ... even if you need to use
> different tricks (tools) to get there.
I've got no idea what's involved, and I'm sure it's extremely
difficult stuff, but it does seem possible to the extent that
Autodesk are working on a unified physics system for a future version
of Maya. Of course they're not trying to simulate every particle in
the universe, rather they have designed a system that can be reused
for different types of interaction. It looks like they have got some
quite impressive results so far as demonstrated by these pictures of
a talk given at the Eurographics 2006 conference:
Perhaps this is totally unrealistic for us since it might mean
rewriting all the physics stuff at the same time. Though I also
remember (what I Think Tom M was talking about) that Ton was talking
at some stage about providing a 'force API' where objects or geometry
could provide information about what forces they are exerting or
feeling, so other objects could check that and react accordingly.
Would something like that not be feasible?
Matt Ebb . matt at mke3.net . http://mke3.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bf-committers