[Bf-committers] Flame Simulator

[patrick boelens]

Ah ok, guess that's off the table then. I know I've seen a similar discussion before, also about the lack of coherence and cooperation of the different sims. I'm not sure if it was on this list, but I figured it might be worth bringing up again as it seemed to get some people interested at the time.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to that blog post! =)

-Patrick


> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:46:08 +0100
> From: lukas.toenne at gmail.com
> To: bf-committers at blender.org
> Subject: Re: [Bf-committers] Flame Simulator
> 
> @patrick:
> 
> > Lukas, you mentioned a physics overhaul being planned. I remember some time ago reading about possibly using an existing library like PhysBAM [1] for this. I don't know what was eventually decided on this (if anything), but while this would be a major undertaking, perhaps making a start at integrating something like this could be a viable option for the project?
> 
> I have not yet looked at the actual PhysBAM code yet, so i may be way
> off, but to me it seems like PhysBAM would not make solution of
> current problems in Blender any easier. What i was referring to is the
> current inability to use different physics sims on different objects
> together in a reliable way (i will explain this in a blog post in
> detail). The depsgraph refactor will solve a large part of this, but
> iterative simulations have their own issues that are not handled well
> by an animation-based update system.
> 
> If we wanted to integrate PhysBAM into Blender it would not solve any
> of the depsgraph and synchronization problems and in fact just add a
> whole new pile of work on the integration side. Every physics system
> needs to be able to understand Blender mesh structures and other scene
> stuff, which at least is already kind of working for existing systems.
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers