[Bf-committers] Flame Simulator

[Sergej Reich]

Hey,

just another comment on PhysBAM.
Not only would it not solve our current physics problems, it seems also
generally not very useful to us (at least that was the case last time I
checked).
The reasons are:
* Only a few framework bits are accessible, most of the interesting
parts aren't released.
* There is no public code repository, no bug tracker and no community,
so I wouldn't even call it a proper open source project.

Regards, Sergej.

Am Dienstag, den 30.10.2012, 20:17 +0100 schrieb 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
>  		 	   		  
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers