Real-Time Physics Simulation Forum

That's great news. I'll check it out tonight for a quick review

Thanks again, Erwin.

--EK

As I never got around to doing this either - I too would appreciate some information on this... It doesn't need to be done or anything, but knowing it's status helps

Thanks!

--EK

raigan2, I, for one, would be grateful to hear how/if this is resolved. Software patents are an anomaly in the patent system. The fact they are allowed to exist at all comes from case law (as there is nothing in the Patent Statutes on them right now). Funnily enough one of the latest patent cases be...

What Erin is referring to is the fact that the table can only exert an upward/outward force on the box at the point of contact. In a way this is kind of like the equation "box_bottom_coord >= table_top_coord". Notice the inequality in the equation. An example of an equality constraint would be wanti...

UPDATE: I'm making some progress, but "non-experimental" requirements are currently taking up my time. In other words, while this is ongoing, please don't be waiting on me to finish in a given timeframe as I do not have info on when it will be...

--EK

I would have no problem in contributing anything I develop back to Bullet. It is not like there will be much (if any) innovation. More a wrapping of the well-used ODE constraints into something usable in the Bullet framework. thanks for the quick reply and the honest appraisal of Bullet & it's direc...

I have seen a couple of times on this forum people mentioning that the Bullet implementation of d6 joints (with limits) and, by inference, ragdolls are somewhat unstable. Has this been fixed? If not, what is the status of the ODE Solver integration in the Bullet code? I know it is still in the code-...

Once again - the plain "wrongness" of software patents makes itself evident. And unfortunately, we have to abide by it

Still, sounds like a cool competition!

--EK

As Erwin has suggested/requested that this thread not devolve into a flamewar, and given the (I feel) "confrontational" tone of Julio's last post. I am bowing out of this thread in an attempt to keep the peace. I do not agree/concede to all that has been said, but I don't feel I can pursue the debat...

Having read the document, Julio, I think you are a little off base in your analysis of the document. Whether this is deliberate or not, I cannot say, but your comments are somewhat misleading. First of all, the "rating" you refer to where Newton comes third was in reference primarily to features, ea...

"Terrain" Representation: I used the infinite plane example to clarify my thinking more than as an implementation idea. How this would be implemented is the reason for the thread :) Assuming a triangular representation would mean simply expanding the idea of a ConcaveShape into a btTerrainShape wit...

Sorry - wrong thread. Please ignore.

--EK

Firstly (just in case I came across wrong), I was not suggesting there was a problem with Bullet. It is, after all, an incredible library which I am (obviously) using & enjoying the progress of. This 'thread' was just the result of an idea I had and thought might be useful after reading about anothe...

I know it is possible with Bullet to create "runtime defined" triangle meshes, and that they can be used to collide against terrains. The possible problem I see with this is that Bullet is performing collisions against triangles when it could be simpler. This is all in my head mind you, I have not p...

Thanks for the update, Steve. I look forward to seeing how it all fits together

--EK