Real-Time Physics Simulation Forum

Of course, the prior art doesn't really matter if you're a small-time developer (i.e. don't have a large litigation defence fund). As with most software patents, the threat is in the lawsuit itself - not the winning of said lawsuit. It costs ALOT of money to defend oneself against patent litigation,...

Very nice demonstration, Erwin. I quite like the fact that you can turn on & off different features (like the LCP & GJK functionality) to determine the differences.

Is the underlying Bullet distro for this released yet?

--EK

OK, I think the trick here is to look at the exact wording... "not based on traditional LCP or iterative methods". This does not necessarily imply that he is not using LCP or iterative methods - just that he is not using the traditional ones. For example, he has stated in these boards that Newton DO...

OK - given that Erwin is cool with a licensing discussion, I'll fill in the blanks I left in the last post :) Firstly, there is the factors inherent in NDA's and proprietary systems which make GPL & (most) LGPL use impossible. The license of the (L)GPL software requires either the disclosure of code...

Exactly, it DOES depend on the person's opinion. I, for example, disagree that the GPL guarantees my freedom more than the LGPL. Thing is, getting into these discussions are best left for a "licensing forum". I come here for the physics engine discussion (of which there is more than enough complexit...

Um, dude - read what he said I used to work for Havok, and currently I work for Sony on the Playstation 3 port of Novodex/PhysX. In other words - he KNOWS that Havok at the very least USED to use an iterative solver, and that Novodex/PhysX actually does. ODE we know uses it and comments from the aut...

Do you have an estimate on when the sweep&prune method will be added, Erwin? I am currently looking at bullet as the collision/physics library (i.e. combined with ODE) for a simulation experiment I am playing with. Currently I've hacked my sim to put all objects into two layered "quad" spaces but th...

I'm not saying you can WIN based on not reading the patents, but you will be liable for only 1/3 the damages. Given the language most patent applications are written in - there is no way you can economically perform due diligence when searching for software patents (pharmaceutical & "physical" engin...

That makes no sense. Patents are by definition made public. That is the reason for their existence. If they're not publically available - they are not a patent, but either an application for one or a trade secret. The Patents Database is open for anyone to search - and hence is "publically available...

Actually, with patents - it does. If someone suing you over a patent can prove you were aware of the patent - you are liable for triple damages. This is known as "willful infringement". Ask any intellectual property lawyer about software patents and they will advise you to do the same as I have - to...

I would also recommend that no-one read them. Regardless of the fact that patenting physics algorithms is questionable at best, reading them will allow any litigators to use "willful infringement" against you. I will not argue the pros/cons of software patents, but every lawyer I have talked to abou...

I was not implying that DaVinci was a "flash in the pan" type project. I am personally hoping it isn't, as a complete engine that optimised for accuracy (as compared to tose that optimise for speed) would be very useful in a wide variety of simulation scenarios. Not everyone wants/needs something th...

Yeah, but there are only a handful of GOOD rendering engines out there. Most the others are... "underdeveloped". This is how I feel about most the "new" physics engines that come out lately. I'm hoping for better from the DaVinci one as it progresses, but I feel that "perhaps" it's going to remain t...