Real-Time Physics Simulation Forum

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-...

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...

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 fe...

"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 btTerrai...

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 an...

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 ...

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

--EK

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...

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"...

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 so...

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 "perhap...