Confusion about sequential impulses method
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:39 am
I'm currently implementing a 3D sequential impulses constraint system.
This is what I'm doing:
K = J * W * JT
B = -beta * error - J * v;
lambda = K^-1 * B;
old_lambda = accumulated_lambda
accumulated_lambda += lambda
accumulated_lambda.clamp (lo, hi)
lambda = accumulated_lambda - old_lambda
P = JT * lambda
apply P to bodies.
In this thread: http://www.continuousphysics.com/Bullet ... ddfe218741
Dirk says that this is a slower and worse convergence than PGS
but in this thread: http://www.continuousphysics.com/Bullet ... efdd9aea48
Dirk says that this method is equivalent to a block Gauss seidel solver and has better convergence than PGS
In the first thread dirk is talking about solving for lambda*dt instead of just
for lambda.
I'd appreciate some clarification.
Also, I'm wondering if this is equivalent to erin catto's sequential impulses method?
This is what I'm doing:
K = J * W * JT
B = -beta * error - J * v;
lambda = K^-1 * B;
old_lambda = accumulated_lambda
accumulated_lambda += lambda
accumulated_lambda.clamp (lo, hi)
lambda = accumulated_lambda - old_lambda
P = JT * lambda
apply P to bodies.
In this thread: http://www.continuousphysics.com/Bullet ... ddfe218741
Dirk says that this is a slower and worse convergence than PGS
but in this thread: http://www.continuousphysics.com/Bullet ... efdd9aea48
Dirk says that this method is equivalent to a block Gauss seidel solver and has better convergence than PGS
In the first thread dirk is talking about solving for lambda*dt instead of just
for lambda.
I'd appreciate some clarification.
Also, I'm wondering if this is equivalent to erin catto's sequential impulses method?