Dirk Gregorius wrote:On the other side this method is unconditionally stable.
implicit FEM are as well but of course they are a totally different beast:)
Dirk Gregorius wrote:
There is another method based on shape matching to model deformable objects which might be used in Ageia 2.6 (I am guessing here). You find a 2D example implementation on M. Muller side:
to me the problems of shape matching are the following:
1. inferior quality if compared to other methods
2. collision detection becomes far more complicated. If we have a tetrahedral mesh it's very easy to tell if a point is inside a mesh.
3. cannot have different materials in a single mesh. See also the skin layer example i made earlier.
now it could well be that
1. The quality is sufficient for the purposes of our application.
2. we dont have collision detection between deformable bodies.
3. we dont have the need of switching materials in a single body.
4. we want to minimize the storage requirements.
So thats why like i said in my previous post every method has its own place depending on our objectives and constraints.
regarding collision detection and shape matching the paper:
http://graphics.ethz.ch/~mattmuel/publi ... _SIG05.pdf
states(section 6) that they have used
http://graphics.ethz.ch/~mattmuel/publi ... _vmv04.pdf
which requires a tetrahedral mesh. i Actually thought they used:
http://graphics.ethz.ch/~mattmuel/publi ... _pba04.pdf
of course we can keep the tetrahedral mesh and "shape match" clusters of vertices belonging to the volume, then we can use the connectivity only for collision detection purposes. However doing so we would loose one of the main benefits of shape matching.