Something new.
-
Hi everyone. Sorry I haven't been around much. For most of the time I was just burned out on coding. Now I seem to be getting back in the mood and for the last few weeks I have been working on something new. I didnt want to say anything about it until I was sure it was going to work. Now I am pretty sure and I can start talking about it.
Its called SketchyBehaviors. And its hard to describe it in a sentence or two. Its kind of like Sketchups Dynamic Components but on steroids. Another way to describe it would be SketchyPhysics without the physics engine. But dont worry, the physics engine will still be there and vastly improved.
The idea is that any group or component can have one or more behaviors. And a behavior can do pretty much anything. A simple example is a door that opens when you click the doorknob. Or a building where you can adjust the number of floors with a slider. Or a full FPS camera system. All without the complexity of the physics engine.
The best part is that anyone who can do a little ruby scripting can make a behavior. And they are reusable. For example you could write a behavior script for a car that would look inside the group find all the sub groups named "wheel" and attach them to the group named "body" with hinge joints or whatever. Then reuse that behavior on any "car" type group that fits the naming convention. Or give it to someone who wants to make a car but has no idea how to do the physics connections.
And a really savy scripter could do amazing things! For example: say the physics engine supports materials (it does) and I haven't got around to exposing it (like I haven't) then someone could probably write (with some coaching) a "Physics Material" behavior that would expose as much of it as he wanted. With a simple seamless interface for a end user to access things like friction with a slider.
Here is a screen shot from the current version:
In the shot Sang has two behaviors attached to him. One makes him a physics body (thats right SketchyPhysics is now just a collection of behaviors). The other behavior doesnt actually do anything but shows off some of the UI elements a behavior can have. Note the "code" in the Behavior editor describes what UI elements are in the behavior in Sangs properties.
Most of the major features are now working and I am staring on making various behaviors to see how it well it works and what needs changing.
Sorry, No idea when it will be ready for a release.
Chris
-
-
-
-
This sounds great!
-
I'm gonna have fun with this one!!
So, will all the newtonServer external commands be available for scripting, even if they're not implemented? I'm just wondering how we can get access to the materials
-
Kinda confused to be honest, mostly about the behaviour thing and ruby. Is sketchyphysics still usable for people who don't know ruby? A lot of the features mentioned need ruby to make them work, which is kinda worrying. . .
-
@hobbnob said:
A lot of the features mentioned need ruby to make them work, which is kinda worrying. . .
To be honest, i dont like the idea, i hate scripting and the easier its made the better. Im still catching up on the current Sketchyphysics scripting (thanks to LazyScript). However the idea is good as its something difference but personaly, i think i will struggle with it.
Having said that, it wouldbe better to use a different Physics engine for sketchup.i guess idea really have to try it first to really give my proper opinion.
-
@wacov said:
I'm gonna have fun with this one!!
So, will all the newtonServer external commands be available for scripting, even if they're not implemented?
Yes. Thats the way it works.
-
@hobbnob said:
Kinda confused to be honest, mostly about the behaviour thing and ruby. Is sketchyphysics still usable for people who don't know ruby? A lot of the features mentioned need ruby to make them work, which is kinda worrying. . .
No, if anything you will need to know less. It will come with all the basic SP features and only new features will require ruby code.
Regarding the question of changing the physics engine. When I started this I took another look at all the physics engines out there and decided they were unsuitable for one reason or another. I even went so far as to get Physx running only to discover that it does not support cone or cylinder shapes. And convex hulls can only have 256 faces. Ug.
-
@cphillips said:
When I started this I took another look at all the physics engines out there and decided they were unsuitable for one reason or another.
Is it switched to Newton 2.0... or is that not stable enough?
-
BTW. I had never heard of LazyScript
. I must of missed it somehow. I am looking at it now. But from a glance it looks like an attempt to fix the same problem SketchyBehaviors is. Allowing others to write code that can be easily used by others.Excellent work guys!
-
@unknownuser said:
Is it switched to Newton 2.0... or is that not stable enough?
Yeah, its the latest beta of 2.0.
-
so will the scripts be like the ones show in the picture, or will they be similar to whats being used in sketchy physics at the moment
-
@camokid11 said:
so will the scripts be like the ones show in the picture, or will they be similar to whats being used in sketchy physics at the moment
The behavior scripts are an evolution of what was in sp3x. ontick{}, ontouch{} etc.
-
so hopefuly not too hard then, ill have to try it when it comes out because ive got mixed feelings about it. One last thing, will it be compatable with sketchyphysics, eg: youcan run old sketchyphysics models on it, or have a bit of both worlds?
-
I don't think it will be tay, as it uses a whole new physics engine.
-
@camokid11 said:
so hopefuly not too hard then, ill have to try it when it comes out because ive got mixed feelings about it. One last thing, will it be compatable with sketchyphysics, eg: youcan run old sketchyphysics models on it, or have a bit of both worlds?
Sorry. Maybe simple models could be converted. But anything that used a controller field or scripted elements wouldnt work.
-
Out of interest, how is the joint data gonna be stored... in other words, is the JCT making a comeback?
-
@wacov said:
Out of interest, how is the joint data gonna be stored... in other words, is the JCT making a comeback?
Joints will just be another behavior(s). I imagine most joints will not need a joint connection tool because they will connect themselves automatically via touching or something like "wheel" auto connects to "body".
When you do need to manually connect a body to a joint you will do it in the joints properties. Probably a button like "Attach all selected bodies to this joint". Only not as wordy.
Advertisement