Something new.
-
physicsguy, its been forever since we last got any contact from you. where have you been.and dont worry, im no good at scripting/codes so im proberbly in the same boat (i just hope theres no ice berg ahead thouhg
) -
What happened? Something common with me. I got bored. But then I got interested with it again. It usually happens. But I'm happy to say that I will be back for a long time.
Anyway, let's keep this less personal and more sketchyphysics(Although I am scared about what I've missed
)What I have been itching to see would be a "space-mode", where objects are relieved of the universal gravitational force, resistance, etc, kinda like space. I have also always wanted an accurate gravity system(not just fall down to the infinite plane, objects actually attracted to a others), such that you can simulate orbits, and stuff like that(I like astrophysics). It would be nice, and I would like to help build something like that(I know my astrophysics).
I also would like to see points in lieu of meshes'n'objects so you can simulate light and other high-component-density-particle simulations.
-
I didn't understand a word of all that particle stuff, but it seems gone are the days when physicsguy made planes. . .
Anyways, any updates on sketchybehaviours yet chris?
-
@unknownuser said:
What I have been itching to see would be a "space-mode", where objects are relieved of the universal gravitational force, resistance, etc, kinda like space. I have also always wanted an accurate gravity system(not just fall down to the infinite plane, objects actually attracted to a others), such that you can simulate orbits, and stuff like that(I like astrophysics). It would be nice, and I would like to help build something like that(I know my astrophysics).
That was possible in SP3x. One of the demos is a planet system.
@unknownuser said:
I also would like to see points in lieu of meshes'n'objects so you can simulate light and other high-component-density-particle simulations.
You could use a very small triangle. But the problem with a full particle system would be that it is slow to move lots objects in SU, no matter how many faces they have.
-
@hobbnob said:
Anyways, any updates on sketchybehaviours yet chris?
I am working on integrating the physics engine. Its a bigger job than I expected because I have to recreate a lot of what was already done in SP. Like the ability to pick up objects with the mouse.
But I am also doing some remodeling in the house and that is taking up a lot of my time.
-
Well, I was hoping that relieving sketchup from having to render lots of meshes and things like that would save some time between frames. Rendering does take up quite a few clock cycles. I do understand that the physics engine does take a while, so maybe a separate engine dedicated to light(one that doesn't have all the variables needed for masses) would be suitable. If I become one of those scripting gods I'll look into it
. -
@unknownuser said:
Well, I was hoping that relieving sketchup from having to render lots of meshes and things like that would save some time between frames. Rendering does take up quite a few clock cycles. I do understand that the physics engine does take a while, so maybe a separate engine dedicated to light(one that doesn't have all the variables needed for masses) would be suitable. If I become one of those scripting gods I'll look into it
.Rendering is only one of the bottle necks to performance. The other big ones are moving the group and transferring data back and forth from SU to the Physics engine. The moving is the killer. I wrote some performance stuff a while back and found that the group.move!() was taking about 80% of the simulation time. The physics engine can simulate a lot lot lot more that SU could ever handle.
-
Maybe the time taken is proportional to the amount of entities in the group? It's intuitive that it would; you have to move everything in a group, and the simplest object would need to move 4 faces, 6 lines, 4 vertices, and all those connections(something on the order of 20 in all, which is at least 20 clock cycles). So I'm guessing that points would be somewhat more efficient in rendering and moving. But we really can't bypass the transfer.
-
You'd think so, but that'd be far too simple - here's some SP framerates whilst moving various things via transforms (no physics):
1 group - 1 face: 62.1 FPS
100 groups - 1 face (each): 53 FPS1 group - 100 faces: 62.6 FPS
100 groups - 10 faces (each): 30.6 FPSI'm guessing that last one is down to some rendering bottleneck, because it shot to 43.3 FPS when I tried it in wireframe (the others end up basically the same)
-
Yes this is right remodeling project can take your lots of time, if your professional are not well experienced. Thus well financial planning and all necessary information about designer is very important while you are doing renovation work.
-
Nothing makes me smile as much as seeing a post from Chris Phillips (though of course I always wonder how much of what I have learned over the last year is now superfluous). I will love to see how all this relates to that crazy piano and drum kit posted and shared in the past. Good luck with the remodel...can't you just do it in sketchy physics, give everyone a VR hood and call it good?
Advertisement