Something new.
-
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.
-
Update. I put up a video of the current version. Its now working pretty well and there are a few interesting behaviors in place.
First the video shows a cone being created and then a behavior being created for it. Toggle color. This simple behavior allows an group/component to be two different colors. Another behavior can tell it to toggle. It starts out the first color. Once behaviors are started using the button at the top the cone changes to its first color. When behaviors are stopped it returns to its original color.
Thats kinda worthless by itself. But the second behavior added in the video allows the color to be toggled by clicking on the object. Note the Event and Signal field both contain "ToggleColor" That means when the click happens the toggle color behavior changes color.
Next is Interpolate. It allows a object to smoothly move from one "pose" (position+rotation) to another by moving a slider. Note that the slider works even if the behaviors are not running.
Next is Follow Path. The behavior moves the object, Sang in this case, smoothly on the curve selected. The speed is adjustable even when the behavior is running and he can be set to ping pong or loop.
Last are a few objects with the physics rigid body behavior.
Video best viewed in 480p or higher. Otherwise you cant make out much. Not sure why the frame rate is so low in the video its smooth in real time.
[flash=620,500:1zvyzk27]http://www.youtube.com/v/U1bar8gKVsI&hl=en_US&fs=1?rel=0&hd=1"[/flash:1zvyzk27]
-
The rigid bodies seem to collide with a plane at ground level - will this be optional? Looking fantastic though, this will have many uses
-
-
Not looking too bad, still have mixed feelings with it though, ill have to try it out when the first release is available, but some of them could be useful... -
Collide with the invisible ground plane is just testing right now. But I think it might make sense for a default. If I was a totally new user I not expect the objects I just made on the "ground" to start falling as soon as I pressed start. But its open to debate.
-
Very nice work!
I am a big fan of your work in SketchyPhysicsLet me know if I could help.
David. -
yay thank you for making the infinite plane, I thought you would forget. I'm not that worried about this release, since as I understand the joints will all be the same, and all the aspects of sketchyphysics will still be there, but with multicore support.
-
Nice!
Your plugins are great! -
This sounds great. It is becoming more FPS-friendly, which I like.
I am excited, but my absence dummed me up and I don't know half about scripting than I used to know. It definitely will be troublesome learning it all over again... 
-
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)
Advertisement