Thanks for your excellent tool. I use it for calculating weights of the components. Would it be possible to add there an input field for the density and then show the weight? I have not found such tool made already

Hi Anton,

For me, as a professional designer of pontoon docks, a reliable physic simulator for such floating items would be extremely useful. Our company is also ready to pay for it;just like we pay for other professional software too.

Cheers,
Olli

Hi. The "Solid volume" is very useful in my job, thanks a lot! A great add to it would be a mass calculator. Just an input for material density and the solid mass would be seen; or a even better if a tiny sheet to save some own densities. I have not found any plugins for easy mass reporting. Cheers!

Hi, I suppose the geometry of squares and hinges is the limit. Try with univeral joint instead of hinges. Then the squares can become to diamonds.

Hi

Now I have tested anchor chains for a while already. The chain links are convexified and their shape is simplified for better performance. The topmost shape of a link is compound. Links are built as components. Their mass control is by density (of "cast iron" due somehow "steel" has too high density in the preset values). The actual chain is accomplished with universal joints (based on the video tutorial https://youtu.be/TLB1LjFUjWM)).

As attached file is a setup of simplified "balance scale" with two, three and seven links chain. The balance weight is controlled by mass and set to same than links weight sum.

So: the balance remains well up to three links, but when added more of exactly the same links, the chain weight rises like rocket and the needed balance weight makes no sense

I am sure I am doing something wrong, but despite hours and hours of testing I have not found any solution.

Thanks again

"Balance scale with chains"

@oheimala said:

@anton_s said:

@oheimala said:

I have an issue with floathing items. I work as a professional with floating docks, and the MSP simulation in water is something I would really love to use; actually a perfect tool for me. But.. when making a pontoon with several materials, the simulation will give strange results. I believe there is a some kind of bug.

As attached is a simplified concrete pontoon of two parts: a shell of concrete and a float of styrofoam. When dropped to float, you see four different scenarios happen and none of them is accurate. From my point of view it would be easy if the simulation could work without calculation; just simply specifying the parts density, group them and let them float.

The shell must consist from five separate subgroups, that is from four wall groups and one base/ceiling group. The top level group should be assigned Compound shape. That way, the collision shape generated will reflect the actual one. If you enable collision wireframe in simulation, you will see what is going on. So if you convexify subgroups, your resulting simulation would be realistic and the density you assign will reflect the density of material properly.

Hi Anton, thanks for your kind reply. So; complex pontoon structures may be tiny nightmares for floating simulations if the structures must be made from small simplified convex parts... Okay - I will test when I have resources for it, and I'll report. Fredo Tools "Convexify" may be the key

Hi again. Yes, convexifying the pontoon shell solved the issue - Thanks!! And a as a note to other users: the Convexify in the Fredo Tools plugin is a great help!

So; I keep testing floating simulations. The game will be harder when added more materials, complex shapes, anchor chains etc..

• Cheers! -

@anton_s said:

@oheimala said:

I have an issue with floathing items. I work as a professional with floating docks, and the MSP simulation in water is something I would really love to use; actually a perfect tool for me. But.. when making a pontoon with several materials, the simulation will give strange results. I believe there is a some kind of bug.

As attached is a simplified concrete pontoon of two parts: a shell of concrete and a float of styrofoam. When dropped to float, you see four different scenarios happen and none of them is accurate. From my point of view it would be easy if the simulation could work without calculation; just simply specifying the parts density, group them and let them float.

The shell must consist from five separate subgroups, that is from four wall groups and one base/ceiling group. The top level group should be assigned Compound shape. That way, the collision shape generated will reflect the actual one. If you enable collision wireframe in simulation, you will see what is going on. So if you convexify subgroups, your resulting simulation would be realistic and the density you assign will reflect the density of material properly.

Hi Anton, thanks for your kind reply. So; complex pontoon structures may be tiny nightmares for floating simulations if the structures must be made from small simplified convex parts... Okay - I will test when I have resources for it, and I'll report. Fredo Tools "Convexify" may be the key

Hi. Great thanks for an excellent tool

I have an issue with floathing items. I work as a professional with floating docks, and the MSP simulation in water is something I would really love to use; actually a perfect tool for me. But.. when making a pontoon with several materials, the simulation will give strange results. I believe there is a some kind of bug.

As attached is a simplified concrete pontoon of two parts: a shell of concrete and a float of styrofoam. When dropped to float, you see four different scenarios happen and none of them is accurate. From my point of view it would be easy if the simulation could work without calculation; just simply specifying the parts density, group them and let them float.

Thanks for your attention in advance!

Attached: Simplified concrete pontoon floating tests