new Physx

Re: new Physx

Postby Skinnytorus » Monday, 28.July 2014, 10:19

OK. Maybe we should make MakeChain option directly in Multiply? This might simplify things a bit... Another problem is what if we add another multiply below...? In normal mode the second Multiply should multiply the number of chains. But I can't figure what happens in MakeChain mode then...
Skinnytorus
Operator
Operator
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Monday, 06.February 2012, 17:46

Re: new Physx

Postby CybeREX » Monday, 28.July 2014, 12:26

Something wrong with my build?
I load physx_test.wz4
Press F6 to run animation but only particles rotate around axes. They don't fall down
If I manually change pre delay steps I see animation but only if I change values.
CybeREX
Demomaker
Demomaker
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Thursday, 03.April 2014, 07:44

Re: new Physx

Postby Skinnytorus » Monday, 28.July 2014, 12:47

Try to rebuild the stack from scratch. There have been some modifications since the file was uploaded.
Skinnytorus
Operator
Operator
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Monday, 06.February 2012, 17:46

Re: new Physx

Postby CybeREX » Monday, 28.July 2014, 14:01

Here is the new file created few seconds ago. I don't have animation of falling cube to the floor at all.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
CybeREX
Demomaker
Demomaker
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Thursday, 03.April 2014, 07:44

Re: new Physx

Postby Skinnytorus » Monday, 28.July 2014, 15:04

Both of your rigid bodies are static (ActorType in RigidBody operator). Set ActorType of the box to dynamic.
Skinnytorus
Operator
Operator
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Monday, 06.February 2012, 17:46

Re: new Physx

Postby ikam » Monday, 28.July 2014, 15:44

1/ I fixed visual artefact bug.
2/ Changed the joint behavior, see example.
3/ No change for now for chains.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
ikam
Operator
Operator
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Friday, 14.October 2011, 13:00
Location: France

Re: new Physx

Postby Skinnytorus » Monday, 28.July 2014, 16:36

Yep. That's better. Have you checked joints' work with other RB build modes (from vertex, from chunks)?
Skinnytorus
Operator
Operator
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Monday, 06.February 2012, 17:46

Re: new Physx

Postby Skinnytorus » Monday, 28.July 2014, 17:18

Here. Some tests.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Skinnytorus
Operator
Operator
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Monday, 06.February 2012, 17:46

Re: new Physx

Postby ikam » Monday, 28.July 2014, 18:41

ok thanks I will check that.

I made a version that support names to search rigidbodies to join. Give a name to your rigidbody, and fill in Joint opeartor rigidbodies names you want to join together (and first, last, all etc... option when multiple instances).

Previous version had an inccorect search in tree and problem was after a first Joint operator, rigidbodies becomes cumulated in actor list, so it become complicated for the user to search from an index as you need to count multiplied to identify where next rigidbody series start...

To go further with this version, a unique joint operator can be used at bottom of tree stack, to create all joints at same time. it will search in tree rigidbody by their name and do connexion. maybe more efficient.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
ikam
Operator
Operator
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Friday, 14.October 2011, 13:00
Location: France

Re: new Physx

Postby Skinnytorus » Monday, 28.July 2014, 19:48

Interesting idea.
1) 2 names - one for RB, the other for joints are confusing. What about just one name?
2) Need to deploy the standard wz4 link mechanism (like SetMaterial refers to a saved material).
3) How are you going to deal with multiplied RBs then?
Skinnytorus
Operator
Operator
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Monday, 06.February 2012, 17:46

Re: new Physx

Postby ikam » Monday, 28.July 2014, 20:11

1/ 2 same names = bad user :p, just one name, it search for first empty name...
2/ ??
3/ ah yes, I didn't saw, it don't work with multiplied joints... So maybe using 2 modes : one with name to get specific rigidbody, one auto to get all stack, that will support mul

edit : 2/ ok got it. here It's a different method from save/link name. save/link search in all project file for an oepartor with given name, here it search only in operator stacked upside.
ikam
Operator
Operator
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Friday, 14.October 2011, 13:00
Location: France

Re: new Physx

Postby Skinnytorus » Monday, 28.July 2014, 20:25

1/ The topmost field in RB operator is called Name. You added another field called ActorName at the bottom. That is what seems confusing. On the other hand, this approach is already used in SplinedParticles and Spline linking. Maybe it's OK. Need more practice ;)
2/ I meant the standard link field used when you refer to names of operators and store names. If you prefer to leave it like this, then OK. I can live with that.
3/ I think I need to see that in action. Not clear yet...
Skinnytorus
Operator
Operator
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Monday, 06.February 2012, 17:46

Re: new Physx

Postby ikam » Monday, 28.July 2014, 20:37

1/ the top most name is used for save/load/link mechanism. I could use it but it's not a good idea specially with physx because it's a bit slow, it search for all operators in a project file, and when physx simulation is restarted, physx need to rebuild all its stack, all rigidbody... (so it will search again in all document for rigidbodies). The name needed for joints is not this one but the one at bottom.

3/ yea a good headhache to get something working with all stack configurations and joint possibilities...
ikam
Operator
Operator
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Friday, 14.October 2011, 13:00
Location: France

Re: new Physx

Postby Skinnytorus » Monday, 28.July 2014, 20:50

1/ OK for that. Thanks for the explanation.
3/ Yeah... Time will show a plan.
Skinnytorus
Operator
Operator
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Monday, 06.February 2012, 17:46

Re: new Physx

Postby Skinnytorus » Tuesday, 29.July 2014, 06:18

It might also a good idea to set default location for new joints at the top of the RBs (collider's?) local bounding box with some offset (like 0,1 or something like that). Saves some time...
Skinnytorus
Operator
Operator
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Monday, 06.February 2012, 17:46


Return to Development and contribution



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests

cron