 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16-10-2012 12:48, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> Well, I was referring to accuracy of the meshes, not the simulation:
> I discovered that just subdividing the problematic parts of the mesh was
> enough to make it more resistant to breaking. The breaking seemed to
> occur at places were both bodies didn't have vertex to collide with.
Good point. This is also very important with cloth simulation in Poser.
>
> I also discovered that size really matters too... don't make your
> objects too small. At first, I started with the default Wings3D scale of
> 1-2 units, but later scaled it x10 and things seem to work better.
idem.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignorancia org> wrote:
> Anyhow, if you want to try it, you may need to put some hard work to
> get it compiled. The author has not wrote anything into the wiki howto,
> but seems he plans to... the problems is that he is unreachable until
> mid-december. I really don't know for sure, but I think all the
> libraries used in the project must be available for OS X, and gcc too,
> so it should be relatively easy if you already have experience compiling
> from sources on OS X.
>
> In any case, if you manage to compile it, then contact me for the
> fixes I did to the current code on github, else you will not be able to
> do much with it.
I made a lot of progress on an OS X build last night. There are still some
missing header files, I'll keep at it. Once I get it working, I would like to
merge your changes in with the changes I needed to make for OS X, so far just
the location of header files.
Henry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/10/12 20:09, HenryW wrote:
> I made a lot of progress on an OS X build last night. There are still some
> missing header files, I'll keep at it. Once I get it working, I would like to
Great news... seems that soon I will not be the only user of this
app... ;)
> merge your changes in with the changes I needed to make for OS X, so far just
> the location of header files.
>
No problem, the changes are really few, mostly on viewer.cpp. In
fact, most of the changes were commented-out code which I removed,
because it was not specific for the program, but for some experiments
made by Koppi.
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
> On 16/10/12 20:09, HenryW wrote:
> > I made a lot of progress on an OS X build last night. There are still some
> > missing header files, I'll keep at it. Once I get it working, I would like to
>
> Great news... seems that soon I will not be the only user of this
> app... ;)
>
> > merge your changes in with the changes I needed to make for OS X, so far just
> > the location of header files.
> >
>
> No problem, the changes are really few, mostly on viewer.cpp. In
> fact, most of the changes were commented-out code which I removed,
> because it was not specific for the program, but for some experiments
> made by Koppi.
Another evening of keeping at it, made progress, but not there yet. I'm running
into linking errors with MIDI libraries. May be due to OS X handling sound
differently. Does the app have sounds? I'm going to comment out that code.
Henry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/10/12 15:40, HenryW wrote:
> Another evening of keeping at it, made progress, but not there yet.
> I'm running into linking errors with MIDI libraries. May be due to
> OS X handling sound differently. Does the app have sounds? I'm going
> to comment out that code.
>
No, I think MIDI and "robots" support where added by Koppi to create
some "hard-wired" animations... I was tempted too to take it out,
but was afraid to mess up the project files. If you are successful at
it, please let me know so I can do the same.
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 17/10/2012 15:40, HenryW a écrit :
> The first one consists of a lathe object shaped into a bulb, referenced with a
> negative scale component to create a hourglass shape then a scaled down version
> (0.995) is differenced from it. You can see banding which looks to me as if the
> glass does not have a uniform thickness.
Hint: if you scale, the object get a dilatation.
E.g. Value of 1 scaled 0.995 becomes 0.995
Value of 10 scaled 0.995 becomes 9.95
Value of 100 scaled 0.995 becomes 99.5
Width at 100 / scaled : 0.5
width at 10 / scaled : 0.05
width at 1 / scaled : 0.005
If you want a constant "horizontal" thickness, you need to translate the
curve of the lathe BEFORE rotating it. (assuming a vertical axis for the
lathe / sor )
(it's only horizontal : the slant of the curve might very well impact
the overall perception of thickness, you would need to draw a second
curve using fixed-width-discs along the first curve to really have a
uniform thickness: I can do it on a paper, but it's a nightmare to
program that for all possible curve )
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-10-2012 16:02, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 17/10/2012 15:40, HenryW a écrit :
>> The first one consists of a lathe object shaped into a bulb, referenced with a
>> negative scale component to create a hourglass shape then a scaled down version
>> (0.995) is differenced from it. You can see banding which looks to me as if the
>> glass does not have a uniform thickness.
>
>
>
> Hint: if you scale, the object get a dilatation.
>
> E.g. Value of 1 scaled 0.995 becomes 0.995
> Value of 10 scaled 0.995 becomes 9.95
> Value of 100 scaled 0.995 becomes 99.5
>
> Width at 100 / scaled : 0.5
> width at 10 / scaled : 0.05
> width at 1 / scaled : 0.005
>
> If you want a constant "horizontal" thickness, you need to translate the
> curve of the lathe BEFORE rotating it. (assuming a vertical axis for the
> lathe / sor )
> (it's only horizontal : the slant of the curve might very well impact
> the overall perception of thickness, you would need to draw a second
> curve using fixed-width-discs along the first curve to really have a
> uniform thickness: I can do it on a paper, but it's a nightmare to
> program that for all possible curve )
>
Well... this is an answer to Stephen's lathe problem ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/10/2012 3:02 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 17/10/2012 15:40, HenryW a écrit :
>> The first one consists of a lathe object shaped into a bulb, referenced with a
>> negative scale component to create a hourglass shape then a scaled down version
>> (0.995) is differenced from it. You can see banding which looks to me as if the
>> glass does not have a uniform thickness.
>
>
>
> Hint: if you scale, the object get a dilatation.
>
> E.g. Value of 1 scaled 0.995 becomes 0.995
> Value of 10 scaled 0.995 becomes 9.95
> Value of 100 scaled 0.995 becomes 99.5
>
> Width at 100 / scaled : 0.5
> width at 10 / scaled : 0.05
> width at 1 / scaled : 0.005
>
> If you want a constant "horizontal" thickness, you need to translate the
> curve of the lathe BEFORE rotating it. (assuming a vertical axis for the
> lathe / sor )
> (it's only horizontal : the slant of the curve might very well impact
> the overall perception of thickness, you would need to draw a second
> curve using fixed-width-discs along the first curve to really have a
> uniform thickness: I can do it on a paper, but it's a nightmare to
> program that for all possible curve )
>
As Thomas pointed out, you have hijacked HenryW's thread. I blame
Thunderbird. ;-)
Yes I agree with you. I had just hoped that it wouldn't have been so
obvious. Possibly the inner curve extends beyond the outer one at some
points. I have moved on to using two curves.
Thank you.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> As Thomas pointed out, you have hijacked HenryW's thread. I blame
> Thunderbird. ;-)
It started as Jaime's thread for the cool work he is doing with complex objects
in Bullet Physics Playground. I hijacked it for how to compile the code on my
Mac, so I can play with Bullet Physics too :)
Henry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/10/2012 12:53 AM, HenryW wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> As Thomas pointed out, you have hijacked HenryW's thread. I blame
>> Thunderbird. ;-)
>
> It started as Jaime's thread for the cool work he is doing with complex objects
> in Bullet Physics Playground. I hijacked it for how to compile the code on my
> Mac, so I can play with Bullet Physics too :)
>
:-D
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
