lus...@email.it schrieb:
> Hi bjornmose,
>
>
>> I think the cloth module does all the task the SB module did, it uses
>> the same mathematical/physical model,
>> but with a smarter UI, better integration to the modifier stack,
>> better global collision cache, better rock solid ODE solver for
Benjamin Tolputt schrieb:
> While I understand the technical issues you mentioned (not quoted), my
> issue with the above is that you classify softbody as rotten, yet many
> people use it. Were it a recent feature that just didn't work out, you'd
> probably not have as big a problem. The thing is t
Hi bjornmose,
> I think the cloth module does all the task the SB module did, it uses
> the same mathematical/physical model,
> but with a smarter UI, better integration to the modifier stack,
> better global collision cache, better rock solid ODE solver for stiff
> situations and more.
> Some
bjornmose wrote:
> Hi all,
> I was a bit surprised by the responses.
> I think the cloth module does all the task the SB module did, it uses
> the same mathematical/physical model,
> but with a smarter UI, better integration to the modifier stack,
> better global collision cache, better rock s
bjornmose wrote:
> While the SB module seems to do no harm and seems to be working with 2.5
> ( bad/ good luck ), it is deprecated and needs a complete rewrite.
> I did expect it to fail with 2.5.
> Keeping up the current code will sooner or later be an obstacle to
> further evolution of the an
"soft body module has been replaced by the far better cloth module at the
hot spots"
Soft Bodies are a lot different than cloth.
1) Soft Bodies don't tend to get stuck in objects, cloths do.
2) Cloth ignores triangles for mesh stiffness / bending, Soft bodies don't.
(Is this a bug?)
I made this
Hi all,
I was a bit surprised by the responses.
I think the cloth module does all the task the SB module did, it uses
the same mathematical/physical model,
but with a smarter UI, better integration to the modifier stack,
better global collision cache, better rock solid ODE solver for stiff
si
Softbodies covers different use-cases than the cloth sim. They aren't
redundant features.
--Nathan V
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:09 AM, bjornmose wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've been watching 2.5 evolving and I feel the (one size fits all ..
> experimental physics code) soft body module has been replaced
Olivier Saraja wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2010/3/3 bjornmose
>
>
>> So I'd like to kindly ask for the permission to remove that wrong view
>> angled, physicists, crappy code.
>>
>>
>
> Hell, no! :-)
>
And I am not sure that you can do all with cloth what SBs are able to do?
Dont kill it!
Cars
Hi,
2010/3/3 bjornmose
> So I'd like to kindly ask for the permission to remove that wrong view
> angled, physicists, crappy code.
>
Hell, no! :-)
On a personal basis, I really enjoy these features, and this is amazing to
see how people react well to them in workshops (the "wow, we can do th
Hi all :|
> Hi all,
> I've been watching 2.5 evolving and I feel the (one size fits all ..
> experimental physics code) soft body module has been replaced by the far
> better cloth module at the hot spots. ( Thanks will go to janne and daniel
> )
Is good that one module function overlaps another
10 17:52:31 +1100
> Subject: Re: [Bf-committers] I'd like to kill the soft body module
>
> Please Don't kill softbodies, it is still needed for natural movements
> of objects, cloth cannot maintain its shape well enough nor does it
> maintain impact shapes and the the a
Please Don't kill softbodies, it is still needed for natural movements
of objects, cloth cannot maintain its shape well enough nor does it
maintain impact shapes and the the amount of options in SB is simply
amazing, I'd say change to docs to reflect that SB is NOT for cloth
including the screensho
why killing the SB? maybe just simplify it to be able to do what a soft body
is supposed to do in the first place, ie NOT CLOTH, but jittering and
fat/mass trembling effects and others? Can this be *perfectly* done with the
cloth system?
Daniel Salazar
3Developer.com
__
Colby Klein wrote:
> I remember soft body being considerably faster (and more predictable I think)
> than cloth in 2.49. Is this still the case?
>
> -- Colby
>
>
Your comment is leading to 'nowhere' .. please stay on focus.
___
Bf-committers mailin
I remember soft body being considerably faster (and more predictable I think)
than cloth in 2.49. Is this still the case?
-- Colby
On Mar 2, 2010, at 5:11 PM, bjornmose wrote:
> bjornmose schrieb:
>> Tom M schrieb:
>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 3:09 PM, bjornmose wrote:
>>> .
>>>
>>>
S
bjornmose schrieb:
> Tom M schrieb:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 3:09 PM, bjornmose wrote:
>> .
>>
>>
>>> So I'd like to kindly ask for the permission to remove that wrong view
>>> angled, physicists, crappy code.
>>>
>>>
>> Can all of the same use cases be covered with the
Tom M schrieb:
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 3:09 PM, bjornmose wrote:
> .
>
>> So I'd like to kindly ask for the permission to remove that wrong view
>> angled, physicists, crappy code.
>>
>
> Can all of the same use cases be covered with the cloth simulation?
>
> Also how difficult would it
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 3:09 PM, bjornmose wrote:
.
> So I'd like to kindly ask for the permission to remove that wrong view
> angled, physicists, crappy code.
Can all of the same use cases be covered with the cloth simulation?
Also how difficult would it be for users to switch their SB
simulat
Hi all,
I've been watching 2.5 evolving and I feel the (one size fits all ..
experimental physics code) soft body module has been replaced by the far
better cloth module at the hot spots. ( Thanks will go to janne and daniel )
Further I think that future development ( in Blender ) should focus on
20 matches
Mail list logo