Quote:Original post by jovani
@grhodes_at_work
This is real good news. So what you are saying is that ODE is just as good as Vortex if used properly?
"Just as good" in some ways. For many classes of problems, you should be able to produce equivalently good/accurate results. Commercial libraries such as Vortex will often have fewer constraints or limitations than the freeware libraries, so in this way Vortex would be much better.
Quote:Original post by jovaniI believe you are right when you say that the game engines are solving the same equation vortex is solving. It is also a documented fact that game engines are using algorithms that lead to approximated solutions; therefore they cannot be equally accurate.
But I maybe wrong you seems to be well versed on these subject.
All of the physics engines use numerical algorithms and produce approximated solutions, not just the "game" physics engines and not just the "real-time" physics engines. It is true that they are not all equally accurate, e.g., they all produce different error. But when used properly, all can produce solutions that have bounded and controllable error of similar magnitude. ODE and Vortex might not produce the exact same numerical result, but both results could still be, say, first-order accurate in time and space. Non-real-time engines can afford to take more time to resolve contact manifolds for stacking and collision, and in this way they probably sometimes produce better results in this area. ODE might not have an implicit solver, and so definitely will have limits on the physical stiffness it can handle. The same can be said of Vortex and the rest.
Quote:Original post by jovaniYou say that all of these engines, used correctly, can produce engineering quality for non real-time solutions. I had been trying so many times without success. Each time I use the non-iterative solver I get inexplicable explosions, unless I use high CFM in which case it is almost as having the same Quickstep but a lot slower.
Perhaps you can give me some pointes of what kind of engineering expertise is required to make ODE as accurate as Vortex is.
These physics engines are all capable of producing equivalently good results for the type of problems that they all support. I stand by that statement. There can be a problem, however, in measuring and proving the quality of results. The engines might not all produce the particular statistics needed to numerically judge the results. And, so your only judgement might be that the solution looks basically right, or that the objects do appear to behave in a realistic manner, or that certain boundary conditions are satisfied. This type of judgement isn't necessarily sufficient to really say that a result is "engineering quality." But, I am certain that these engines can produce engineering quality results, even if it can't always be proven numerically. It is always possible to keep track of things that should be conserved, such as total energy, and momentum. And by tracking these, you can have a measurement of goodness.
It would actually help me to understand what you, yourself, mean by engineering quality? How exactly have you been measuring this? And are you qualified to judge, e.g., do you have an engineering degree and do you work professionally as an engineer? I will note that "engineering quality" is not the same thing as "stable." Just because one engine doesn't explode doesn't mean its solution is better quality in general. Are you hacking your simulations? Or are you making educated choices, based on numerical analysis, about how to configure the various engines?