yes, that is the missing "(*) restrictions apply" on what I said :)
Bad for whoever wants to add a new physics engine, but ultimately good
for OpenSim. Making the physics API more robust to specific engines
can only be a good thing.
On Aug 20, 2010, at 1:55 PM, Hurliman, John wrote:
Actually, if you actually try to implement Havok (or Bullet or
PhysX) in OpenSim you will come up against a few walls. The physics
API in OpenSim is highly tailored for the specific way ODE is being
used right now, and many ways of implementing physics including the
"standard" (or at least the most documented and tested) ways in
Havok/Bullet/PhysX simply will not work. You would have to rewrite
the physics interface in OpenSim to give the individual
implementations more freedom in how they do the simulation. I'm not
saying it's impossible, in fact there have been at least two
attempts already to add Bullet physics to OpenSim, but you either
have to figure out how to make your physics engine of choice behave
exactly like the way ODE is being used right now or redo the physics
API in OpenSim.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:opensim-dev-
[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cristina Videira Lopes
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 1:50 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Super easy question
I'm just explaining the mechanics of the process. If Bri or anyone
else here has enough time and/or resources to do that kind of
integration, by all means do it. Just because Havok is a no go for
the stock distribution of OpenSim doesn't mean that that kind of work
should be discouraged.
Technically, OpenSim is ready for it because of its highly extensible
architecture regarding just about every important component of the
system. But clearly, even in the best case scenario of being able to
use the binaries as they come, this is still not a plug-and-play
deal;
there's a c#/.NET layer that needs to be written.
On Aug 20, 2010, at 1:19 PM, Robert A. Knop Jr. wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 01:11:32PM -0700, Michael Cerquoni wrote:
I think it should also be mentioned that just because Second Life
is using
Havok, they are not using standard binaries that are freely
available, they
have no doubt highly customized the engine to meet their needs.
Indeed. I don't know exactly what was done, so I'm not giving away
inside information here. But do remember that the project to
integrate
Havok 4 into SL (upgrading from Havok 2) took many months, first of
development, then of testing. At least one Linden (Andrew) was
working
near-full-time on the Havok 4 project for quite some time. It's not
a
plug-and-play situation.
--
--Rob Knop
E-mail: [email protected]
Home Page: http://www.pobox.com/~rknop/
Blog: http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
