Hi,
    Reading back my previus posts, They may look a bit unfriendly.
    If so please consider it just resulting from of my non-native english 
nature.

Regards,
Ubit

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: AJLDuarte 
  To: [email protected] 
  Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 12:04 PM
  Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Prospective ODE physics changes


  Hi again,
      Forgot to mention that you can find working code at 
https://github.com/UbitUmarov/Ubit-opensim where i did tried to fix those and 
other issues
      You may see, use, adapt and of course improve.

  Regards,
  Ubit

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: AJLDuarte 
    To: [email protected] 
    Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 11:39 AM
    Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Prospective ODE physics changes


    Hi,
        Justin, before thicking about reducing the size of the array passed to 
ode collide function to receive the colision contacts information, maybe you 
should remember what i told you about managed versus unmanaged memory use in 
the ode plugin.

        Maybe you should think about what is being done by framework to convert 
the array from managed memory space to unmanaged and then back again on each 
call.
        If you do that  (or just remember the details i told you) maybe you 
will see how to save some cpu without reducing the stability of the simulation 
to a useless state.

        Also before doing hard testing with diferent ode supporting libs, maybe 
you should also review managed/unmanaged issues on other parts of the plugin. 
JointCreateContact ? GeomHeightfieldDataBuildSingle ? ....

        Best Regards,
    Ubit Umarov


      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Teravus Ovares 
      To: [email protected] 
      Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 7:53 PM
      Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Prospective ODE physics changes


      ODE Documentation and examples :)

      Regards

      Dan


      On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Justin Clark-Casey 
<[email protected]> wrote:

        Hi Teravus, nice to hear from you again!

        Yes, more testing is needed, hopefully on OSGrid.  But it seems there 
may be a tradeoff between having super smooth physics objects and being able to 
get more avatars in a scene without encountering cpu limits.  My perception is 
having more avatars is a more common use case then lots of physics objects, 
particularly as OpenSim's current ODE use does not seem to provide a good 
physics simulation).  Anybody who does want to try for better physics could 
always turn the collision number back up.

        In any case, what was the rationale for choosing 80 as the default? 


        On 03/01/12 22:30, Teravus Ovares wrote:

          With ODE, it depends on the physics situation.
          With Tri-Mesh and the heightfield collider specifically, ODE 
generates lots of small effect contacts and then the
          stepper integrates them all into a contact resolution force.  With 
tri-mesh and the heightfield, depending on how an
          object collides with another, there could be 20 or 30 contacts that 
all factor into getting the object to react
          normally.   So, to test, you're going to want to use a stack of 
'active'(physical in the client) tri-mesh objects.   You
          may also want two or more trimesh LINKSETS to see how they react.
          My guess, is the first thing that you're going to notice is that a 
tri-mesh object sitting on another object will become
          more unstable (vibrate more).  Each mini-contact represents a part of 
the force to keep the object from rotating from
          the other parts of the contact resolution force.   As the effect gets 
worse, you're going to notice 'rotation anomolies'
          that occur when objects collide.
          Think of it like...    you have a cube shaped trimesh...   and the 
cube's corners are touching a flat ground.   In
          theory, that would generate 4 contact points for each of the vertices 
touching the flat ground.   If you cut one off,
          then only three of the corners are being held above ground.   On a 
larger scale,   If you do that enough, then the
          object will partially fall through the ground and then bounce back up 
from an excessive contact resolution force
          creating instability and vibrating.
          Those are the indicators that I would use to determine if it's OK to 
make that change.   Are 8 contacts enough for ODE
          to react properly in our usage?   That remains to be seen :).
          Regards
          Teravus


          On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Adams, Robert <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

              > ...
              > According to [2], the maximum reported scripting collision 
contacts is 8.
              >
              > Testing with 8 on Wright Plaza today in the Tuesday meeting 
seemed to greatly reduce physics scene time compared to
              > previously without any apparent loss of required fidelity (50ms 
with 18 avatars, albeit mostly sitting down -
              > unfortunately I didn't record previous week's numbers but they 
were higher.  Nebadon tested one of his vehicles).

             Looking at the code, contacts_per_collision is the number of 
collision points reported by ODE for each collision --
             like a prim sitting on rough terrain and touching multiple places 
on the ground. Reducing the count to 8 means that
             no more than 8 contact points will be reported by ODE and, if 
there are more, you can't be sure you get the 'best' ones.

             I suspect that most of the time there are only a few contact 
points so it doesn't make sense that reducing the
             number from 80 to 8 would significantly reduce the compute time. 
If it is the number of contact points causing the
             computation overhead then ODE must be normally returning more than 
8 contact points. Is this really the case? Or is
             something else going on?

             -- ra
             _______________________________________________
             Opensim-dev mailing list

             [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
             https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev 





          _______________________________________________
          Opensim-dev mailing list
          [email protected]
          https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev




        -- 
        Justin Clark-Casey (justincc)
        http://justincc.org/blog
        http://twitter.com/justincc

        _______________________________________________
        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
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

Reply via email to