[ODE] Constraint theorizing
Henri Hakl
henri at cs.sun.ac.za
Sun Feb 23 04:58:01 2003
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_023C_01C2DB44.231234D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi :)
...this goes out to all those that actually know/understand the theory =
behind constraint-based physics (not me).
I was just wondering, if there is a theoretical reason why all the =
physics are computed into one giant contraint matrix.
Consider the following simple generic case:
The floor, and 2 boxes falling onto it. The boxes are quite far apart =
and won't even come remotely close to touching each other.
Instead of solving the constraints in one (for argument's sake) 20x20 =
matrix, why not use two 10x10 matrices that handle the boxes seperately?
Mathematically it is much faster to solve for two 10x10 matrices, rather =
then one 20x20 matrix. Is it that difficult to determine which objects =
are sufficiently independent to warrant a seperate constraint matrix? I =
think not.
Anybody willing to shoot this idea down?
Henri
------=_NextPart_000_023C_01C2DB44.231234D0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hi :)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>...this goes out to all those that =
actually=20
know/understand the theory behind constraint-based physics (not=20
me).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I was just wondering, if there is a =
theoretical=20
reason why all the physics are computed into one giant contraint=20
matrix.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Consider the following simple generic=20
case:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The floor, and 2 boxes falling onto it. =
The boxes=20
are quite far apart and won't even come remotely close to touching each=20
other.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Instead of solving the constraints in =
one (for=20
argument's sake) 20x20 matrix, why not use two 10x10 matrices that =
handle the=20
boxes seperately?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Mathematically it is much faster to =
solve for two=20
10x10 matrices, rather then one 20x20 matrix. Is it that difficult =
to=20
determine which objects are sufficiently independent to warrant a =
seperate=20
constraint matrix? I think not.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Anybody willing to shoot this idea=20
down?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Henri</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_023C_01C2DB44.231234D0--