Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: mathengine.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to mathengine.com.

Comments · 7

  1. Probably too late for this to be modded up... by Vito · · Score: 2, Interesting · on Quake II Mods for Engineering Students
    ...but I'll try anyway.

    A few years ago, working on Unrealty (an Unreal-engine based 3D walkthrough app), things like this came up. Adding solid modelling, so you could cut through character and other models and have an "inside" to work with (I think the suggestion was for dentistry simulation). Integrating a physics engine for basic engineering tests.

    Now, the latest Unreal engine tech is extremely powerful, with great physics available via MathEngine's Karma engine. Modifications and custom code and maps is anecdotally easier than with Quake * thanks to better editing tools and the UnrealScript interpreted language (and the recent fact that subtractive geometry is no longer the dominant design tool).

    I wonder, then, if an Unrealty-esque system, with better level and physics design docs, aimed at engineers and such, would garner interest? I wouldn't expect the engineers to have enough time and artistic skills both to create their own content from scratch; but they could modify physical properties of existing objects easily enough. What would have to be part of the package, both documentation- and content-wise, to make it usable? Assuming it's not much more than the stock game engine, made suitable for education use by the removal of the "game" portions.

  2. Probably too late for this to be modded up... by Vito · · Score: 2, Interesting · on Quake II Mods for Engineering Students
    ...but I'll try anyway.

    A few years ago, working on Unrealty (an Unreal-engine based 3D walkthrough app), things like this came up. Adding solid modelling, so you could cut through character and other models and have an "inside" to work with (I think the suggestion was for dentistry simulation). Integrating a physics engine for basic engineering tests.

    Now, the latest Unreal engine tech is extremely powerful, with great physics available via MathEngine's Karma engine. Modifications and custom code and maps is anecdotally easier than with Quake * thanks to better editing tools and the UnrealScript interpreted language (and the recent fact that subtractive geometry is no longer the dominant design tool).

    I wonder, then, if an Unrealty-esque system, with better level and physics design docs, aimed at engineers and such, would garner interest? I wouldn't expect the engineers to have enough time and artistic skills both to create their own content from scratch; but they could modify physical properties of existing objects easily enough. What would have to be part of the package, both documentation- and content-wise, to make it usable? Assuming it's not much more than the stock game engine, made suitable for education use by the removal of the "game" portions.

  3. Re:Joy, yet another CPU I can't afford. by Toraz+Chryx · · Score: 2 · on Intel Demos 4.7-GHz Pentium

    Internet (including e-mail, browsing and the occasional Multimedia site), Music, and Games

    You forget, games are one of the power eaters, especially now that games are starting to get moderately decent physics

  4. Re:What all 3D games are really missing by Rothron+the+Wise · · Score: 1 · on New DOOM III Shots

    Physics is infact the next big thing in gaming.

    There are several real time physics libraries out there which several game companies have licensed. Expect to see them in action in Deus Ex 2, and Doom3 (But I suspect Ids making their own phyisics package, at least I haven't heard that they've licensed one).

    The first things we'll see are objects falling over in a realistic way. Often referred to as rigid body dynamics, which is exactly what it sounds like.

    Ragdoll physics for bodies which will now tumble violantly down staircases, rest against walls instead of falling into them, etc. Realistic particle physics that will let steam and smoke move and be affected by the turbulence caused by the characters or missiles (seriously simplified, but still pretty
    darn cool)

    All these features are already in the new Unreal Engine. Also expect to see some soft body dynamics like cloth, rubber and jello for the next iteration of physics engines. The features are there already, but are currently a bit too computationally intensive for todays games.

    Some links.

    Havok
    Open Dynamics Engine
    Mathengine

  5. Re:Enough with the polygons - lets get some physic by Animats · · Score: 2 · on Nvidia's NV20
    Defining a "unified physics API" isn't that hard. Havok and Mathengine each have one. It's making the engine behind it fast and reliable that's hard. There are still tough theoretical problems in this area. But we know how to do it right; efforts now focus on getting more speed out of the algorithms. The ever-faster hardware helps.

    Did you see the claimed numerical performance for the new NVidia chip? 100 gigaflops. I can hardly wait until we have that kind of performance in the main CPU(s).

  6. physics can be offloaded to a rich API by soellman · · Score: 1 · on Simulating Cloth in CG
    Havok is an Irish company who have written a full newtonian physics engine for win32 and PS2. Their site has loads of information on it (not necessarily technical, but lots of demo movies and actual demos). They even have two demos which showcase cloth in particular.

    I've also checked out some of their competitors (mathengine, etc) and havok seems miles ahead. Unfortunately, I don't think havok supports any open source platforms.. I can't imagine they're not working on that, though.

    cheers,
    -o

  7. Correcting image distortions ... by LL · · Score: 3 · on More on the 3D DTI Monitor
    I hate to rain on anyone's parade but I suspect that 3D displays are not just a case of plonking down the hardware (and the money) and expecting Quake et al to work out of box. For an idea of the complications of correcting stereoscopic image distortions, take a look at this. There's also the added complication that VRML is undergoing a transmorgification into Web3D at the moment with all the attendent uncertainty for developers. Now let's look at the intended audience for $12K screens. You can probably count the industry sectors on a couple of hands (defense, medical, yuppies, some geospatial apps like energy exploration). Justifying such a beast for dedicated gaming would be a bit of a hard sell at that price-point. If they've managed to incorporate some 3D capability into the (H)DTV standards, it might have a chance of be taken up my mainstream media which would take the chance to create the necessary premium content, e.g. for home entertainment centres with digital cameras straight to digital projectors.

    What are the potential barriers towards adopting such a technology - better connection with kinesthetics, the intuitive match between spatial awareness and body motion - between physics models like MathsEngine to express - some killerapp vertically integrated applications to reach selected markets (like telesurgery which requires precise placement) to help bring the price-point down - software/content that supports 2-3D with the marginal effort of adding 3D smaller than marginal increase in sales

    Apart from the gee-whiz factor, a realistic look at what services would benefit most from such displays needs to be addressed, especially their willingness to cough up the money. Remember that hardware is only 10% of the total costs, ad another 20% for peripherals/support, 30% for software/operational consumables, and 40% for training. It's starting to looking expensive.

    3D will have a role but I suspect widespread star wars type holographic displays are still a way off unless a miracle occurs.

    LL