Page 1 of 28 123 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 559
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    334

    GSoC 2012 - Bullet Integration

    Hi blender people,

    My name is Sergej Reich and I'm working on integrating bullet natively into blender.
    You can take a look at the proposal to get an idea of what I'm aiming at:
    http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Us...C2012/Proposal

    I also made a TODO list that's a mixture of bugs I want to fix and features I want to implement in the near future:
    http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Us.../GSoC2012/todo
    It's in no way complete of course an I'll be adding to (and removing from) this list all the time.

    Right now I'm working on implementing point cache for the rigid body simulation. I's one of the more important tasks that takes time but unfortunately there is not much interesting I can show right now.

    However I've been working on stabilizing the code in the past month and would really appreciate bug reports (especially reproducible crashes).
    You can find the current state of the code in Joshua's git branch:
    https://gitorious.org/~aligorith/blenderprojects/aligoriths-blender/commits/BulletDev
    It would be cool if someone could make builds for others to test.



  2. #2
    Hi sergof!
    will it be available without blender game engine?
    Last edited by dddjef; 21-May-12 at 05:35.



  3. #3
    Member lsscpp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    1,093
    Originally Posted by dddjef View Post
    Hi sergof!
    will it be available without blender game engine?
    2 clicks away from his link: http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Us...C2012/Proposal
    Everything's relative. Even saying "Everything's relative".



  4. #4
    Member Psy-Fi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Posts
    869
    This is a great project, good luck



  5. #5
    Thanks lsscpp



  6. #6
    Member IamInnocent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Montreal, Qc, Canada
    Posts
    2,749
    This will be most useful. Thank you for undertaking this.
    -----------------------------------------------
    If you never break any rule then the rules will break you.



  7. #7
    Member aermartin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    stockholm , sweden
    Posts
    2,886
    don't have to go through the clumsy process of running their simulations inside blenders game engine.
    sounds good! exactly what's needed.

    ...when we have a stable base.
    also good, I'm not that into C code, but will you make a kind of blender C API towards bulletphysics C. so when they [bulletphysics codes] updates with new features or renames function you can just fix the Blender C API to re-route and make it very robust and extensible? it might confuse though people similar with bulletphysics but new to blender code. other hand blender will be more stable and don't change so much for us similar to blender.

    ideal scenario when they [bulletphysics coders] release a new version we can have it updated fast in blender.

    Regarding all that what version will get into blender? http://bulletphysics.org/wordpress/?p=340 has some OpenCL acc. done! on the GPU. (much much much more than I've though they would put into bullet before 3.X versions. mainly thanks to that guy Takahiro Harada it's running pretty much 100% on GPU)

    btw. you're GSoC is kinda my favorite in the list of stuf going to be worked on this GsoC.

    Thank you very much for doing this! and congrats for the GSoC funding!



  8. #8
    Member aermartin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    stockholm , sweden
    Posts
    2,886
    investigate bullets multi-threading support
    cool cool but if they gets it to run on GPU it will outperform CPU multi threading anyday. and official statement is that by 3.X it will be running on GPU but already the newest version seems 100% ready for OpenCL.

    best case would be using newest bullet for integration.

    demolition/fracturing
    there are some python scripts, that does it. but python being python. a C API function to call from scripts to fracture would be way faster! and cooler. hope you get the time to do this.



  9. #9
    Member bashi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Bern, Switzerland
    Posts
    969
    Great Project!

    osx build here.

    "My focus will be on making something that is usable and reliable not adding a lot of shiny features" - Definitely the right approach.

    This GPU integration would be awesome. Working a lot with Simulations - my mouth is getting wet ;-)

    Thank you for your work on this.

    (I'm still dreaming of combine all sorts of simulations, like (fluid)particles with rigid-body with smoke and so on. But that's another Topic ;-)
    bwide.wordpress.com - Free NodePack, 70+ Cycles + Compositor
    Happy Destruction with: Bullet Constraints Tools



  10. #10
    hi, features you are proposing inside gsoc time are great!
    and good to see you've been already working on this with alligorith
    best luck, I'm sure this will be a popular project



  11. #11
    Member bupla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    France
    Posts
    476
    It's great to see you keep on working Aligorith's GSOC, a very cool project.
    Thanks for the build, bashi.



  12. #12
    Great proposal! I hope this will be in trunk after the project.

    Thanks and Good Luck sergof.



  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    334
    Thank you all for the nice responses!
    I'll answer the questions below.

    Originally Posted by aermartin View Post
    also good, I'm not that into C code, but will you make a kind of blender C API towards bulletphysics C. so when they [bulletphysics codes] updates with new features or renames function you can just fix the Blender C API to re-route and make it very robust and extensible? it might confuse though people similar with bulletphysics but new to blender code. other hand blender will be more stable and don't change so much for us similar to blender.
    We have to write a C-API anyway since blender is written in C and bullet is C++.
    However bullet's API doesn't really change, the reason we use a somewhat outdated version is probably because nobody bothered to update it (for whatever reason).

    ideal scenario when they [bulletphysics coders] release a new version we can have it updated fast in blender.

    Regarding all that what version will get into blender? http://bulletphysics.org/wordpress/?p=340 has some OpenCL acc. done! on the GPU. (much much much more than I've though they would put into bullet before 3.X versions. mainly thanks to that guy Takahiro Harada it's running pretty much 100% on GPU)
    I hope we can use the latest version.
    But you'll have to be patient with the GPU stuff though. I know it's flashy but it's just not ready yet. When bullet 3.x gets released I'll look into it of course.

    btw. you're GSoC is kinda my favorite in the list of stuf going to be worked on this GsoC.

    Thank you very much for doing this! and congrats for the GSoC funding!
    I'm flattered

    Originally Posted by aermartin View Post
    cool cool but if they gets it to run on GPU it will outperform CPU multi threading anyday. and official statement is that by 3.X it will be running on GPU but already the newest version seems 100% ready for OpenCL.
    Originally Posted by bashi View Post
    This GPU integration would be awesome. Working a lot with Simulations - my mouth is getting wet ;-)
    It's not that simple unfortunately.
    You cannot just flip a switch and have multi-threading.
    There are many issues that need to be resolved first (Does it run on all platforms? Does it support all the features we need? Are there any bugs? ...) so it will be done towards the end of the project when everything else works reliably.

    It's pretty much the same for the GPU stuff and as I mentioned above it's just not ready yet so we'll have to wait for bullet on that.
    I want it to be as fast as possible of course but stability always comes first.

    Originally Posted by aermartin View Post
    there are some python scripts, that does it. but python being python. a C API function to call from scripts to fracture would be way faster! and cooler. hope you get the time to do this.
    We have a couple of people that work on this stuff so hopefully one of them will pick this up but if nobody else does it I'll work on it eventually. Having a streamlined workflow for this is really important to me.

    Originally Posted by bashi View Post
    (I'm still dreaming of combine all sorts of simulations, like (fluid)particles with rigid-body with smoke and so on. But that's another Topic ;-)
    Yeah maybe it can be done as part of Lukas Tönne's particle node work but it will definitely have to wait after GSoC.
    Also thanks for the build bashi



  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    1,862
    Originally Posted by sergof View Post
    We have a couple of people that work on this stuff so hopefully one of them will pick this up but if nobody else does it I'll work on it eventually. Having a streamlined workflow for this is really important to me.
    Not sure if its possible during your GSOC, but it would be sweet if you could add in a fracturing option on each mesh... so that if it receives a force greater then a certain amount it fractures accordingly, based on where the force is....



  15. #15
    Thank you so much for doing this work, may the branch prosper!



  16. #16
    Member aermartin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    stockholm , sweden
    Posts
    2,886
    @sergof nice to hear! no I know multi-threading isn't so easy. Thanks for your endeavors and I agree. Let the bulletphysics team sort that out and you focus on blender integration. I'm super happy if you manage just to get latest version in and make it so you guys can keep update phase with bullet. That in itself would be such a huge +1 interwebs for this GSoC project.

    Can't wait until bulletphysics 3.0 is out and this GSoC is over it's gonna be so awesome!



  17. #17
    Donating Member arexma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    4,797
    You got me with:

    Project Details My focus will be on making something that is usable and reliable not adding a lot of shiny features, those can be done afterwards when we have a stable base.
    Good stuff.

    @OpenCL:
    What version of Bullet are you going to integrate? AFAIK Bullet 2.8 has OpenCL support already at least for rigid body simulations it's fully supported IIRC.
    My superpower? Common sense. It seems so rare these days, it has to be a superpower..
    "Computers are like Old Testament gods; lots of rules and no mercy.” - Joseph Campbell



  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    334
    Originally Posted by doublebishop View Post
    Not sure if its possible during your GSOC, but it would be sweet if you could add in a fracturing option on each mesh... so that if it receives a force greater then a certain amount it fractures accordingly, based on where the force is....
    I mentioned this in my proposal.
    It would be neat to have a system that breaks objects dynamically controlled by material properties. However it's not trivial to implement and is definitely out of the scope for this years GSoC.
    I might get to implement breakable constraints however, they would allow pieces to stick together and only break apart when a strong enough force acts on them.



  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    334
    Originally Posted by arexma View Post
    @OpenCL:
    What version of Bullet are you going to integrate? AFAIK Bullet 2.8 has OpenCL support already at least for rigid body simulations it's fully supported IIRC.
    I'll be using the latest bullet version.
    While there is OpenCL code in 2.80 it's still experimental and not really ready to use. I said it before, we'll have to wait for 3.x.



  20. #20
    Sorry to ask but honestly, I'm a bit confused.
    The Bullet GSOC project is really great don't get me wrong but why can't we just start with what Phymec started with. ( for those who wonder what I'm talking about, just google/Youtube Phymec bullet physics)

    I mean the code seam well advanced with what we can see on all his youtube vids he made it just seem to need some tweaking and some blender integration I guess (some user friendly interface possibly).

    Is it because no one is able to contact him? That would explain it all but it would be a shame to waste all this coding.

    Just asking.



Page 1 of 28 123 11 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •