Momentum Physics Engine

OK I know you might have grown tired of this style of threads but anyways was just looking at the bullet’s site and found a video of this physics engine which looks super cool to me :-
http://exocortex.com/simulation/momentum

I wish blender had something as fast ;p Is there no way we can plug it in blender?:confused:

Bullet is a pretty powerful engine already you should see the games and movies the engine has been used in its an impressive list. I think a lot more could be done with bullet in Blender than is currently done so there is scope for improvement and the good part is you don’t have to shell out $200 to use bullet

I didn’t see much if anything there that Blender’s bullet physics won’t do, honestly.

fyi:

"Momentum relies upon the industrial strength game multiphysics simulation library Bullet…

…The power of Bullet’s simulation is now available to Softimage users for the first time with Exocortex Momentum 2.0"

Haha. Problem solved I guess. (It’s even on the Bullet frontpage) It costs like 200$ for just a personal license, 2000$ for a commercial license (As I understand it), so I won’t be getting it anyway.

Also: This is a great example of how good marketing can make something look really good (Even with such a bad site!).

well they have probably spent time integrating it with XSI and stuf, making UI and custom interactions. but basically all could be done for blender also as FOSS.

bullet physics was on it’s way into the viewport for animation, aligorith had a gsoc’10 I believe, I hope it’s [his branch] is just sitting there and waiting to merge in 2.6… saw some really neat animations done with it.

it’s not that super expensive, for those who buys it I hope the team behind momentum get some time to develop and contribute back to bullet physics, in that way us using foss will benefit from it in the end also.

Basically, this is just a really good intergration system, not an Engine in it’s own right. (BTW, I know that moosebites beat me to it. Just felt like repeating).

There is no reason that you would even need it in my opinion. And the worst thing is that their video doesn’t even have suzanne it!

I dont mean “Replace bullet with this”.

As he quoted form the page its based on bullet itself but its much faster, if u see the bottom of video it says “All simulations in this video run at interactive frame rate” thats what caought my attention :slight_smile:
Excuse me for my n00bism in internal architecture of blender (aswell as any other 3d program) but is it possible to so something like plug in any physics engine and use it? (like render engines export scripts). dont really feel that can happen but anyways what wrong in asking a question :stuck_out_tongue:

Yup absolutely true! I missed that too. Teapots could have filled in the missing feel. :slight_smile: but they did not bother :frowning:

OK I know you might have grown tired of this style of threads

No , I can’t get tired of these kinds of threads >_< ,

what would kick bullets behind, is PhysBAM maybe not at interactive framerates but besides, you cant have water/smoke sim in game engine afaik.

but it would rock.

could GPU be used for simulations in the future? or is it only for rendering?

yup it can be used, Nvidia’s PhysX is a clear example. I think some part of bullet already uses that.

Wow hat physBAM is cool! ^.^
I wish we had some feature to plug em all in…

nvidia has a smoke sim and a fluid sim working on GPU, only problem it’s nvidia only… noone in their right mind would invest in anythin that but cross platform.

regarding , even if you wrote THE most awesome C or CUDA or C++ physics engine, you still would have to i/o to blender via a python api.

imagine having a ferrari, and it’s awesome to run on the streets, then you come home to the carport and it’s a woden door 1x2m … that’s the current blender api

the devs have been investigating having a C++ api, only thing is that

if you write shit code in python, it breaks, it doesn’t crash your computer.

if you have a c++ api, and write shit code, it will break your OS … and crash.

that’s the dilemma.

the future , with render api is having a small group managing the i/o in C/c++ from blender… then render engines and physics engine will play nice.

any faulty or buggy one will crash the almost “stable” 2.58 blender :slight_smile:

in 2.6 we’ll prolly see a render api in both python and c++

Modern SO (for sure win and linux, i imagine even osx since it is unix) have memory space protection, so it’s quite difficult to make them crash, they just close the application. Btw can i know where you got this informations about the c/c++ api(except from the render one)? I’m quite curious about it, but never heard of it, neither in the mailing list…
Btw bullet is well known, is actively developed, is production ready, and it is open source, i think it is the winning library, the “problem” is that blender doesn’t support all the cool stuff it can do(yet). So, before integrating something else, i thing is better to integrate completely bullet inside blender. (openCL bullet is being developed)

Does bullet support multiphysics?

Yes it does. In fact, here is a quote from google code:

Bullet quickly became my favorite physics engine (along with Newton). It is easy to set up and I really like the modern C++ API.

Slightly OT:
First : as already stated, dynlibs can crash but won’t tear down your system, just the app.

Second : About the wooden door. It is really only a matter of how you design you api. Python can be used as a glue just to connect together pieces of C[++] code mainly by passing around function pointers. Once these pointers are passed around, it’s C talking to C (+ some dll overhead), no more Python. It’s like running the streets with your ferrarri (with the vroum, the sun, the wind, the mosquitos on the windshield and the people staring at you) without ever really leaving your house.

Third : The site says the simulations run at interactive frame rates, not the renderings :slight_smile:

Dani