PDA

View Full Version : bullet dynamics sim 13% cpu?



gar26lw
12-05-2017, 03:09 AM
is that normal?

Lewis
12-05-2017, 04:34 AM
Hard body is Single Threaded so yeah it's "normal".

hrgiger
12-05-2017, 04:55 AM
Yep.

gar26lw
12-05-2017, 05:23 AM
yeah this aint so hot when you have a multicore. did a bit of searching and see its a common issue. thanks everyone.

@hrgiger - modo any better in this regard? i could jump across there.

hrgiger
12-05-2017, 07:02 AM
To be honest i dont use dynamics a ton so i could t give a fair comparison. It has a procedural fracture and using particles and replicators with dynamics is cool but i couldn t say if its any faster or better. I can runs a few tests later and see if it makes better use of the cpu but im guessing not.

gar26lw
12-05-2017, 07:06 AM
thats ok. thanks. i just ran a test. same as lw with 13%. blender might be better but i need to look into it more.

jwiede
12-05-2017, 09:39 AM
is that normal?

Alas, normal.

If you have LW11 and don't require the LW2015 Bullet additions, you'll discover that LW11's Bullet performance is _much_ better than LW2015's Bullet perf, so use 11 when/if you can.

gar26lw
12-05-2017, 02:04 PM
why would that be?

Sensei
12-05-2017, 02:16 PM
New features often means slower working, because they take a bit of time to handle..

erikals
12-05-2017, 02:22 PM
maybe Houdini Apprentice could be of use?
...or... maybe not... https://www.sidefx.com/forum/topic/42592

jwiede
12-05-2017, 05:53 PM
why would that be?

Combination of added functionality causing Bullet to run slower, and apparently a significant performance regression (theoretically fixed, but update never released for LW2015 customers).

gar26lw
12-06-2017, 01:22 AM
well i have found that 3ds max seems to be doing the job for what i was after. cheers.

erikals
12-06-2017, 04:15 AM
there is Advanced Placement, however i think that is faster only when using fewer objects. (sub 10000)

3dsMax is nice if one already have it.
it's a completely different App, so wouldn't compare it to LightWave in this regard.

gar26lw
12-06-2017, 04:41 AM
well, i like to do stuff in lightwave but unfortunately it’s faster/works elsewhere. this single thread thing really needs sorting outs. imho. i think light wave needs to be compared to other software to move i forward and be relevant in today’s market.
ignoring issues is not helping development and in turn, all of us.

- - - Updated - - -


Combination of added functionality causing Bullet to run slower, and apparently a significant performance regression (theoretically fixed, but update never released for LW2015 customers).

if fixed, why not release a patch/bug fix? this seems like a no brained to me to keep customers happy. madness

gamedesign1
12-06-2017, 05:26 PM
well, i like to do stuff in lightwave but unfortunately it’s faster/works elsewhere. this single thread thing really needs sorting outs. imho. i think light wave needs to be compared to other software to move i forward and be relevant in today’s market.
ignoring issues is not helping development and in turn, all of us.

- - - Updated - - -



if fixed, why not release a patch/bug fix? this seems like a no brained to me to keep customers happy. madness

I have the same issue with other features in LW. For example Catmull Clark. It has never really worked with all of the modelling tools. It has never been fixed with an update and my only option would be to buy a new version. I personally don't think thats fair as its a feature of the software I have paid for already. With the small scale projects I do, Lw2015 is great, but it has always bugged me that I can't use CC.

hrgiger
12-06-2017, 07:16 PM
I have the same issue with other features in LW. For example Catmull Clark. It has never really worked with all of the modelling tools. It has never been fixed with an update and my only option would be to buy a new version. I personally don't think thats fair as its a feature of the software I have paid for already. With the small scale projects I do, Lw2015 is great, but it has always bugged me that I can't use CC.

Catmull Clark was implemented in version 9.0 along with edges and neither one of them have ever fully worked so versions 10, 11, and 2015 all have that in common as far as not addressing the issue.

erikals
12-06-2017, 07:26 PM
they need to abandon Modeler.

then start fresh by creating the new Modeling algorithms/tools in Layout.

gamedesign1
12-07-2017, 01:31 AM
Catmull Clark was implemented in version 9.0 along with edges and neither one of them have ever fully worked so versions 10, 11, and 2015 all have that in common as far as not addressing the issue.

Thats even worse then ☹️

- - - Updated - - -



they need to abandon Modeler.
I
then start fresh by creating the new Modeling algorithms/tools in Layout.

I think thats their plan

gar26lw
12-07-2017, 05:13 AM
they need to abandon Modeler.

then start fresh by creating the new Modeling algorithms/tools in Layout.

i donít know. i find modeler to be the best part of lightwave.
iíd abandon layout. guess thatís what luxology did

hrgiger
12-07-2017, 06:25 AM
i don’t know. i find modeler to be the best part of lightwave.
i’d abandon layout. guess that’s what luxology did

No thats not at all what they did. They built a framework called Nexus and from that Modo was created. The first version of Modo only had the modeling tools but Nexus was capable of creating applications with modeling, rendering, animation, etc.... So they didnt create a modeler and start bolting stuff on top of it.

gerry_g
12-07-2017, 07:37 AM
they need to abandon Modeler, then start fresh by creating the new Modeling algorithms/tools in Layout.

Difficult to think of a worse way to model, even Unity or Unreal understand asset generation is a wholly separate function to scene setup and animation, as in it's a process you do elsewhere, yes have tools that support setup and placement fine but even in Modo I find it uncomfortable, would rather run two apps one dedicated to each.

erikals
12-07-2017, 10:18 AM
Difficult to think of a worse way to model,
i disagree. in fact, very few (even at NT) agrees to your statement.

they can make a closed environment, would solve it.

if done right, one would hardly notice the change.

however, if done wrong, yes, it will turn out clumsy.