PDA

View Full Version : ODE Animation . Newtek Please integrate a good dynamic engine!!!



3DGFXStudios
05-25-2008, 12:23 PM
Hi all. I just made a dynamic test with Kevins ODEfl plugin. I think its great!!! I first tried to make it with the LW dynamics but uhhhh do I need to say more?

The plugin works fast, but it's a little buggy. I can't seem to put more than 99 dynamic balls in my scene. It crashes. But when I put around 84 in it, it calculates super fast without any problems. Why is that?

I think Newtek needs to hire Kevin (and I hope he wants to be hired by newtek) to develop a good hyperfast dynamic engine for LW. ODE is sooo cool! :D

Ztreem
05-25-2008, 03:51 PM
I agree, LW needs a new dynamics engine and for rigidbody dynamics the ODE or PhysX engine would be great. I love the ODEfL plugin by Kevin even if it has a long way to go before it's finished.

Cageman
05-25-2008, 04:16 PM
Yep...

ODEfl is a neat tool. I have yet to try the new version(s) (damn... when will I get the time?) :) but I've seen what Ztreem and others have posted in the ODEfl thread and it simply runs circles around HardFX when it comes to collisions and final result. I hope NT will concider this, because there seems to be alot to gain, very little to loose on this one!

Matt
05-26-2008, 03:04 AM
ODE doesn't do any soft stuff (cloth etc.) Which would mean NT would still need to either re-write the SoftFX side of things or find another solution. Either way, it makes sense to have one integrated solution that works with all kinds of dynamics 'types', rather than one solution for RBD, another for soft/cloth etc.

Ztreem
05-26-2008, 03:25 AM
ODE doesn't do any soft stuff (cloth etc.) Which would mean NT would still need to either re-write the SoftFX side of things or find another solution. Either way, it makes sense to have one integrated solution that works with all kinds of dynamics 'types', rather than one solution for RBD, another for soft/cloth etc.

Hey, HardFX and ClothFX doesn't play that nice together. So If we added ODE to RBD (we could still have both HardFX and ODE) it would only make LW better not the other way around. Of course the ultimate dynamics engine would support both liquid, smoke, particles, cloth and rigid body dynamics in one engine, but I don't think we'll see that in LW in a looooong time.

And for the record you can simulate softbody dynamics with ODE, I've seen a quite impressive video on the internet that did just that. Can't find it at the moment.

Ztreem
05-26-2008, 06:14 AM
The PhysX engine would be the preferd choice of a third party dynamics engine in LW, it's fast, stable and can do hardbody, softbody and liquid dynamics and can handle many 1000's of object colliding at same time in a stable manner. The only problem for newtek is that it's not cross platform, yet. So mac users would be without.
ODE is not as mature as physX, but still way ahead of HardFX and it's free and cross plattform.

Cageman
05-26-2008, 08:52 AM
The PhysX engine would be the preferd choice of a third party dynamics engine in LW, it's fast, stable and can do hardbody, softbody and liquid dynamics and can handle many 1000's of object colliding at same time in a stable manner. The only problem for newtek is that it's not cross platform, yet. So mac users would be without.
ODE is not as mature as physX, but still way ahead of HardFX and it's free and cross plattform.

And to add another HUGE benefit going for PhysX is that NVidia will incoperate PhysX-core in their graphicscards instead of selling dedicated PhysX PCI-cards...

Weetos
05-26-2008, 09:13 AM
Interesting thread, guys

I played a bit with Kevin's ODE implementation and I like it much, however the fact ODE doesn't do soft and liquid is a serious limitation.

Just wondering though, does physX requires dedicated hardware ( PPU ? ) ?
It seems it's the defacto standad nowadays, so I guess this would be the right choice for a physics engine

Ztreem
05-26-2008, 09:25 AM
Interesting thread, guys

I played a bit with Kevin's ODE implementation and I like it much, however the fact ODE doesn't do soft and liquid is a serious limitation.

Just wondering though, does physX requires dedicated hardware ( PPU ? ) ?
It seems it's the defacto standad nowadays, so I guess this would be the right choice for a physics engine

It runs very well without any hardware, it's actually not that much faster with the card if you read some reviews. You can calculate 1000's of object colliding in realtime without any hardware, that's how good it is.:thumbsup:

Weetos
05-26-2008, 09:38 AM
It runs very well without any hardware, it's actually not that much faster with the card if you read some reviews.

Cool ! didn't know that


You can calculate 1000's of object colliding in realtime without any hardware, that's how good it is.:thumbsup:

great, indeed :thumbsup: I'd love seeing that implemented in LW, but I guess this won't happen anytime soon (if ever). Even an industry standard as a dynamics solution would be a must, whatever engine better and faster than the current implementation would be a nice thing. Don't know what's the tougher task between implementing PhysX (which I guess require big bucks to get licensed) and developing a new and modern dynamics engine from the ground up ?

Anyway, I guess there's nothing to expect in that area in the 9.X cycle.

Thanks Zteem for the info :)

3DGFXStudios
05-26-2008, 05:06 PM
Implementing an engine that supports hardware physics is a dream for every animator I guess. Has anyone seen the Blender Dynamics? I heard they are good and fast to!

Titus
05-26-2008, 05:18 PM
Implementing an engine that supports hardware physics is a dream for every animator I guess. Has anyone seen the Blender Dynamics? I heard they are good and fast to!

It's fast, real time actually, a problem if you want to export the baked animation to another program, because the fps is variable. I've done experiments and there are more problems because Blender use Quaternion for transformations, I've modified the python exporter script but wasn't very lucky translating motion to LW.

Cageman
05-27-2008, 03:34 AM
It's fast, real time actually, a problem if you want to export the baked animation to another program, because the fps is variable. I've done experiments and there are more problems because Blender use Quaternion for transformations, I've modified the python exporter script but wasn't very lucky translating motion to LW.

Doesn't Blender support MDD? I'm quite sure it does, so bake to MDD and bring the motion in that way instead.

warmiak
05-27-2008, 10:34 AM
on't know what's the tougher task between implementing PhysX (which I guess require big bucks to get licensed)


PhysX is free.

Weetos
05-27-2008, 10:50 AM
PhysX is free.

You're right ! didn't know that - just visited their website (http://developer.nvidia.com/object/physx.htm) and noticed there's no macintosh support, which might be a problem if NT ever think about integrating this solution to LW...

3DGFXStudios
05-27-2008, 11:37 AM
Wow thats a SICK dynamic engine. We MUST have that one!

Mac users, go buy a PC!.........or just run windows on it ;)

Cageman
05-27-2008, 11:42 AM
I believe Crysis is using PhysX...

Sick video from Crysis...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG5qDeWHNmk&feature=related

3DGFXStudios
05-27-2008, 11:48 AM
If you see that movie its even more stressful to work with the LW hardFX.....

Weetos
05-27-2008, 12:27 PM
I believe Crysis is using PhysX...

Sick video from Crysis...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG5qDeWHNmk&feature=related

Wow now that's sick ! truely impressive, considering it's all realtime and that it requires only a modern PC, not a superdupercomputer

Weetos
05-27-2008, 12:28 PM
If you see that movie its even more stressful to work with the LW hardFX.....

LW what ? :devil: :D

3DGFXStudios
05-27-2008, 12:40 PM
I LOL'd!! :)

Ztreem
05-27-2008, 12:51 PM
It's really an amazing engine. I tested the ageia boxes demostration scene last night while rendering in LW. It performed realtime calculation with the demo that contains of 780 piled boxes and you throw balls on and everything collides with each other. It managed to do this in realtime even while I was listening to mp3 music in mediaplayer and was rendering intense radiosity renderings on both my cores.
If it's free, I don't see why newtek wouldn't include this engine in LW.

Clockmaster
05-27-2008, 01:03 PM
The PhysX engine would be the preferd choice of a third party dynamics engine in LW

Ztreem is right, PhysX seems the right choice to me too.
On Youtube you can see it in action: it's far more realistic than other physical engines.
And it's faster, too.

Look at these (old):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dviWZcphcIQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8LpC0rrUC8
pretty nice, no?

Someone knows about any 3rd party plugin that integrates Ageia PhysX into Lightwave?

prospector
05-27-2008, 02:01 PM
If it's free, I don't see why newtek wouldn't include this engine in LW.
me neither


Look at these (old):

Was that the LW COW ????

3DGFXStudios
05-27-2008, 02:09 PM
I guess witch idiot doesn't want it to be integrated?!

Cageman
05-27-2008, 02:19 PM
As far as I know, Liquid pack (plugin for LW) is using this engine to handle the massive flow of particles needed in order to turn HyperVoxels into something that actually looks like fluid.

prospector
05-27-2008, 02:25 PM
This would be NICE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o07KjfBx8GE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIT4lMqz4Sk&feature=related

That might even do hair dynamics in realtime......


PLEASE NEWTEK !!!!!

IT'S FREE fer cryin out loud

Titus
05-27-2008, 02:51 PM
Doesn't Blender support MDD? I'm quite sure it does, so bake to MDD and bring the motion in that way instead.

No it doesn't, only for import. For export the support is via .mot, but the transformations are wacked because of the quaternion-euler incompatibility.

warmiak
05-27-2008, 03:37 PM
Actually Crysis is using their own in-house physics engine ..

Clockmaster
05-27-2008, 04:52 PM
Off Topic


Was that the LW COW ????

Yes, it is...

RedBull
05-27-2008, 05:01 PM
No it doesn't, only for import. For export the support is via .mot, but the transformations are wacked because of the quaternion-euler incompatibility.

I use a .MDD exporter for Blender quite often... :)

Also we already have ODE, via Kevin and PhysX has been available as a plugin with CUDA support for ages... It seems both of the major physics engines are already in LW.

Clockmaster
05-27-2008, 06:51 PM
Also we already have ODE, via Kevin and PhysX has been available as a plugin with CUDA support for ages... It seems both of the major physics engines are already in LW.
Can you explain this better? What plug-in/s I need to have PhysX in Lightwave?

warmiak
05-27-2008, 07:28 PM
I think he's referring to this:

http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71039

Clockmaster
05-27-2008, 08:09 PM
Ok, that's for the liquids simulation.
But Rigid/Soft body dynamics, and cloth effects, are still missing.

Titus
05-28-2008, 01:23 AM
I use a .MDD exporter for Blender quite often... :)

Are you nice enough to point me where the .MDD exporter is? thank you.

Even with this solution, how do you solve the problem of baked variable FPS in the game/physics engine?

Titus
05-28-2008, 01:42 AM
Ok, I found the .mdd exporter. Now need to know how to figure the second problem.

Matt
05-28-2008, 01:56 AM
As great as it is, I can't see NT using the PhysX engine anytime soon, love to be wrong, but the lack of Mac support is a big stumbling block.

Ztreem
05-28-2008, 02:21 AM
+1 :devil:

AbnRanger
05-28-2008, 03:46 AM
Just abandon Mac then, it always seems to be the weakest link when trying to push technology and keep platform consistency :D :devil: :hey: *ouch*
:help:Imagine how much further LW would be if it only had to develop for one platform. :neener:
<<Ducks for cover>>

Dodgy
05-28-2008, 04:19 AM
LW possibly isn't that far away from a physx implementation. Ino, the guy who wrote all the Fx, wrote the liquid plugin (from dstorm) which uses physx, and can use physx enabled cards to accelerate it. So he could presumably port the rest with his experience.

Anti-Distinctly
05-28-2008, 04:23 AM
Like I said before it needs to be integrated neatly, so I'd like an in-house solution really :)

3DGFXStudios
05-28-2008, 04:26 AM
LW possibly isn't that far away from a physx implementation. Ino, the guy who wrote all the Fx, wrote the liquid plugin (from dstorm) which uses physx, and can use physx enabled cards to accelerate it. So he could presumably port the rest with his experience.

Lets hope so. Then LW is finally good at something. (again) It's good for the image !!!

warmiak
05-28-2008, 04:56 AM
Well, actually having PhysX as the main physics implementation wouldn't be optimal for an off-line renderer like Lightwave.
If you are going to write an engine that is supposed to run 50 frames per second , you are going to cut a lot of corners

Weetos
05-28-2008, 04:57 AM
I guess they plan on doing something about the dynamics for LW10, and what Dodgy said might be the plan. Sounds quite logical. However NT could also think that current dynamics are good for *cough*very*cough* simple projects, and suggest a dedicated software of third party solution for higher requirements.

I'm no programmer, but I guess that Physics may also be "easily" ported to the Mac intel platform, hence still being an option for LW. Now the question would be, if this is "that" easy, why DStorm's Liquid Pack hasn't been made available to Mac users ?

warmiak
05-28-2008, 05:06 AM
I'm no programmer, but I guess that Physics may also be "easily" ported to the Mac intel platform, hence still being an option for LW. Now the question would be, if this is "that" easy, why DStorm's Liquid Pack hasn't been made available to Mac users ?


Most likely because he had no access the source code.

Weetos
05-28-2008, 05:07 AM
Well, actually having PhysX as the main physics implementation wouldn't be optimal for an off-line renderer like Lightwave.
If you are going to write an engine that is supposed to run 50 frames per second , you are going to cut a lot of corners

Valid point. simulating physics in real time is one thing, calculating and baking deformations, positions and all in a 3D package is a completely different one. But even if the calculation is not real time (because of all that LW has to do during the calc (IK, sudDiv, etcaetera)) this could still be more accurate and stable than the current dynamics solution, no?

Also, this makes me wonder one thing : When you setting up a simulation in LW, you should obtain the same result each time you run the calc, because it doesn't seem to have random things (chaos) in the algorithm. Does PhysX work the same way?

Weetos
05-28-2008, 05:09 AM
Most likely because he had no access the source code.
Makes sense. So it's up to Ageia, then ?

Ztreem
05-28-2008, 05:19 AM
Makes sense. So it's up to Ageia, then ?

No, it's up to nvidia.

warmiak
05-28-2008, 05:19 AM
Makes sense. So it's up to Ageia, then ?

Yeah.
In any case, attempting to port something as complicated as PhysX is not exactly a weekend job.

warmiak
05-28-2008, 05:25 AM
Given that they already have a working ( I think beta ) version of the library for Linux , it wouldn't be that much more work to get this working on OS X.

DarkLight
05-29-2008, 07:38 AM
If anyone wants to try porting the PhysX source code over to the mac then it's only $50K to license the source code!
http://developer.nvidia.com/object/physx.htm

Clockmaster
05-29-2008, 02:43 PM
In any case, the MAC porting should not slow down the eventuality of an integration into the windows version.
PC software development should not be damaged by the Apple isolation policy.

Cageman
05-29-2008, 02:53 PM
To be totaly honest here, I really don't understand why Mac-users wouldn't get a cheap PC to run LW on for the things that may take time (or even not surface) on OSX?

Call it a "chep PC for the retarded things" if that makes anyone feel better for getting access to ALL goodness that comes to LW...

Just a thought...

(duck and cover)

warmiak
05-30-2008, 06:43 PM
Then there the absolute champion when it comes to real time physical simulation.

NJow available for free for noncommercial use.
http://tryhavok.intel.com/

3DGFXStudios
05-31-2008, 07:51 AM
This is a funny one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s04V29UnYI

I looked at some Havok hard dynamic movies but didn't like it very much. It a looked like it was moving to slow!?

Ztreem
05-31-2008, 12:17 PM
Then there the absolute champion when it comes to real time physical simulation.

NJow available for free for noncommercial use.
http://tryhavok.intel.com/

So why is Havok better then PhysX?
I havn't seen any examples that shows that it is.

Clockmaster
05-31-2008, 02:22 PM
Sorry, Warmiak, but Havok Physics simply can't match Ageia PhysX.
Denying that is denying evidence.

warmiak
05-31-2008, 02:51 PM
Havok is by far preferred over PhysX.
In fact its market share is about the same as Microsoft ( Havok being Microsoft and PhysX Apple)

It is more mature , faster and simply better.
There is a reason that Havok being an expensive and very much commercial engine, still commands this sort of lead even when faces with free competitors like PhysX or other physics engines.

At this point it is basically an industry standard.

Clockmaster
05-31-2008, 03:06 PM
It is more mature , faster and simply better.
But, strangely, when you look at PhysX simulations, objects behaves like reality, when you look at Havok ones, no.
Guess why...


At this point it is basically an industry standard.
Actually NVidia doesn't think so, since with CUDA they are integrating Ageia PhysX into GPUs. This clearly means that the future standard will be PhysX.

warmiak
05-31-2008, 03:16 PM
Intel bought Havok .. Nvidia bought PhysX.

I am not saying PhysX is useless .. I have used it and it is very , very nice.

It is just at this point Havok is the innovator in this market - they already have an implementation that works with majority of graphics cards ( using their power for computations) something that Nvidia is just working on.

Of course, you never know, the new implementation of PhysX might end up being very competitive and things might change very quickly.

Ztreem
05-31-2008, 03:54 PM
Just because it's widely used or referd to as industry standard doesn't mean that it's better, just my humble opinion.
Maybe it's just been in the game a longer time then NovodeX-Ageia-Nvidia physX ?
I don't know, but I know that the most common systems used is not always the best ones.

archijam
05-31-2008, 04:54 PM
It is just at this point Havok is the innovator in this market -

Have you seen this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o07KjfBx8GE)?

Is Havok innovating in rt liquid simulations?

Freid
05-31-2008, 04:54 PM
Hi,

My two cents :
Unity3d the awesome 3d engine which works on macs (and publish almost every plateforms) uese ageia physX.

http://unity3d.com/unity/

Freid

warmiak
05-31-2008, 07:05 PM
Have you seen this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o07KjfBx8GE)?

Is Havok innovating in rt liquid simulations?

Well, there are better options to check out Havok .... go rent Poseidon or perhaps Troy, Kingdom of Heaven, The Matrix ... they all used Havok in one way or another ... not to mention about 150 games.

Anyway, both of them are good.

NAS
05-31-2008, 07:14 PM
Industry standard is a term that has always ammused me
I am mainly in the audio world and for years Akai samplers where the industry standard and in DAWs Protools is the industry standard
In reality both where and are total over hyped sh!te

Having said that Havok is very nice :)

NAS

AbnRanger
06-01-2008, 09:41 PM
For what it's worth, Cebas (makers of finalRender, my personal favorite) recently released Thinking Particles 3 (for Max) and it has not only it's own dynamics system built in, but also implements support for Ageia PhysX cards.
http://cebas.com/products/feature.php?UD=10-7888-33-788&PID=15&FID=627
http://cebas.com/products/products.php?UD=10-7888-33-788&PID=15
http://cebas.com/news/read.php?UD=10-7888-33-788&NID=303

This would be a GREAT system for Newtek to model it's next generation of particles and dynamics after, using PhysX and a nodal system for it's particles. PLUS... you get instancing to boot!

3DGFXStudios
06-02-2008, 07:49 AM
Oooo,sweeeeet!! That's what we want!

warmiak
06-02-2008, 09:25 AM
PLUS... you get instancing to boot!

Instancing should really shine on DirectX 10 class hardware which provides explicit and optimized support for this.
Hopefully Lightwave guys are looking into it as well.

Ztreem
06-02-2008, 10:51 AM
For what it's worth, Cebas (makers of finalRender, my personal favorite) recently released Thinking Particles 3 (for Max) and it has not only it's own dynamics system built in, but also implements support for Ageia PhysX cards.
http://cebas.com/products/feature.php?UD=10-7888-33-788&PID=15&FID=627
http://cebas.com/products/products.php?UD=10-7888-33-788&PID=15
http://cebas.com/news/read.php?UD=10-7888-33-788&NID=303

This would be a GREAT system for Newtek to model it's next generation of particles and dynamics after, using PhysX and a nodal system for it's particles. PLUS... you get instancing to boot!

I wouldn't mind a new particle system like thinking particles.:thumbsup: