home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- >Larry Shultz wrote:
- >
- >> Actually the math is the easiest part when programming this type of
- >> simulation. The math for gravity, mass, acceleration etc. has been
- >> well understood for years.
- >
- >The *theory* has been well understood for 300 years, but don't forget
- >that Newton had to invent calculus to express it. For any but the most
- >contrived problems, the calculations are not trivial. On top of that,
- >we're talking about doing them *in reverse*. Ideally, the animator
- >wants to be able to specify initial and final positions as constraints
- >and allow the computer to figure out what dynamics are required. The
- >numerical techniques for doing that haven't really been invented yet.
- >
- >- Ernie
-
- My experience with programming 3D transformations and some dynamics is the the math USUALLY is
- the easier part. Much of the math for more specialized routines is widely available in siggraph
- proceedings or books that can be picked up in bookstores. Implementing the math in a user
- friendly fashion, in my experience, takes up most of the programming time.
- Larry Shultz
-
-
-