Subject: [boost] [gsoc-2013] Physics Library Abstraction Layer
From: Preston Hamlin (prestonwhamlin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-04-10 21:08:48
Hello, my name is Preston Hamlin and I am a current CS undergraduate at the
Florida State University.
I was reading over the list of ideas provided and then referenced the
source code libraries to get a feel for what was being asked for.
I found the prospect of writing an abstraction layer for PhysX or related
libraries to be interesting. I am somewhat familiar with THREE.js which is
an abstraction of WebGL. In THREE.js there is a heavy amount of abstraction
to the degree of providing geometric primitives, particles effect presets,
simple materials and basic data structures (matrices, vectors, etc...).
Given the platform that THREE.js operates on, such a degree is
understandable. How much of the physics library is to be abstracted away in
generic structures and functions?
I would think that having a few simple primitives (cube, low-poly sphere,
etc...) would be required since they are commonly used. However more
advanced meshes like a torus might be better produced through using
modifiers on said primitives rather than a built-in preset. I think the
degree of abstraction is most important for modifiers, and I desire to get
a feel for what is being looked for. I assume the end goal is to be able to
produce Blender/Unity/3dsMax usable code as well as standalone utilities.