Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc-2013] Physics Library Abstraction Layer
From: Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. (jeffrey.hellrung_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-04-12 01:44:51
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Michael Marcin <mike.marcin_at_[hidden]>wrote:
> Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
>> What do you mean by "colliders"? You mean rigid bodies? Or something more
> Sorry my physics is a bit rusty, I'm not sure.
> A rigid body in Unity at least (which uses PhysX under the hood) typically
> has a collider.
> I believe collision primitives is what most libraries call what I was
> talking about.
> See newton for instance:
> This sounds like you're focusing the scope of this on rigid body
>> simulations, which is fine, just that, ya know, there's quite a bit more
>> physics simulation engines :)
>>  http://physbam.stanford.edu/
> I've never heard of physbam before but looking over it I think it has a
> similar set of abstractions to most of the other physics libraries I've
> come across.
> Formalizing these shared aspects into concepts and creating an elegant
> interface with multiple backend bindings is what I would hope a boost
> physics library would accomplish.
Hmmm...this sounds like you have something similar to Boost.Multiprecision
in mind. Is that accurate?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk