[ODE] Updating ODE documentation (was: hello world)

[Shaul Kedem]

Hi all,
 well, it seems I didn't make my point strong enough..

 I don't think less formulation in the documentation
is good, but on the other hand I think learning by
example and documenting things (as in Erwin's DX
example) will hurt anyone. perhaps it wasn't the right
thread, since this one began with Raul who wanted to
write mathematically oriented documentation.

 An example of a tool in which there are varying
levels of usage is OpenGL. on one hand, it can be
viewed as a complicated set of mathematical equations
but on the other hand reading the Red Book (without
the math appendixes) is enough for anyone who wants to
use OpenGL as a tool. Erwin stated that he was able to
play around with the system after some code hacking,
this is great - but what stops us from entering it
into the documentation? So you see - maybe ODE can be
used as a tool by some people and as a rigid-dynamics
lab by others?

I hope I didn't offend anyone by stating that I am a
mere programmer...

shul

--- Erwin de Vries <erwin at vo.com> wrote:
> > >  First, using formulas or textual
> representations of
> > > the formulas will get the mathematics - oriented
> > > people to understand what is going on, but what
> about
> > > the programmers who wants to use ODE as a tool?
> >
> > But those programmers who will successfully use
> ODE are "mathematics
> > oriented people"!  The others will fail no matter
> how simple you make the
> > documentation.  In fact, if the docs talk down to
> them, they won't have an
> > opportunity to learn either.
> 
> I wouldnt consider myself a "mathematics oriented
> person", yet i was able to
> fiddle around with the properties to get it working.
> It would've been a
> great help if the docs would have contained
> explanations of how to use
> certain values. Our gameplay is not perfect. Perhaps
> its just a very small
> number we need to change somewhere to get much
> improved gameplay. But how
> should i know?
> 
> > >  Second, such names as "coefficient of
> restitution"
> > > and not "bounce" are OK for people with english
> -
> > > based physics knowledge but who ever learned
> physics
> > > (in high school) using another language will
> have to
> > > go and discover that "coefficient of
> restitution" is
> > > actually "bounce" of some sort.
> >
> > I am Hungarian, and I know what it is.  Plus,
> there is this thing called a
> > 'dictionary'.  In fact, if you do a search on
> "coefficient of restitution"
> > w. google, you get a zillion definitions and you
> can then learn all about
> > it.
> 
> Have a look at the Glossary in the DX SDK.
> 
> I quote: "alpha channel  - The opacity of an image
> defined by an alpha value
> per pixel interleaved with the color components (for
> example, ARGB), an
> alpha value per pixel stored in a separate alpha
> surface, or a constant
> alpha value for the entire surface."
> 
> Everyone intending to use DX for rendering better
> should know this, but it
> is included anyway. Why? Ease of use. Obviously Russ
> has better things to do
> with his time than write docs, so he doesnt do this.
> 
> > >  Basic understanding of rigid body dynamics and
> other
> > > terms is an important step in bringing more
> people
> > > into the area of physics engines.
> >
> > Exactly, which is why we need exact and accurate
> documentation.
> 
> I'm looking forward to it!
> 
> Erwin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ODE mailing list
> ODE at q12.org
> http://q12.org/mailman/listinfo/ode


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1