[ODE] 2d system

[John DeWeese]

      __GUARANTEED__

And it will be called "O2DE".
With an irrational version number of 1/300.
This places it slightly behind the current ODE in functionality.
Except for the included iterative solver.

   - John DeWeese             (An April fool :)

On Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 12:16 PM, <david@csworkbench.com> wrote:

> I don't know about "guaranteed" to be easier than ODE to implement.  
> Sure,
> there's a few less possible joints since there's only 3 degrees of
> freedom, but all the rest of the internal work would still be the same,
> just on a smaller (and therefore more efficient) matrix.  That is 
> assuming
> you took the same approach at the problem as ODE does.  The only thing 
> you
> wouldn't need to implement would be amotors and ball joints, and maybe
> hinge2's.  But you'd probably want to keep hinge2's in there and 
> convert
> the turning axis to a suspension slider only.
>
> David
>
>> This question popped up on the list a few weeks ago and fizzled out
>> quickly (DOH).
>>
>> http://q12.org/pipermail/ode/2003-March/003616.html
>>
>> and the replies...
>> http://q12.org/pipermail/ode/2003-March/003619.html
>> http://q12.org/pipermail/ode/2003-March/003620.html
>>
>> I haven't been able to find any 2D rigid-body physics software. Seems
>> that most people who want 2D physics have just written their own
>> spring-mass system with cross bars and funny integrators for 
>> stability.
>> Let me know if you find any though.
>>
>> Anyway, it wouldn't make much sense to insert 2D functionality into 
>> ODE
>> as it currently stands. You'd be better off reimplementing the API in 
>> a
>> 2D-like fashion, and seeing if you can pull in the solver and other 
>> guts
>>  as well. On the bright side, it's GUARANTEED to be easier than ODE to
>> implement!
>>
>> I am interested in assisting if you pick up that challenge.
>>
>> Christopher Jefferson wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>> I would like to use ODE in a 2 dimensional system. I notice from the
>>> documentation that 2d is mentioned in the changelog but can't find it
>>> anywhere else. To simple get me started I decided to try using 
>>> spheres
>>> and cubes and set the co-ordinates appropriately. This does work at
>>> first but unsurprisingly it slowly drifts into the third dimension. I
>>> can keep forcing things back into 2d but I was wondering if there is 
>>> a
>>> better way to do this?
>>> Chris