I wonder if LumenRT can host a PE?
As physics Engine and physics simulation is very vast area to discuss, Can you please be more precise what exactly you are looking for?
which feature you wants:
dynamics of rigid bodies
dynamic constraints (ragdoll...)
soft body dynamics
Or maybe you would like to "plug" an existing physics engine in LumenRT?
Currently LumenRT can also import animation generated by Vissim (When exporting from Microstation), maybe that will solve your purpose.
please let us your thoughts on this.
Hi, I was thinking something like SpatialOS' relatively simple PE.This would enable:
1. Better agent based animations (Legion). An agent's walking speed would be able to reflect the gradient of the floor surface.
2. More realistic interpolation of plant equipment in Synchro. When the user moves a tower crane around the site, he would be able to get more realistic feedback... which would inform the time taken to move from one position to the other.
3. Collision snapping / placement of objects.
#1 is already on our roadmap this year.
#2 Not exactly we got your point on this, but yes compatibility with synchro is on our roadmap also.
#3 We already have snapping when placing object, maybe you could give us more clear picture on this point that would be very helpful for us.
1. Good to know. It would be good to use the PE in Mstn as well as LumenRT.
2. Compatibility with Synchro would be great. The way i understand Synchro works, you move objects around in 3d to different locations on the site based on where the object needs to be along the time line. A PE would be helpful as it would understand when a vehicle is on a slab and prevent it 'sinking' into the slab when moved. You end up wasting a lot of time tweaking the animation path to get it to look right. Gets really problematic when you have to deal with even a relatively modest number of objects.
2. Collision snapping / orientation would be a big productivity booster for many of the verticals that are about placing -or more aptly- constructing objects. Similar to the above cases, the ground plane would be the obvious 'base' case. A lot of 3d objects will be placed 'on' the floor or slab. Like a sofa on a floor.
It would be a lot faster to 'drop' an object onto a floor then move it into position. Current Accudraw / ACS practice is very long winded in comparison. Match floor plane by Accudraw Rotate by Element or ACS. Snap to point on the plane, place cell etc.
Better to just drag and drop onto the object from the Cell Manager or MS Explorer window onto the 'floor' or 'wall' or side of the column or beam.... like in real life.