Speed comparison

Comment

Comment by Lionel on February 10, 2015 at 6:38am

Hi Daniel,

Very impressive work ! Can you point us to a paper/name/url/ref to know a bit more about the implicit scheme you use ??

Thanks !

Lionel

Comment by Martin Siegrist on February 9, 2015 at 2:18am

Looking good! Coming soon?

Comment by Mostafa R. A. Khalifa on February 8, 2015 at 6:55am

Awesome ... I liked it ...

Comment by ng5 Alex on February 6, 2015 at 10:49am

fortunately there is an option to slow it down

Comment by Nick Tyrer on February 6, 2015 at 10:44am

And there is slight tweak to user interface? goal objects, anchor as force?

Comment by Simon Schleicher on February 5, 2015 at 9:14pm

this is great!!

Comment by to] on February 5, 2015 at 4:13pm

Really nice 

Comment by Andrew Heumann on February 5, 2015 at 3:03pm

when can we have it!? :D :D :D 

Comment by David Reeves on February 5, 2015 at 5:58am

Ah nice I suspected as much. Looking forward to reading about it. Any chance you could point me to some entry level references on the subject in the meantime?

Comment by Daniel Piker on February 5, 2015 at 5:32am

Thanks all

@David R - No, it is implicit now. I'm working on a publication about the details.

@Youngjae - 11 hours! wow. I'm fascinated by this mammoth simulation (and impressed by your patience). Roughly how many forces/particles did you have there? If that was the time for the Reset, how long did each iteration take? Hopefully with the new version this would be much improved, but still, if we are looking at millions of elements, I think it would make sense to break it apart into separate simulations if possible (and I can still put in some setting for a "long-coffee-break" mode if you like ;)

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page