yade-dev team mailing list archive
-
yade-dev team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #02250
Re: removing GeometricalModel
-
To:
Yade Development Group <yade-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-
From:
"Sergei D." <sj2001@xxxxxxxxx>
-
Date:
Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:58:57 +0300
-
In-reply-to:
<1258569657.4460.96.camel@flux>
-
User-agent:
Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817)
> I'd be a little careful with adding duplicate virtual classes,
> though. A flag in the InteractingGeometry might do as well.
>
Yes, this design seems more appropriate than adding parallel class
hierarchy... Occam's razor principle...
> Oh, BTW, if your body doesn't have bounding box, it will not interact
> also. (in python, yade.utils.{sphere,facet,wall} assigns AABB, and there
> is no way to assign no BoundingVolume in python at all... we will figure
> that out somehow, though)
Hm... I used this approach with previous desing: I don't assing
InteractingGeometry with virtual facets (utils.facet have a
noInteractingGeometry flag so far). But, seems, the collider would to
give a errors if body have not a bounding volume... or not?
So, can I to add isVirtualBody flag to InteractionGeometry and
to modify accordingly InteractionGeometryMetaEngine?
Best regards, Sergei D.
Follow ups
References