| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
I said: A parameter (physical or not) like mu (friction coefficient) has nothing to do within the bodies. This is an "inter-bodies" parameter and the bodies are rigid. The answer was: Right, but with this approach you can do what you want. For instance, if you want mu=0.4 between A-type bodies, and mu = 0.2 between A-type and B-type bodies you can do: mu_A = 0.4, mu_B = 0.0 and then mu will be defined as the mean value. I agree with that. It works fine. But I see two disadvantages: 1 - mu_A and mu_B have lost their physical meaning (if they had) 2 - I will have problem if someday (after bzr update) the mean rule if changed for a max rule by someone well-intentioned I understand that my comments are boring. Do not blame me please. The goal is to help (maybe) but not to criticize.
Hi Vincent,I don't think at all your comment is boring, you are the very needed voice that cares about meaning of numbers (which we all tend to forget with that many computers around); actually your GroupRelationData class was a great inspiration for us when thinking in September with the people in Oxford how to set restitution coefficient between two materials to some value (like 1.0 for A-A and .8 for A-B). In the end, I wrote MatchMaker, which does just that: you can define value for any given couple of materials, and in addition a fallback function/value (such as average, minimum, maximum etc) if that particular combination is not handled explicitly.
And don't be so modest, your criticism is welcome, you have things to say! Cheers!
| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
