working model 2d

[chaos]

Hi group

is Algodoo, as good and acurite as "working model 2d" ?

Regards Chaos

[Kilinich]

I've just download and try WM2D and from the first try I can say Algodoo is much better.
WM2D interface is not good and it dies (runs extremely slow) on just 64 balls collision.
Only good things is more physical objects like ropes, torque, fixed springs ending, etc.

[chaos]

Hi Kilinich

i would agree algodoo is better on the outset, working model has a lot of physics going on and I wonder how acurite the physics are in algodoo?

working model costs over £2500 + vat and it looks under developed and keeps crashing on a windows vista 64 bit machine.

it does have some good features though.

regards Chaos

[Kilinich]

Yes. Physics is good enough for education, not for science research but for school it's fine.

[chaos]

so is the physics based on a tolerence or guestimated? i.e is it just a visual effect or are they reasonably acurite?
in "working model 2d" they claim to be so acurite that the results can be used for things like crash scene investigation in court etc..

regards Chaos

[Kilinich]

I don't get what you want to know, just install and try. From my experiments everything is correct.

[admin]

Algodoo is based on modern and highly competitive simulation methods of which many originate from original research at Umeå university. Read the FAQ for more information: http://www.algodoo.com/wiki/FAQ#Physica ... on_methods

Also, here's another list of published papers directly related to Algodoo:
http://umit.cs.umu.se/wiki/Publications

Our methods are more modern and in general better than in, well, any other physics simulation solution we know of. We are of course biased, but we do have a very solid theoretical foundation and lots of experience from simulations in science and engineering.

Our homepage for Algoryx contains additional information. AGX Multiphysics and Algodoo are based on pretty much the same methods: http://www.algoryx.se/

The public version of Algodoo is using an iterative solver, common in "game physics". For a long list of reasons the physics in Algodoo has much higher fidelity than in game physics engines though, and certainly holds for use in engineering and science. It is possible to e.g. turn up the number of iterations, and change the timestep if high fidelity simulations are required. In addition, we have an in-house version which has a solver with typically a billion times higher precision than the iterative solver in the public Algodoo, so if very high precision is required you are welcome to contact us at contact@algoryx.se. Actually, anyone interested in using Algodoo for professional simulations is much welcome to contact us.

/Kenneth Bodin, CEO, Algoryx

[Sonic]

Holy crap...so we can simply ASK for the super-realistic version? I can think at least thirty things I'd want to do with that...

[Chronos]

Holy crap...so we can simply ASK for the super-realistic version? I can think at least thirty things I'd want to do with that...

Ask and pay them (probably) all of your money.

Besides, you act like your computer would be able to handle realistic physics.

[Sonic]

True...
Still I'd fix a few of the problems with some of my projects, espesially the ones using water.

[TC42]

True...
Still I'd fix a few of the problems with some of my projects, espesially the ones using water.

Realistic water-physics that don't require a supercomputer? Now I'm curious...

I'm tempted to ask for the high-power version, but my PC wouldn't be able to run it anyway.

Also, to remain on-topic, the physics in algodoo are pretty good, except for collision shakes and stuff like that. If you're not doing anything extreme, you should be okay. And there are about a dozen variables that you can change to tune it-- things like sim.frequency (turn it way up--try 1000-3000--and watch the awesomeness and lag). Go read Grady's scripting commands and tutorial and you should learn enough to be able to increase the accuracy.