As it turned out, the emperors had not cloth.

A place to discuss everything related to Newton Dynamics.

Moderators: Sascha Willems, walaber

Re: As it turned out, the emperors had not cloth.

Postby Julio Jerez » Thu Jun 18, 2015 11:18 am

Pierre wrote:Look, you came to GitHub complaining that I was not using the latest version of Newton (or the proper integration, I am still not entirely sure what you were complaining about). And yet here in this very thread, in your own branch of PEEL, you do exactly the same .... i.e. you use the latest Newton against a two-year old version of PhysX. Right?

So I'm just pointing this out, that's all. I propose we just ignore this now and continue - otherwise I'll never get started on the new integration.

Correction, no I did not do the same thing, I used the stuff your team provide me with.
I could not used all the stuff in the PEEL download for the same reasons that you too can not just copy the Newton libraries in you compile build. the function table and the signatures do not match.

you provided that library in the release you put In github, it is just that does not work when I copied in the release Ratclif gave me, because you rename it, and like I said I was not going to go around getting SDK everywhere to build all that stuff, I did what I could why what I was given.

Pierre wrote:Usually when you're writing a class for the first time, you don't do it right away with SSE4. You just write a scalar version first, and then you rewrite in SIMD when everything works. If you rewrote in SIMD without profiling, I find that dangerous because there is no guarantee that the SIMD code will be faster than the scalar code. So, that's what it has to do with profiling.

But who said that the class does not support scalar? did not I mentioned in the same post that it gets be configured to do scalar or any instruction set that the end user encounter on his target platform?

what I am saying is that in my last review I see that Visual studio now has support for dot products, I just added the define to use Dot product instead of a series of other operations. That is not for performance or profiling it is for moving with flow.
In fact if you want to know the details, does not make different in speed it may even be slower, however it makes a difference for other reasons, it generates smaller code because it reduces register pressure in 32 bit mode. and that's what makes the difference. No that it is faster
I do not really see why is this even a point?

Pierre wrote: I added support & test scenes for aggregates in the next PEEL version, yes. But it looks like the problem you encountered is unrelated. I am not sure what the problem is/was. In my "wrong" Newton integration everything seemed to work as expected...

No it did not, you set all the callbacks to Null, just like those guy did, you did not set material properties in different material, you did not even respond with collision Flags, so all the multiply jointed were self colliding . you did not even called delete objects and then you wrote that it cannot delete objects.
you did not call the sleeping method to disable sleep, and when to assume th eengine did not support it the option, hey you made a big deal about that, this is what you said.
Be aware of sleeping.
Virtually all physics engines have “sleeping” algorithms in place to disable work on non-moving, sleeping objects.
While the performance of an engine simulating sleeping objects is important, it is usually not the thing benchmarks should focus on. In the spirit of optimizing the worst case again, what matters more is the engine’s performance when all these objects wake up: they must do so without killing the game’s framerate.
Thus, PEEL typically disable sleeping algorithms entirely in its benchmarks, in order to capture the engines’ ‘real’ performance figures. Unfortunately some physics engines may not let users disable these sleeping mechanisms, and benchmarks can appear biased as a result – giving an unfair advantage to the engines that put all objects to sleep.
Obviously, concluding that engine A (with sleeping objects) is faster than engine B (with non-sleeping objects) is foolish. Keep your eyes open for this in your experiments and benchmarks.


when you put those thing together next thing you see on some forum is "some Expert" advising some one that the Newton engine does not supports disabling sleep.
Julio Jerez
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10989
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 2:18 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: As it turned out, the emperors had not cloth.

Postby Pierre » Thu Jun 18, 2015 12:50 pm

there you go again with your assumptions

What assumption?? WTF. I just asked you a simple question, I did not assume anything!

Physx can not do that, because it is not stable enough to support random forces of hundred of thousands of newton acting on a body.


you seem to think that I am a parlor trick Magician that is some how try to trick the entire world.


Oh for f*ck sake I give up.
Pierre
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 4:40 am

Re: As it turned out, the emperors had not cloth.

Postby Julio Jerez » Thu Jun 18, 2015 1:49 pm

ok.
Julio Jerez
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10989
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 2:18 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: As it turned out, the emperors had not cloth.

Postby Pierre » Thu Jun 18, 2015 2:37 pm

One last post because I find this very sad.

Julio, all the things you complain about in other people, do do yourself. You are being dishonest, you are making assumptions, you live in your own bubble, etc. I think you are your own worst enemy because of your behavior.

For example you just wrote:

you did not call the sleeping method to disable sleep, and when to assume th eengine did not support it the option


I never assumed that the engine did not support it. This is the direct proof that you are the one making assumptions. You immediately imagine that the whole world is out to get you or something. In the PEEL "Known issues & TODO.txt", I explicitly wrote in the TODO section:

Newton:
- complete PINT plugin (sweeps, overlaps, raycast any, CCD, disable sleeping, etc, etc).


Note the "disable sleeping" there. Obviously I knew that the feature was supported. I can go on and show you that all your accusations are wrong, but frankly I'm tired of it and it seems pointless.

For the records, the stack behavior you have in Newton can be replicated in PhysX. Just enable the "one dir friction mode" in the UI, and maybe crank up the iterations to 8/8 instead of 4/1. You should get something much closer to what you are looking for, but for much cheaper than Newton. (BTW I did not point out how you carefully removed the Newton timing from your video before, but that was also not super honest). This whole thing is related to friction. It has nothing to do with kinematics. Dude I even made videos myself to investigate that very issue. I built stacks in the real world myself, using my son's little toy cubes to create pyramid like structures. They don't always exhibit the Newton behavior! It would have been an interesting discussion but you're freakin ruining everything and I give up.
Pierre
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 4:40 am

Re: As it turned out, the emperors had not cloth.

Postby Julio Jerez » Thu Jun 18, 2015 3:11 pm

when you say in the release notes:
Code: Select all
   - the PEEL plugin for Newton 3.9 was written by Julio Jerez. It is currently quite incomplete (sleeping is never Deactivated, object deletion is not implemented, CCD is not implemented, overlaps and sweeps are not implemented, etc) but I am including it nonetheless, since Newton is quite competitive and worth keeping an eye on.


And you conclude with this:
Code: Select all
Unfortunately some physics engines may not let users disable these sleeping mechanisms, and benchmarks can appear biased as a result – giving an unfair advantage to the engines that put all objects to sleep.
Obviously, concluding that engine A (with sleeping objects) is faster than engine B (with non-sleeping objects) is foolish. Keep your eyes open for this in your experiments and benchmarks.

who are you referring too there? what are those physic engine that do allow control sleep?
what would a new user looking for a library would say if he read those two statement?

an not I did not remove the timing, had you ever used Frap? plus I will be an idiot if I did that know well that people can play that test. Don’t you think?

And not
For the records, the stack behavior you have in Newton can be replicated in PhysX. Just enable the "one dir friction mode" in the UI, and maybe crank up the iterations to 8/8 instead of 4/1

not it does not, 8 iterations of position correction Is the same as teleporting the bodies kinetically. That is inverse Kinematic not dynamics. Yes it keeps it up on but it is not longer a Newtonian mechanic physics library. as such behave is unpredictable.

And not the whole world is not against me, just the legions of “Experts” that came out of the ODE mailing list that started first accusing me of plagiarizing ODE, and after seeing that Newton was not ODE, started to not recognizing any legitimacy on my work just because I did not make it open source on the beginning.
Ironically that was the same reason why originally I refused to make open source.
Julio Jerez
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10989
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 2:18 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: As it turned out, the emperors had not cloth.

Postby dgregorius » Sat Jun 20, 2015 1:57 pm

Hi Julio,

as I already mentioned before I was not involved in PAL. E.g. here is a link to the PAL paper and obviously I am not an author of this paper:

http://www.researchgate.net/publication ... on_systems

Secondly, here is the Sourceforge link of PAL and again I was never involved with this project:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/pal/

Since you are bringing my name up here can you provide some links where I made any statements regarding the solver/quality/correctness/performance of Newton?

Thanks,
-Dirk Gregorius
dgregorius
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 1:48 pm

Re: As it turned out, the emperors had not cloth.

Postby Julio Jerez » Sat Jul 25, 2015 10:36 pm

here is some more of dishonest and corrupted of the people self appointed engine appraisal really are. Browsing the net I found this.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6408198/bullet-vs-newton-game-dynamics-vs-ode-physics-engines
I made the comment pointe out that that the information of that paper does not is in fact complete misinformation about the Newton engine.
In less tan a minuet the comment was rate down about 20 times, and after in the next 12 hour the mas delete give no explanation whatsoever.
deleted by minitech♦ 21 hours ago
Why was your post deleted? See the help center.
answered yesterday

I made the comment again no mention anything just give a counter Paper that contradict what Adrian Boeing, and Kenneth Bodin say about the Newton engine,
see that my post was deleted, with not explanation. Her is an unbiased tool written by Nvidia that allows to compare Physic engine performance and accuracy side by side doing the same thing. Is Open Source and the condition of the Test Data are in the Tool. http://www.newtondynamics.com/downloads/PEEL-master.rar

here is a different paper the that compare there engine performance and accuracy http://elib.dlr.de/79462/1/74320346.pdf

an again in less than one hour the comment was delete gain by another moderator
deleted by Martijn Pieters♦ 1 hour ago
Why was your post deleted? See the help center.
answered 9 hours ago

Julio Jerez
1
While this link may answer the question, it is better to include the essential parts of the answer here and provide the link for reference. Link-only answers can become invalid if the linked page changes. – NathanOliver 5 hours ago

But when you read the other answered you can see the there are all full of link to person website.
Basically there are center for propaganda if some make these engine look bad compare to Newton, they will no let anybody see it.
The way the these engine are better than is by not letting the people test Newton in anyway.

The same happens in Game Develep.net, Any Person who say anything about their experience with Newton, get rated down and treated like an idiot.

if It does not perpetuate the conspiracy stated by Adrian Boeing and Kenneth Bodin The sheer leaders are not let anyone see it.
Julio Jerez
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10989
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 2:18 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: As it turned out, the emperors had not cloth.

Postby Leadwerks » Wed Mar 08, 2017 1:01 pm

Julio Jerez wrote:Ok Mr. Since you asked to be enlighten, I made a small movie to explain why PhysX or Bullet are not really a physics engine the are it is a kinematic engine that resolve interpenetration.
take a look at this movie

check out I can hit hard the Newton Pyramid and can even punch holes on it and it still wants to state up and after the collapses, still leaves the base up.

then check the Physx 3.4 pyramid first I hit it at the bottom once and the entire thing comes crumbling down like a controlled demolition. Then to make sure I did not cheat, the second time by gently pull one block out and again the entire pyramid comes crumbling down.
That is what I meant when I said that to declared victory first you have to solve the problem. what good does it make having a something like that when a feather can destabilize it?

These are the kind of things the Newton library offer to the users that even non expert can use I and the state with it. Almost 100% of the people who are still using Newton are ex users of PhysX, Bullet and ODE that come here out of desperation and frustrations.
and those are the kind of things that these morons like Being and Bodin do not address in their weaponized internet pseudo papers.

Where did this video go? I want to use this on my site to show how Newton is more stable.
User avatar
Leadwerks
 
Posts: 527
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:54 pm

Re: As it turned out, the emperors had not cloth.

Postby Julio Jerez » Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:22 pm

I deleted a bunch of stuff what I uploaded the new ones, I can give you the new one.

Mr Pierre released an new version of his tool but is so full of PhysX hacks that are clearly dishonest misrepresentation of the competitors that it will take a lot of work to correct the record straight.

I tried to fix some of the most egregious misrepresentations, but I relianced that the will take too much of my time.

He threaten to remove Newton altogether from Peel, if he does I will create a new version on GitHub as soon as I get some of the demos working, but chasing PhysX is not where I want to spend my time.

The dude made stuff like reading each joint 32 time on his stuff then saying "you see we can do 2000 joints instead of 32 and we are still faster that all others engines",
but when I looked at the code, he hard coded that the 2000 joints duplication for all other engines.
Any one running the demos would thong that phyx x is faster and more stable doing 32 joint time 64
times, when in reality under the hood all engines are his 2000 extra joints.

I other places he does stuff like made the moment of inertia 10 * the mass, while for every body else setting a very thing value almost zero, he know well that will make any Euler integrator unstable.

when I pointed out the places in the source code where he does that,
he accused me an every one in the forum of fan boys and toxic place and threatened to remove Newton from peel.

Me spending time to update is a waste of time, because he will never do the integration as it provided, he will do only in three circumstances to fix the PhysX narrative:
1- when is clear physx has a clear advantage. lie the pile of objects.
2- When he can tweaks his side to the detriment of the competitor.
3- he actually tamper the completion module to make malfunction.
yes he actually did that, in many place he actually change the code and put comment indication to the reader It was I who made the changes to make.

That tool is not for the public, it is for potential clients confirmation bias.
When you fight back the damage is already done.

Mr Pierre Terdiman is so dishonest that explaining to him that what the do is the definition of misrepresenting the opponent, that is almost like talking science to a fundamentalist religious extremist.
It is a shame these people are so extremely dishonest.
Julio Jerez
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10989
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 2:18 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests