Search Results

Search found 11547 results on 462 pages for 'parameter binding'.

Page 193/462 | < Previous Page | 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200  | Next Page >

  • passing a font as an argument to a script

    - by josinalvo
    I am trying to use osdSH for notifications. It has a 'font' parameter that receives a curiously formed string. From the man: -f -font Set font (Default: -*-lucidatypewriter- bold-*-*-*-*-240-*-*-*-*-*-*) The manual does not comment on the arguments passed (I assume each * represents a possible argument). It would seem that this notation is (or has someday been) standard, but I've not been able to find anything about it. what is the standard ? what argument specifies letter size ?

    Read the article

  • Metrics - A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing (or 'Why you're not clever enough to interpret metrics data')

    - by Jason Crease
    At RedGate Software, I work on a .NET obfuscator  called SmartAssembly.  Various features of it use a database to store various things (exception reports, name-mappings, etc.) The user is given the option of using either a SQL-Server database (which requires them to have Microsoft SQL Server), or a Microsoft Access MDB file (which requires nothing). MDB is the default option, but power-users soon switch to using a SQL Server database because it offers better performance and data-sharing. In the fashionable spirit of optimization and metrics, an obvious product-management question is 'Which is the most popular? SQL Server or MDB?' We've collected data about this fact, using our 'Feature-Usage-Reporting' technology (available as part of SmartAssembly) and more recently our 'Application Metrics' technology: Parameter Number of users % of total users Number of sessions Number of usages SQL Server 28 19.0 8115 8115 MDB 114 77.6 1449 1449 (As a disclaimer, please note than SmartAssembly has far more than 132 users . This data is just a selection of one build) So, it would appear that SQL-Server is used by fewer users, but more often. Great. But here's why these numbers are useless to me: Only the original developers understand the data What does a single 'usage' of 'MDB' mean? Does this happen once per run? Once per option change? On clicking the 'Obfuscate Now' button? When running the command-line version or just from the UI version? Each question could skew the data 10-fold either way, and the answers only known by the developer that instrumented the application in the first place. In other words, only the original developer can interpret the data - product-managers cannot interpret the data unaided. Most of the data is from uninterested users About half of people who download and run a free-trial from the internet quit it almost immediately. Only a small fraction use it sufficiently to make informed choices. Since the MDB option is the default one, we don't know how many of those 114 were people CHOOSING to use the MDB, or how many were JUST HAPPENING to use this MDB default for their 20-second trial. This is a problem we see across all our metrics: Are people are using X because it's the default or are they using X because they want to use X? We need to segment the data further - asking what percentage of each percentage meet our criteria for an 'established user' or 'informed user'. You end up spending hours writing sophisticated and dubious SQL queries to segment the data further. Not fun. You can't find out why they used this feature Metrics can answer the when and what, but not the why. Why did people use feature X? If you're anything like me, you often click on random buttons in unfamiliar applications just to explore the feature-set. If we listened uncritically to metrics at RedGate, we would eliminate the most-important and more-complex features which people actually buy the software for, leaving just big buttons on the main page and the About-Box. "Ah, that's interesting!" rather than "Ah, that's actionable!" People do love data. Did you know you eat 1201 chickens in a lifetime? But just 4 cows? Interesting, but useless. Often metrics give you a nice number: '5.8% of users have 3 or more monitors' . But unless the statistic is both SUPRISING and ACTIONABLE, it's useless. Most metrics are collected, reviewed with lots of cooing. and then forgotten. Unless a piece-of-data could change things, it's useless collecting it. People get obsessed with significance levels The first things that lots of people do with this data is do a t-test to get a significance level ("Hey! We know with 99.64% confidence that people prefer SQL Server to MDBs!") Believe me: other causes of error/misinterpretation in your data are FAR more significant than your t-test could ever comprehend. Confirmation bias prevents objectivity If the data appears to match our instinct, we feel satisfied and move on. If it doesn't, we suspect the data and dig deeper, plummeting down a rabbit-hole of segmentation and filtering until we give-up and move-on. Data is only useful if it can change our preconceptions. Do you trust this dodgy data more than your own understanding, knowledge and intelligence?  I don't. There's always multiple plausible ways to interpret/action any data Let's say we segment the above data, and get this data: Post-trial users (i.e. those using a paid version after the 14-day free-trial is over): Parameter Number of users % of total users Number of sessions Number of usages SQL Server 13 9.0 1115 1115 MDB 5 4.2 449 449 Trial users: Parameter Number of users % of total users Number of sessions Number of usages SQL Server 15 10.0 7000 7000 MDB 114 77.6 1000 1000 How do you interpret this data? It's one of: Mostly SQL Server users buy our software. People who can't afford SQL Server tend to be unable to afford or unwilling to buy our software. Therefore, ditch MDB-support. Our MDB support is so poor and buggy that our massive MDB user-base doesn't buy it.  Therefore, spend loads of money improving it, and think about ditching SQL-Server support. People 'graduate' naturally from MDB to SQL Server as they use the software more. Things are fine the way they are. We're marketing the tool wrong. The large number of MDB users represent uninformed downloaders. Tell marketing to aggressively target SQL Server users. To choose an interpretation you need to segment again. And again. And again, and again. Opting-out is correlated with feature-usage Metrics tends to be opt-in. This skews the data even further. Between 5% and 30% of people choose to opt-in to metrics (often called 'customer improvement program' or something like that). Casual trial-users who are uninterested in your product or company are less likely to opt-in. This group is probably also likely to be MDB users. How much does this skew your data by? Who knows? It's not all doom and gloom. There are some things metrics can answer well. Environment facts. How many people have 3 monitors? Have Windows 7? Have .NET 4 installed? Have Japanese Windows? Minor optimizations.  Is the text-box big enough for average user-input? Performance data. How long does our app take to start? How many databases does the average user have on their server? As you can see, questions about who-the-user-is rather than what-the-user-does are easier to answer and action. Conclusion Use SmartAssembly. If not for the metrics (called 'Feature-Usage-Reporting'), then at least for the obfuscation/error-reporting. Data raises more questions than it answers. Questions about environment are the easiest to answer.

    Read the article

  • What different ways are there to model restitution in a physics engine?

    - by Mikael Högström
    In my physics engine I give a body a value for restitution between 0 and 1. When two bodies collide there seems to be different views on how the restitution of the collision should be calculated. To me the most intuitive seems to be to take the average of the two but some seem to take only the largest one. Are there other ways to do it? Also, could the closing velocity or some other parameter come into effect?

    Read the article

  • Representing complex object dependencies

    - by max
    I have several classes with a reasonably complex (but acyclic) dependency graph. All the dependencies are of the form: class X instance contains an attribute of class Y. All such attributes are set during initialization and never changed again. Each class' constructor has just a couple parameters, and each object knows the proper parameters to pass to the constructors of the objects it contains. class Outer is at the top of the dependency hierarchy, i.e., no class depends on it. Currently, the UI layer only creates an Outer instance; the parameters for Outer constructor are derived from the user input. Of course, Outer in the process of initialization, creates the objects it needs, which in turn create the objects they need, and so on. The new development is that the a user who knows the dependency graph may want to reach deep into it, and set the values of some of the arguments passed to constructors of the inner classes (essentially overriding the values used currently). How should I change the design to support this? I could keep the current approach where all the inner classes are created by the classes that need them. In this case, the information about "user overrides" would need to be passed to Outer class' constructor in some complex user_overrides structure. Perhaps user_overrides could be the full logical representation of the dependency graph, with the overrides attached to the appropriate edges. Outer class would pass user_overrides to every object it creates, and they would do the same. Each object, before initializing lower level objects, will find its location in that graph and check if the user requested an override to any of the constructor arguments. Alternatively, I could rewrite all the objects' constructors to take as parameters the full objects they require. Thus, the creation of all the inner objects would be moved outside the whole hierarchy, into a new controller layer that lies between Outer and UI layer. The controller layer would essentially traverse the dependency graph from the bottom, creating all the objects as it goes. The controller layer would have to ask the higher-level objects for parameter values for the lower-level objects whenever the relevant parameter isn't provided by the user. Neither approach looks terribly simple. Is there any other approach? Has this problem come up enough in the past to have a pattern that I can read about? I'm using Python, but I don't think it matters much at the design level.

    Read the article

  • Avoid SQL Injection with Parameters

    - by simonsabin
    The best way to avoid SQL Injection is with parameters. With parameters you can’t get SQL Injection. You only get SQL Injection where you are building a SQL statement by concatenating your parameter values in with your SQL statement. Annoyingly many TSQL statements don’t take parameters, CREATE DATABASE for instance, or really annoyingly ALTER USER. In these situations you have to rely on using QUOTENAME or REPLACE to avoid SQL Injection. (Kimberly Tripp takes about this in her recent blog post Little...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Using the @ in SQL Azure Connections

    - by BuckWoody
    The other day I was working with a client on an application they were changing to a hybrid architecture – some data on-premise and other data in SQL Azure and Windows Azure Blob storage. I had them make a couple of corrections - the first was that all communications to SQL Azure need to be encrypted. It’s a simple addition to the connection string, depending on the library you use. Which brought up another interesting point. They had been using something that looked like this, using the .NET provider: Server=tcp:[serverName].database.windows.net;Database=myDataBase; User ID=LoginName;Password=myPassword; Trusted_Connection=False;Encrypt=True; This includes most of the formatting needed for SQL Azure. It specifies TCP as the transport mechanism, the database name is included, Trusted_Connection is off, and encryption is on. But it needed one more change: Server=tcp:[serverName].database.windows.net;Database=myDataBase; User ID=[LoginName]@[serverName];Password=myPassword; Trusted_Connection=False;Encrypt=True; Notice the difference? It’s the User ID parameter. It includes the @ symbol and the name of the server – not the whole DNS name, just the server name itself. The developers were a bit surprised, since it had been working with the first format that just used the user name. Why did both work, and why is one better than the other? It has to do with the connection library you use. For most libraries, the user name is enough. But for some libraries (subject to change so I don’t list them here) the server name parameter isn’t sent in the way the load balancer understands, so you need to include the server name right in the login, so the system can parse it correctly. Keep in mind, the string limit for that is 128 characters – so take the @ symbol and the server name into consideration for user names. The user connection info is detailed here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee336268.aspx Upshot? Include the @servername on your connection string just to be safe. And plan for that extra space…  

    Read the article

  • EPM 11.1.2.1 - Smartview client and HFM office provider

    - by user809526
    If your connection to the smartview provider is very slow, because the login part takes a long time (user directory slowness, ...), consider adding on the desktop side a Windows parameter: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\InternetSettings\ ReceiveTimeout 300000 to avoid being prompted over and over again for username/password This is an addition to the support doc id: "Smart View 11.1.2.1 Keeps Prompting For Username And Password For Financial Management Provider [ID 1353294.1]"

    Read the article

  • Deciding between obj->func() and func(obj)

    - by GSto
    I was thinking about this when I was starting to set up some code for a new project: are there any rules of thumb for when a method should be part of an object, and when it should be a stand alone function that takes an object as a parameter? EDIT: as pointed out in a comment, this can depend on language. I was working in C++ when it came to mind, though I'm this is an issue across a number of languages (and would still love to see answers that pertain to them).

    Read the article

  • Quick Tip - Speed a Slow Restore from the Transaction Log

    - by KKline
    Here's a quick tip for you: During some restore operations on Microsoft SQL Server, the transaction log redo step might be taking an unusually long time. Depending somewhat on the version and edition of SQL Server you've installed, you may be able to increase performance by tinkering with the readahead performance for the redo operations. To do this, you should use the MAXTRANSFERSIZE parameter of the RESTORE statement. For example, if you set MAXTRANSFERSIZE=1048576, it'll use 1MB buffers. If you...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Is code like this a "train wreck" (in violation of Law of Demeter)?

    - by Michael Kjörling
    Browsing through some code I've written, I came across the following construct which got me thinking. At a first glance, it seems clean enough. Yes, in the actual code the getLocation() method has a slightly more specific name which better describes exactly which location it gets. service.setLocation(this.configuration.getLocation().toString()); In this case, service is an instance variable of a known type, declared within the method. this.configuration comes from being passed in to the class constructor, and is an instance of a class implementing a specific interface (which mandates a public getLocation() method). Hence, the return type of the expression this.configuration.getLocation() is known; specifically in this case, it is a java.net.URL, whereas service.setLocation() wants a String. Since the two types String and URL are not directly compatible, some sort of conversion is required to fit the square peg in the round hole. However, according to the Law of Demeter as cited in Clean Code, a method f in class C should only call methods on C, objects created by or passed as arguments to f, and objects held in instance variables of C. Anything beyond that (the final toString() in my particular case above, unless you consider a temporary object created as a result of the method invocation itself, in which case the whole Law seems to be moot) is disallowed. Is there a valid reasoning why a call like the above, given the constraints listed, should be discouraged or even disallowed? Or am I just being overly nitpicky? If I were to implement a method URLToString() which simply calls toString() on a URL object (such as that returned by getLocation()) passed to it as a parameter, and returns the result, I could wrap the getLocation() call in it to achieve exactly the same result; effectively, I would just move the conversion one step outward. Would that somehow make it acceptable? (It seems to me, intuitively, that it should not make any difference either way, since all that does is move things around a little. However, going by the letter of the Law of Demeter as cited, it would be acceptable, since I would then be operating directly on a parameter to a function.) Would it make any difference if this was about something slightly more exotic than calling toString() on a standard type? When answering, do keep in mind that altering the behavior or API of the type that the service variable is of is not practical. Also, for the sake of argument, let's say that altering the return type of getLocation() is also impractical.

    Read the article

  • How to create a GLib.TimeVal from timestamp?

    - by fluteflute
    I have a value such as 'timestamp' below, where the last three digits correspond to milliseconds. timestamp = 1340830988768 I currently have code that looks like the following: import indicate indicator = indicate.Indicator() indicator.set_property_time("time", int(timestamp[:-3])) I want to amend it to use: from gi.repository import Indicate indicator = Indicate.Indicator() However, the new version of set_property_time requires the second parameter to be a GLib.TimeVal. How do I create a GLib.TimeVal from my timestamp? Millisecond precision is not important for this application.

    Read the article

  • New Sample Demonstrating the Traversing of Tree Bindings

    - by Duncan Mills
    A technique that I seem to use a fair amount, particularly in the construction of dynamic UIs is the use of a ADF Tree Binding to encode a multi-level master-detail relationship which is then expressed in the UI in some kind of looping form – usually a series of nested af:iterators, rather than the conventional tree or treetable. This technique exploits two features of the treebinding. First the fact that an treebinding can return both a collectionModel as well as a treeModel, this collectionModel can be used directly by an iterator. Secondly that the “rows” returned by the collectionModel themselves contain an attribute called .children. This attribute in turn gives access to a collection of all the children of that node which can also be iterated over. Putting this together you can represent the data encoded into a tree binding in all sorts of ways. As an example I’ve put together a very simple sample based on the HT schema and uploaded it to the ADF Sample project. It produces this UI: The important code is shown here for a Region -> Country -> Location Hierachy: <af:iterator id="i1" value="#{bindings.AllRegions.collectionModel}" var="rgn"> <af:showDetailHeader text="#{rgn.RegionName}" disclosed="true" id="sdh1"> <af:iterator id="i2" value="#{rgn.children}" var="cnty">     <af:showDetailHeader text="#{cnty.CountryName}" disclosed="true" id="sdh2">       <af:iterator id="i3" value="#{cnty.children}" var="loc">         <af:panelList id="pl1">         <af:outputText value="#{loc.City}" id="ot3"/>           </af:panelList>         </af:iterator>       </af:showDetailHeader>     </af:iterator>   </af:showDetailHeader> </af:iterator>  You can download the entire sample from here:

    Read the article

  • Changing direction after collision

    - by Balint
    In the first tutorial for GameMaker (catch the clown), I want to set the direction of the clown after the collision with the wall. I want to do it by pressing the wall object with the mouse (before the collision, to set the angle parameter). For example by pressing only once the wall object it would change the clown's direction after collision by 45 degrees, twice by 90 degrees, and so on. How can I do that?

    Read the article

  • Quick Tip - Speed a Slow Restore from the Transaction Log

    - by KKline
    Here's a quick tip for you: During some restore operations on Microsoft SQL Server, the transaction log redo step might be taking an unusually long time. Depending somewhat on the version and edition of SQL Server you've installed, you may be able to increase performance by tinkering with the readahead performance for the redo operations. To do this, you should use the MAXTRANSFERSIZE parameter of the RESTORE statement. For example, if you set MAXTRANSFERSIZE=1048576, it'll use 1MB buffers. If you...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Can't Run Assault Cube

    - by Debashis Pradhan
    I installed assault cube from the Software centre and it just opens for half a second and closes. When i run in it from the terminal, this is what i get - d@d-platform:~$ assaultcube Using home directory: /home/d/.assaultcube_v1.104 current locale: en_IN init: sdl init: net init: world init: video: sdl init: video: mode X Error of failed request: BadValue (integer parameter out of range for operation) Major opcode of failed request: 129 (XFree86-VidModeExtension) Minor opcode of failed request: 10 (XF86VidModeSwitchToMode) Value in failed request: 0xb3 Serial number of failed request: 131 Current serial number in output stream: 133

    Read the article

  • Creating an object that is ready to be used & unset properties - with IoC

    - by GetFuzzy
    I have a question regarding the specifics of object creation and the usage of properties. A best practice is to put all the properties into a state such that the object is useful when its created. Object constructors help ensure that required dependencies are created. I've found myself following a pattern lately, and then questioning its appropriateness. The pattern looks like this... public class ThingProcesser { public List<Thing> CalculatedThings { get; set; } public ThingProcesser() { CalculatedThings = new List<Thing>(); } public double FindCertainThing() { CheckForException(); foreach (var thing in CalculatedThings) { //do some stuff with things... } } public double FindOtherThing() { CheckForException(); foreach (var thing in CalculatedThings) { //do some stuff with things... } } private void CheckForException() { if (CalculatedThings.Count < 2) throw new InvalidOperationException("Calculated things must have more than 2 items"); } } The list of items is not being changed, just looked through by the methods. There are several methods on the class, and to avoid having to pass the list of things to each function as a method parameter, I set it once on the class. While this works, does it violate the principle of least astonishment? Since starting to use IoC I find myself not sticking things into the constructor, to avoid having to use a factory pattern. For example, I can argue with myself and say well the ThingProcessor really needs a List to work, so the object should be constructed like this. public class ThingProcesser { public List<Thing> CalculatedThings { get; set; } public ThingProcesser(List<Thing> calculatedThings) { CalculatedThings = calculatedThings; } } However, if I did this, it would complicate things for IoC, and this scenario hardly seems appropriate for something like the factory pattern. So in summary, are there some good guidelines for when something should be part of the object state, vs. passed as a method parameter? When using IoC, is the factory pattern the best way to deal with objects that need created with state? If something has to be passed to multiple methods in a class, does that render it a good candidate to be part of the objects state?

    Read the article

  • Can the parameters of the Music Lens be edited?

    - by Ryan McClure
    I primarily listen to classical music on my laptop. Since I'm obsessed with specifics with my music, I am precise with how I label my genres (Opera, Symphony, Chorale, etc.). Is there a way to edit the Music Lens so that instead of listing "Blues, Classic, Country..." it could list custom parameters? Could the same be done for the "Decade" parameter? Maybe make it "Century", since I have music from back in the 1400's :)

    Read the article

  • Is there any reason in a Java program for a special naming for a function arguments?

    - by gasan
    I'd like to know, why would I want to have a special prefixes for a function arguments, like "p_name", "p_age", "p_sex"? On the one hand it helps to distinguish parameter from local variable or field further in the function body, but would it help? On the other hand, I didn't saw such naming recommendations anywhere including official Java language conventions. Please advise any reasons for using such naming policy

    Read the article

  • using lua in kobold2d to control parameters

    - by nycynik
    Is there a tutorial on using LUA in Kobold2d? I want to know if its possible to use it to control the game behavior (like max speed decrease of timer, and bonus points) by uploading a new script to the app. I found this link in the FAQ: http://www.kobold2d.com/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=917888 but it does not mention if I can replace the lua script from within the game, and reload it, is that possible? Should i just have a parameter file instead that i can download and replace?

    Read the article

  • How to obtain Visual Studio 2013 for offline installation

    - by Waclaw Chrabaszcz
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/Wchrabaszcz/archive/2013/10/20/how-to-obtain-visual-studio-2013-for-offline-installation.aspxSometimes you have to work in isolated environments, just to not affect production boxes by mistake. So, how can I install Visual Studio 2013 within IP island ? Download vs_ultimate.exe from http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/eng/downloads and execute it from CMD with parameter: vs_ultimate.exe /layout C:\Install\VisualStudio

    Read the article

  • State Transition Constraints

    Data Validation in a database is a lot more complex than seeing if a string parameter really is an integer. A commercial world is full of complex rules for sequences of procedures, of fixed or variable lifespans, Warranties, commercial offers and bids. All this requires considerable subtlety to prevent bad data getting in, and if it does, locating and fixing the problem. Joe Celko shows how useful a State transition graph can be, and how essential it can become with the time aspect added.

    Read the article

  • Can casper use a squashfs in the initrd?

    - by Max Brustkern
    I've built a very large initrd containing a full squashfs from a desktop image, and used it to boot a machine over PXE. Unfortunately, casper cannot seem to locate the squashfs, since it's not present on any of the block devices it scans. Is there some way I can force it to check the initrd, or point to a filesystem location there in the bootfrom parameter? I've tried using bootfrom=/ with the casper directory in the root of the initrd, and that didn't seem to work.

    Read the article

  • Does OO, TDD, and Refactoring to Smaller Functions affect Speed of Code?

    - by Dennis
    In Computer Science field, I have noticed a notable shift in thinking when it comes to programming. The advice as it stands now is write smaller, more testable code refactor existing code into smaller and smaller chunks of code until most of your methods/functions are just a few lines long write functions that only do one thing (which makes them smaller again) This is a change compared to the "old" or "bad" code practices where you have methods spanning 2500 lines, and big classes doing everything. My question is this: when it call comes down to machine code, to 1s and 0s, to assembly instructions, should I be at all concerned that my class-separated code with variety of small-to-tiny functions generates too much extra overhead? While I am not exactly familiar with how OO code and function calls are handled in ASM in the end, I do have some idea. I assume that each extra function call, object call, or include call (in some languages), generate an extra set of instructions, thereby increasing code's volume and adding various overhead, without adding actual "useful" code. I also imagine that good optimizations can be done to ASM before it is actually ran on the hardware, but that optimization can only do so much too. Hence, my question -- how much overhead (in space and speed) does well-separated code (split up across hundreds of files, classes, and methods) actually introduce compared to having "one big method that contains everything", due to this overhead? UPDATE for clarity: I am assuming that adding more and more functions and more and more objects and classes in a code will result in more and more parameter passing between smaller code pieces. It was said somewhere (quote TBD) that up to 70% of all code is made up of ASM's MOV instruction - loading CPU registers with proper variables, not the actual computation being done. In my case, you load up CPU's time with PUSH/POP instructions to provide linkage and parameter passing between various pieces of code. The smaller you make your pieces of code, the more overhead "linkage" is required. I am concerned that this linkage adds to software bloat and slow-down and I am wondering if I should be concerned about this, and how much, if any at all, because current and future generations of programmers who are building software for the next century, will have to live with and consume software built using these practices. UPDATE: Multiple files I am writing new code now that is slowly replacing old code. In particular I've noted that one of the old classes was a ~3000 line file (as mentioned earlier). Now it is becoming a set of 15-20 files located across various directories, including test files and not including PHP framework I am using to bind some things together. More files are coming as well. When it comes to disk I/O, loading multiple files is slower than loading one large file. Of course not all files are loaded, they are loaded as needed, and disk caching and memory caching options exist, and yet still I believe that loading multiple files takes more processing than loading a single file into memory. I am adding that to my concern.

    Read the article

  • Implenting ActiveRecord with inheritance?

    - by King
    I recently converted an old application that was using XML files as the data store to use SQL instead. To avoid a lot of changes I basically created ActiveRecord style classes that inherited from the original business objects. For example SomeClassRecord :SomeClass //ID Property //Save method I then used this new class in place of the other one, because of polymorphism I didn't need to change any methods that took SomeClass as a parameter. Would this be considered 'Bad'? What would be a better alternative?

    Read the article

  • Physics Engine [Collision Response, 2-dimensional] experts, help!! My stack is unstable!

    - by Register Sole
    Previously, I struggle with the sequential impulse-based method I developed. Thanks to jedediah referring me to this paper, I managed to rebuild the codes and implement the simultaneous impulse based method with Projected-Gauss-Seidel (PGS) iterative solver as described by Erin Catto (mentioned in the reference of the paper as [Catt05]). So here's how it currently is: The simulation handles 2-dimensional rotating convex polygons. Detection is using separating-axis test, with a SKIN, meaning closest points between two polygons is detected and determined if their distance is less than SKIN. To resolve collision, simultaneous impulse-based method is used. It is solved using iterative solver (PGS-solver) as in Erin Catto's paper. Error-correction is implemented using Baumgarte's stabilization (you can refer to either paper for this) using J V = beta/dt*overlap, J is the Jacobian for the constraints, V the matrix containing the velocities of the bodies, beta an error-correction parameter that is better be < 1, dt the time-step taken by the engine, and overlap, the overlap between the bodies (true overlap, so SKIN is ignored). However, it is still less stable than I expected :s I tried to stack hexagons (or squares, doesn't really matter), and even with only 4 to 5 of them, they hardly stand still! Also note that I am not looking for a sleeping scheme. But I would settle if you have any explicit scheme to handle resting contacts. That said, I would be more than happy if you have a way of treating it generally (as continuous collision, instead of explicitly as a special state). Ideas I have: I would try adding a damping term (proportional to velocity) to the Baumgarte. Is this a good idea in general? If not I would not want to waste my time trying to tune the parameter hoping it magically works. Ideas I have tried: Using simultaneous position based error correction as described in the paper in section 5.3.2, turned out to be worse than the current scheme. If you want to know the parameters I used: Hexagons, side 50 (pixels) gravity 2400 (pixels/sec^2) time-step 1/60 (sec) beta 0.1 restitution 0 to 0.2 coeff. of friction 0.2 PGS iteration 10 initial separation 10 (pixels) mass 1 (unit is irrelevant for now, i modified velocity directly<-impulse method) inertia 1/1000 Thanks in advance! I really appreciate any help from you guys!! :)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200  | Next Page >