Re: [simspark-devel] MC 2010

[Hedayat V. <hed...@ai...>]

Hi Joschka!

On ۰۹/۱۰/۱۶  02:21, Joschka Boedecker wrote:
> Hi Hedayat,
>
> On Sep 19, 2009, at 3:34 AM, Hedayat Vatankhah wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, we should organize MC for 2010. Beside old members, we have some
>> volunteers. So, let me say welcome to new members: Welcome to RoboCup 3D
>> Simulation Server Maintenance Committee!
>>
>
> Thanks for starting the organization!
:)

>
>>
>> Except the new members, I would like to hear from the old members to see
>> who is available in 2010!
>
> I won't have much time to work on things myself much, but I have a new 
> student (from Koblenz University in Germany) called Andreas Held 
> (cc'd) who wants to work on refactoring the physics integration in 
> order to support multiple engines. I'll help him along the way.
That's great.

>
>>
>> First, let me summarize our plan for 2009 (items which someone decided
>> to do):
>>
>>
>> * Implementing a physical abstraction layer for simspark, so that it can
>> use different physical engines.
>
> Right, that's the one Andreas volunteered for :-) We'll post some 
> design proposals once we get to it.
I'm eager to see them ASAP!


>> * Implementing support for OGRE as a rendering engine
>
> If enough time remains (while he is here in Osaka), Andreas signaled 
> he might be interested to work on that one, too, but our focus will be 
> on the physics part for now.
Nice! Yes, the physical abstraction layer have a higher priority for now.

>> * Implementing PhysX physical engine support (in addition to ODE)
>
> Andreas and myself are working on the integration of the Bullet 
> physics engine, but if there would be someone willing to also 
> integrate PhysX, it would be awesome!
It would be great to have someone with PhysX knowledge specially when we 
are on the design proposal. We might have such person already (I'll ask 
to see if he'd like to work on this).

>
>>
>> Also, this is the complete list of our TODO for 2009:
>>
>>
>> * PAL integration
>
> We took a look at PAL and decided it would probably not be the right 
> choice for us. Quite a bit of desirable functionality seems to be 
> missing in order to support a long list of engines (most of which we 
> probably wouldn't use). We thought we would be better off writing our 
> own code, but I would be interested to hear whether anybody has 
> comments on that.
Oops! I wonder why I put this item in the list!! ;) Yes, you're right. 
Once I looked at PAL myself and found it not much interesting, as it 
covered each engine to some extent (If I remember correctly, it didn't 
support all ODE features we use). But we might be able to use the code 
as a guide for finding common ground between different engines.


>
> Cheers,
> Joschka

Thanks,
Hedayat