Josh

A get force or get torque command would only return the force that has been applied by the user since the previous physics update. It does not correspond to velocity or omega (angular velocity).

It would be a pretty small task to compile fw into the DLL and add a procedural interface. I think this would make sense for people using languages other than CPP and BMX. I don't think it is realistic that we would be able to maintain the same code in a dozen different languages. I don't mind adding it to the BMX DLL, and if anyone prefers to write their own implementation of fw, they don't need to use the DLL commands. Plus, you get automatic exposure of fw commands to Lua.

Let's not turn this thread into a criticism of LinkedIn. If you are not a fan, you don't need to participate. I think there are some tools in werkspace to link to Linked in, but I haven't tried them yet.

82.70% of Steam users' machines can run Leadwerks Engine. This is an increase of 2% since October of the same year. http://store.steampo...d.com/hwsurvey/ 72.83% have shader model 4 graphics cards.

I thought I left AppLogMode() in for compatibility. But he's write, LogStreamEnabled will do it.

Is it worth writing a C# version or would you rather just have fw compiled into the DLL with commands exposed?

I didn't say Mac users were stupid. I said Apple is charging too much for the components they use. I'm disappointed they don't have one laptop model with a GEForce 9800M, which is very fast by desktop standards.

It will be more than twice as fast with a 9800.

New update Thursday, if everything goes well. Progress will speed back up after that.

Newton is far more stable than PhysX, ODE, Havok, etc., because it is based on real physics equations and does not cut corners. I also have a good link to the developer, and have gotten a few features implemented specially. For example, PhysX does not have any kind of dynamic heightfield body, so our dynamic terrain and editor would be impossible with it.

GetMeshModel() is not an engine command. It just goes through parents until a model entity is found.

"Larrabee will not be a consumer product."

Yes. You'd even be better off with an 8800 over a 9600. Basically, any NVidia card where the second number is less than 8 is a budget card: GEForce 9600, 8400, 240. They just keep repackaging the same slow cards and selling them for cheaper under a new name. The real cards are like 7950, 8800, 9800, 280, 295, etc. I know, it's a terrible naming scheme. Confusing the customer so they don't even know which one is faster is not a good way to sell hardware.

Any GEForce 8800 or GEForce 9800.

Just uncheck the "cast shadows" box in the properties.

http://www.nvidia.co..._9600gt_us.html 64 stream processors, so not bad but not great. If your shadow maps are that low res you might as well disable shadows for those point lights. Additionally, the optimization technique I am talking about will lower the amount of geometry that has to be redrawn when shadows are updated. It will result in a very big improvement in this scene.

Specs? There are still some additional shadow techniques I can use to optimize it further without losing quality. They'll probably be in place before you have a demo out.

Don't bother, it will be officially supported in a few days.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/12/07/intel-larrabee-cancelled/1 I called this one a while ago: http://www.3d-test.c...leadwerks_1.htm And more recently here: http://leadwerks.blo...cuda-fails.html

We should do a really bad idiot-box style video. I TOLD YOU, IT'S A FEATURE! NOT A BUG!

As a general thing, I recommend against Win7-64 unless you need that extra RAM for some reason. I am running Win7 64-bit and the only benefit I get are two "Program Files" folders and EFax and a bunch of other programs won't run. This is the third 64-bit OS and it still hasn't caught on.

Maybe LE3 will be designed that way from the start, but that's a long ways off. I do kind of like the idea.

You should write a script and have various people on the forum voice it.

I agree.

Very nice skies, thank you.