3 ms·
It's a widely-used and widely-studied method, so the popular implementations are pretty optimized and the toolkits extensive. Unless you have some fundamental
by sandoooo 7y ago
It's a widely-used and widely-studied method, so the popular implementations are pretty optimized and the toolkits extensive. Unless you have some fundamental insight/optimization specific to your problem, I don't think it's actually worth it to roll your own. Easier to just start with something open sourced and build a small module on top.
Nvidia is rolling FEM into Physx[1] - exciting stuff! GPU-accelerated FEM is going to be a game changer if they didn't cut too many corners in the pursuit of speed.
I wonder if it can be coupled with FleX...
[1]: https://news.developer.nvidia.com/announcing-nvidia-physx-sdk-5-0/ https://news.developer.nvidia.com/announcing-nvidia-physx-sd...
- yiyus 7y agoIt's totally worth it from a pedagogical point of view, both to learn the FE method and to learn the programming language.
- doczoidberg 7y agoIs Physx and Flex also for engineering issues but only for game physics?
- sandoooo 7y agoIt depends. The difference vs traditional engineering software is in how much deviation from reality there is, and how much you can tolerate. Both of these depends on what exactly you're simulating and what sort of results you're looking for. For example, Nvidia published a paper a while ago using Flex as a simulation environment for training AI to perform robotic tasks: https://www.roboticsbusinessreview.com/ai/nvidia-researchers-unveil-concept-to-close-simulation-reality-gap/ https://www.roboticsbusinessreview.com/ai/nvidia-researchers...