Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

unmerging at contact level instead of body level #14

Closed
EulalieCoevoet opened this issue Sep 19, 2019 · 2 comments
Closed

unmerging at contact level instead of body level #14

EulalieCoevoet opened this issue Sep 19, 2019 · 2 comments
Assignees
Labels
invalid This doesn't seem right

Comments

@EulalieCoevoet
Copy link
Owner

When lifting a sub stack in a bigger stack... the contacts that go down to zero force with the single step PGS should become active, and the rigid collection graph should be split in 2 on this "edge".

Or... will this cause a problem in a more complicated jumble, if the top is still rigidly connected to the bottom through different internal constraints!? To discuss!

@paulkry
Copy link
Collaborator

paulkry commented Sep 20, 2019

On second thought, not sure how internal contacts can simply become external if there is a loop of bodies. Consider the doubleStackUnmergeTest.png, ans suppose we include pinned bodies in the collection, or add another double length bar at the bottom. If you make a set of internal contacts active then they would have zero force as they are between two parts of the same merged collection. Perhaps with additional time steps those zero contact forces would cause other bodies to unmerge in subsequent time steps, but is this a desirable behaviour??

I think this issue should perhaps be tabled, closed, or discussed futher.

@paulkry paulkry added the invalid This doesn't seem right label Sep 20, 2019
@paulkry
Copy link
Collaborator

paulkry commented Sep 23, 2019

I'm simply going to close this... I don't think it is a real issue. There is a more general problem of unmerging correctly in larger more complicated graphs to discuss later.

@paulkry paulkry closed this as completed Sep 23, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
invalid This doesn't seem right
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants