Cloth Physics Bending #43911

New Issue

William Hensley · 2015-03-06T23:13:23+01:00

William Hensley commented

2015-03-06 23:13:23 +01:00

System Information
Windows

Blender Version
Broken: 2.73 90e1b83
Worked: 2.73 273fa0a

Short description of error
Simulation results are not the same between versions. On the current version, and in the past, a cube, with each edge connected to two edges, and a high bending stiffness, behaves relatively rigidly. Using the most recent test build, I received an unexpected result.

Exact steps for others to reproduce the error
Open file and press play. The results should be different between the main build and the test build.
untitledD.blend

**System Information** Windows **Blender Version** Broken: 2.73 90e1b83 Worked: 2.73 273fa0a **Short description of error** Simulation results are not the same between versions. On the current version, and in the past, a cube, with each edge connected to two edges, and a high bending stiffness, behaves relatively rigidly. Using the most recent test build, I received an unexpected result. **Exact steps for others to reproduce the error** Open file and press play. The results should be different between the main build and the test build. [untitledD.blend](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F147591/untitledD.blend)

William Hensley commented

2015-03-06 23:13:23 +01:00

Changed status to: 'Open'

William Hensley commented

2015-03-06 23:13:23 +01:00

Added subscriber: @Arcayer

blender-admin commented

2015-03-06 23:13:23 +01:00

#43406 was marked as duplicate of this issue

Lukas Tönne was assigned by Bastien Montagne

2015-03-07 09:30:45 +01:00

Bastien Montagne commented

2015-03-07 09:30:45 +01:00

Added subscriber: @mont29

Bastien Montagne commented

2015-03-07 09:30:45 +01:00

Can confirm results are different. Not sure whether this is bug or expected behavior of new code, though, Lukas, your call here. :)

Lukas Tönne commented

2015-03-10 11:12:13 +01:00

Added subscribers: @adrian2608, @zeauro, @Sergey, @ZauberParacelsus, @tischbein3-2, @Lapineige, @kevindietrich, @sindra1961, @LukasTonne, @rajaditya_m

Lukas Tönne commented

2015-03-10 11:19:27 +01:00

Added subscriber: @genscher

Lukas Tönne commented

2015-03-10 11:19:27 +01:00

The problem here seems to be related to spring compression:
https://developer.blender.org/diffusion/B/browse/master/source/blender/physics/intern/implicit_blender.c;8a551394e50a96d3a78f37525df0825e11ba9fd8$1643

All debugging indicates that this works exactly as before:
https://developer.blender.org/diffusion/B/browse/master/source/blender/blenkernel/intern/implicit.c;95182d1465bb9e39b5ec79f18d5f3df53610538e$1263

I can't say why the result is different now - but if i simply disable the compression test (always calculate structural springs) the new cube also keeps it's shape.
It actually looks like the old code was somehow incorrect: it should allow compression of structural springs, meaning the cloth should collapse in on itself.
Possibly some of the other spring types worked against this (bending, shearing) and have changed in some way.

@genscher: Maybe you could have a look at the old code too?

The problem here seems to be related to spring compression: https://developer.blender.org/diffusion/B/browse/master/source/blender/physics/intern/implicit_blender.c;8a551394e50a96d3a78f37525df0825e11ba9fd8$1643 All debugging indicates that this works exactly as before: https://developer.blender.org/diffusion/B/browse/master/source/blender/blenkernel/intern/implicit.c;95182d1465bb9e39b5ec79f18d5f3df53610538e$1263 I can't say why the result is different now - but if i simply disable the compression test (always calculate structural springs) the new cube also keeps it's shape. It actually looks like the old code was somehow incorrect: it should allow compression of structural springs, meaning the cloth should collapse in on itself. Possibly some of the other spring types worked against this (bending, shearing) and have changed in some way. @genscher: Maybe you could have a look at the old code too?

perfection cat commented

2015-03-11 09:37:19 +01:00

These only set presets and do not change other parameters.

version 2.73 (sub 9), branch b'master', commit date b'2015-03-10' b'22:08', hash b'0d05315', b'Release'

version 2.73 (sub 0), branch b'master', commit date b'2015-01-20' b'18:16', hash b'bbf09d9', b'Release'

This blend file was made by version 2.73 (sub 0).
.blend
ClothDefault.blend

These only set presets and do not change other parameters. version 2.73 (sub 9), branch b'master', commit date b'2015-03-10' b'22:08', hash b'0d05315', b'Release' ![DailyBuild.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F149773/DailyBuild.png) version 2.73 (sub 0), branch b'master', commit date b'2015-01-20' b'18:16', hash b'bbf09d9', b'Release' ![273Release.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F149775/273Release.png) This blend file was made by version 2.73 (sub 0). .blend [ClothDefault.blend](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F149777/ClothDefault.blend)

perfection cat commented

2015-03-11 09:49:25 +01:00

This blend file was made by a daily build version.

version 2.73 (sub 9), branch b'master', commit date b'2015-03-10' b'22:08', hash b'0d05315', b'Release'

version 2.73 (sub 0), branch b'master', commit date b'2015-01-20' b'18:16', hash b'bbf09d9', b'Release'

.blend
ClothDefaultDaily.blend

This blend file was made by a daily build version. version 2.73 (sub 9), branch b'master', commit date b'2015-03-10' b'22:08', hash b'0d05315', b'Release' ![DailyMakeDaily.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F149785/DailyMakeDaily.png) version 2.73 (sub 0), branch b'master', commit date b'2015-01-20' b'18:16', hash b'bbf09d9', b'Release' ![DailyMakeRelease.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F149788/DailyMakeRelease.png) .blend [ClothDefaultDaily.blend](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F149790/ClothDefaultDaily.blend)

ronan ducluzeau commented

2015-03-13 15:06:55 +01:00

I confirm that results are different with provided .blends opened in official 2.73 and hash 61eab74.

But for this blend made from scratch with hash 61eab74 on ubuntu 14.04 64bits.
ClothFromScratch.blend

Result is almost the same but with more spring effect and no rebound in master.

I confirm that results are different with provided .blends opened in official 2.73 and hash 61eab74. But for this blend made from scratch with hash 61eab74 on ubuntu 14.04 64bits. [ClothFromScratch.blend](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F150549/ClothFromScratch.blend) Result is almost the same but with more spring effect and no rebound in master.

perfection cat commented

2015-03-16 07:09:37 +01:00

If binaries are different, results may be different.
The point that I changed in blend which I provided is only presets.
I want to see the screenshot of the result that you carried out.

If binaries are different, results may be different. The point that I changed in blend which I provided is only presets. I want to see the screenshot of the result that you carried out.

perfection cat commented

2015-03-16 07:51:42 +01:00

I noticed an interesting thing.
I want you to watch this.

This changed presets as well as the blend file which I attached before.
But I made all mass a value same as silk this time.
I made this blend in 2.74.(blender-2.74-3824e0f1-win32.zip)
Made274SameMass.blend
It is this to have made blend of the same setting in 2.73(sub0).

Made2730SameMass.blend

I noticed an interesting thing. I want you to watch this. ![Made274SameMass.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F152006/Made274SameMass.png) This changed presets as well as the blend file which I attached before. But I made all mass a value same as silk this time. I made this blend in 2.74.(blender-2.74-3824e0f1-win32.zip) [Made274SameMass.blend](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F152008/Made274SameMass.blend) It is this to have made blend of the same setting in 2.73(sub0). ![Made2730SameMass.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F152009/Made2730SameMass.png) [Made2730SameMass.blend](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F152011/Made2730SameMass.blend)

perfection cat commented

2015-03-16 08:14:47 +01:00

Do you not look Silk more firmly than rubber?

ClothSim274.blend
Silk is stiff than rubber?

2.71

271Result.blend

Do you not look Silk more firmly than rubber? ![ClothSim274.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F152014/ClothSim274.png) [ClothSim274.blend](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F152016/ClothSim274.blend) Silk is stiff than rubber? 2.71 ![271Result.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F152025/271Result.png) [271Result.blend](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F152026/271Result.blend)

Rajaditya Mukherjee commented

2015-03-16 08:15:32 +01:00

Removed subscriber: @rajaditya_m

YAFU commented

2015-03-20 13:26:17 +01:00

Added subscriber: @YAFU

YAFU commented

2015-03-20 13:26:17 +01:00

Hello.
I'm noticing this problem in 2.74, View posts #3 and #11 in the next thread:

http://www.blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?365655-Slow-Cloth-Simulation-in-2-74

Hello. I'm noticing this problem in 2.74, View posts #3 and #11 in the next thread: http://www.blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?365655-Slow-Cloth-Simulation-in-2-74

perfection cat commented

2015-03-28 06:46:46 +01:00

@LukasTonne:
Even if a condition is the same in new code because the concept of the spring is different from old code, a result may not be the same.
New code may be suitable for Hair, but may not be suitable for cloth.
I think that it cannot express the difference in subject matter well.

Hair is a line, but cloth is a plane.
One point thinks that a position is decided under the influence of neighboring power.
However, I think that neighboring power does not influence it with the new spring.
The old spring is based on influence of neighboring power.

@LukasTonne: Even if a condition is the same in new code because the concept of the spring is different from old code, a result may not be the same. New code may be suitable for Hair, but may not be suitable for cloth. I think that it cannot express the difference in subject matter well. Hair is a line, but cloth is a plane. One point thinks that a position is decided under the influence of neighboring power. However, I think that neighboring power does not influence it with the new spring. The old spring is based on influence of neighboring power. ![spring.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F155676/spring.png)

perfection cat commented

2015-03-28 08:09:22 +01:00

It rises if I pick up the cloth for silk.
I can realize it if I coordinate bending with the old spring.
In the case of 2.73a(sub0):

Bend50_273a_Sub0.blend

I cannot realize it even if I maximize bending with the new spring.
In the case of 2.74RC4:

Bend_274RC4.blend

It rises if I pick up the cloth for silk. I can realize it if I coordinate bending with the old spring. In the case of 2.73a(sub0): ![Bend50_273a_Sub0.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F155679/Bend50_273a_Sub0.png) [Bend50_273a_Sub0.blend](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F155685/Bend50_273a_Sub0.blend) I cannot realize it even if I maximize bending with the new spring. In the case of 2.74RC4: ![Bend_274RC4.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F155682/Bend_274RC4.png) [Bend_274RC4.blend](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F155684/Bend_274RC4.blend)

perfection cat commented

2015-03-31 04:22:08 +02:00

In #43911#294494, @LukasTonne wrote:
The problem here seems to be related to spring compression:
https://developer.blender.org/diffusion/B/browse/master/source/blender/physics/intern/implicit_blender.c;8a551394e50a96d3a78f37525df0825e11ba9fd8$1643

All debugging indicates that this works exactly as before:
https://developer.blender.org/diffusion/B/browse/master/source/blender/blenkernel/intern/implicit.c;95182d1465bb9e39b5ec79f18d5f3df53610538e$1263

I can't say why the result is different now - but if i simply disable the compression test (always calculate structural springs) the new cube also keeps it's shape.
It actually looks like the old code was somehow incorrect: it should allow compression of structural springs, meaning the cloth should collapse in on itself.
Possibly some of the other spring types worked against this (bending, shearing) and have changed in some way.

@genscher: Maybe you could have a look at the old code too?

@LukasTonne:
I watched the file which you revised and noticed.
There is code about benging spring in more bottoms where are different from the revised point.
The following comment is written.
/* calculate force of bending springs */

> In #43911#294494, @LukasTonne wrote: > The problem here seems to be related to spring compression: > https://developer.blender.org/diffusion/B/browse/master/source/blender/physics/intern/implicit_blender.c;8a551394e50a96d3a78f37525df0825e11ba9fd8$1643 > > All debugging indicates that this works exactly as before: > https://developer.blender.org/diffusion/B/browse/master/source/blender/blenkernel/intern/implicit.c;95182d1465bb9e39b5ec79f18d5f3df53610538e$1263 > > I can't say why the result is different now - but if i simply disable the compression test (always calculate structural springs) the new cube also keeps it's shape. > It actually looks like the old code was somehow incorrect: it should allow compression of structural springs, meaning the cloth should collapse in on itself. > Possibly some of the other spring types worked against this (bending, shearing) and have changed in some way. > > @genscher: Maybe you could have a look at the old code too? @LukasTonne: I watched the file which you revised and noticed. There is code about benging spring in more bottoms where are different from the revised point. The following comment is written. /* calculate force of bending springs */

perfection cat commented

2015-03-31 04:34:02 +02:00

current?

 else { /* calculate force of bending springs */
 if (length < L) {
 s->flags |= CLOTH_SPRING_FLAG_NEEDED;

 k = clmd->sim_parms->bending;

 scaling = k + s->stiffness * fabsf(clmd->sim_parms->max_bend - k);
 cb = k = scaling / (20.0f * (clmd->sim_parms->avg_spring_len + FLT_EPSILON));

 mul_fvector_S(bending_force, dir, fbstar(length, L, k, cb));
 VECADD(s->f, s->f, bending_force);

 dfdx_spring_type2(s->dfdx, dir, length, L, k, cb);
 }

Is a judgment of no_compress not enough?

 else { /* calculate force of bending springs */
 if (length < L || no_compress) {
 s->flags |= CLOTH_SPRING_FLAG_NEEDED;

 k = clmd->sim_parms->bending;

 scaling = k + s->stiffness * fabsf(clmd->sim_parms->max_bend - k);
 cb = k = scaling / (20.0f * (clmd->sim_parms->avg_spring_len + FLT_EPSILON));

 mul_fvector_S(bending_force, dir, fbstar(length, L, k, cb));
 VECADD(s->f, s->f, bending_force);

 dfdx_spring_type2(s->dfdx, dir, length, L, k, cb);
 }

current? ``` else { /* calculate force of bending springs */ if (length < L) { s->flags |= CLOTH_SPRING_FLAG_NEEDED; k = clmd->sim_parms->bending; scaling = k + s->stiffness * fabsf(clmd->sim_parms->max_bend - k); cb = k = scaling / (20.0f * (clmd->sim_parms->avg_spring_len + FLT_EPSILON)); mul_fvector_S(bending_force, dir, fbstar(length, L, k, cb)); VECADD(s->f, s->f, bending_force); dfdx_spring_type2(s->dfdx, dir, length, L, k, cb); } ``` Is a judgment of no_compress not enough? ``` else { /* calculate force of bending springs */ if (length < L || no_compress) { s->flags |= CLOTH_SPRING_FLAG_NEEDED; k = clmd->sim_parms->bending; scaling = k + s->stiffness * fabsf(clmd->sim_parms->max_bend - k); cb = k = scaling / (20.0f * (clmd->sim_parms->avg_spring_len + FLT_EPSILON)); mul_fvector_S(bending_force, dir, fbstar(length, L, k, cb)); VECADD(s->f, s->f, bending_force); dfdx_spring_type2(s->dfdx, dir, length, L, k, cb); } ```

perfection cat commented

2015-04-06 04:38:58 +02:00

Why does weighting not disperse equally?

Why does weighting not disperse equally? ![DailyMakeDaily.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F149785/DailyMakeDaily.png)

Luis Bermudez commented

2015-06-25 19:15:44 +02:00

Added subscriber: @lfb3d

Luis Bermudez commented

2015-06-25 19:15:44 +02:00

@sindra1961 I believe the suggested code for no_compress is a bit off. You would want to have the "no_compress" condition when there is no compression happening (length > L). This is more similar to Lukas' condition. So something like this is more in order:

if (length > L || no_compress)

But that's only when you're comparing (length < L) and (length > L), so the completed code would look something like:

else { /* calculate force of bending springs */
if (length > L || no_compress) {
   //TODO: Implement this
} else {
s->flags |= CLOTH_SPRING_FLAG_NEEDED;

k = clmd->sim_parms->bending;

scaling = k + s->stiffness * fabsf(clmd->sim_parms->max_bend - k);
cb = k = scaling / (20.0f * (clmd->sim_parms->avg_spring_len + FLT_EPSILON));

mul_fvector_S(bending_force, dir, fbstar(length, L, k, cb));
VECADD(s->f, s->f, bending_force);

dfdx_spring_type2(s->dfdx, dir, length, L, k, cb);
}

And that doesn't really make sense for bending springs. I would argue that the bending springs only need to be at rest length or compressed to represent the bending/wrinkling of cloth. Wouldn't you agree? So you really only want to calculate bending forces when length < L (specifically for bending forces). The function Lukas was changing was specifically for stretching and shearing springs (you don't really want those other two spring types to compress, as I explain below); however, for bending springs you only want them to compress (not expand) so that they represent bending in cloth.

In #43911#294494, @LukasTonne wrote:
It actually looks like the old code was somehow incorrect: it should allow compression of structural springs, meaning the cloth should collapse in on itself.

@LukasTonne I've tried implementing shearing&stretching springs that allow compression, and usually this leads to instability/explosions. In an ideal and correct world, you'd expect that stretching&shearing springs should be able to compress (just as they expand). However, real cloth does not have "super-elastic" behavior. So just like you don't want the springs to stretch too far past rest length; you also don't want cloth to compress too much at all (e.g., once it starts compressing, don't let it continue). The point where compression (for shearing/stretching springs) might lead to instability is where a shearing/stretching spring compresses so much that it potentially "flips direction" (I can go further into detail if you like) -- the length of the stretching/shearing spring is no longer in the direction of the rest length spring, but it has inverted/negated into the opposite direction (and I ask: does this make any sense? Especially in a 1D spring? I think not).

So for cloth, I believe no compression is the way to go (as @genscher originally implemented) for stretching and shearing springs (oppositely, you need compression for the bending springs, as explained above). Can you elaborate on why the "no_compression" flag is needed for hair (or point me towards the commit comment)?

Any relevant feedback/questions are highly appreciated.

@sindra1961 I believe the suggested code for no_compress is a bit off. You would want to have the "no_compress" condition when there is no compression happening (length > L). This is more similar to Lukas' condition. So something like this is more in order: ``` if (length > L || no_compress) ``` But that's only when you're comparing (length < L) and (length > L), so the completed code would look something like: ``` else { /* calculate force of bending springs */ if (length > L || no_compress) { //TODO: Implement this } else { s->flags |= CLOTH_SPRING_FLAG_NEEDED; k = clmd->sim_parms->bending; scaling = k + s->stiffness * fabsf(clmd->sim_parms->max_bend - k); cb = k = scaling / (20.0f * (clmd->sim_parms->avg_spring_len + FLT_EPSILON)); mul_fvector_S(bending_force, dir, fbstar(length, L, k, cb)); VECADD(s->f, s->f, bending_force); dfdx_spring_type2(s->dfdx, dir, length, L, k, cb); } ``` And that doesn't really make sense for bending springs. I would argue that the bending springs only need to be at rest length or compressed to represent the bending/wrinkling of cloth. Wouldn't you agree? So you really only want to calculate bending forces when length < L (specifically for bending forces). The function Lukas was changing was specifically for stretching and shearing springs (you don't really want those other two spring types to compress, as I explain below); however, for bending springs you only want them to compress (not expand) so that they represent bending in cloth. > In #43911#294494, @LukasTonne wrote: > It actually looks like the old code was somehow incorrect: it should allow compression of structural springs, meaning the cloth should collapse in on itself. @LukasTonne I've tried implementing shearing&stretching springs that allow compression, and usually this leads to instability/explosions. In an ideal and correct world, you'd expect that stretching&shearing springs should be able to compress (just as they expand). However, real cloth does not have "super-elastic" behavior. So just like you don't want the springs to stretch too far past rest length; you also don't want cloth to compress too much at all (e.g., once it starts compressing, don't let it continue). The point where compression (for shearing/stretching springs) might lead to instability is where a shearing/stretching spring compresses so much that it potentially "flips direction" (I can go further into detail if you like) -- the length of the stretching/shearing spring is no longer in the direction of the rest length spring, but it has inverted/negated into the opposite direction (and I ask: does this make any sense? Especially in a 1D spring? I think not). So for cloth, I believe no compression is the way to go (as @genscher originally implemented) for stretching and shearing springs (oppositely, you need compression for the bending springs, as explained above). Can you elaborate on why the "no_compression" flag is needed for hair (or point me towards the commit comment)? Any relevant feedback/questions are highly appreciated.

perfection cat commented

2015-06-26 01:54:49 +02:00

@lfb3d:
When I was able to build blender with vs2010, I acquired a source file to my PC.
Therefore I was not able to check a source file freely anymore when I wrote that comment.
I checked how a source file was changed when a new spring system was introduced, but did not know it which was right.
I wanted to confirm it whether there was not the need to use it because no_compress was not used.
If I pick up cloth and raise it, it collapses, but stays by neighboring power.
I think that this power to interfere mutually was included by the conventional spring system.
However, I did not seem to be able to express it by the new spring system.
Because only the part of the source file looks, I may say a wrong thing.
I only want the system which can express material of the cloth to go back up.
I feel a question in treating cloth and hair equally personally.

@lfb3d: When I was able to build blender with vs2010, I acquired a source file to my PC. Therefore I was not able to check a source file freely anymore when I wrote that comment. I checked how a source file was changed when a new spring system was introduced, but did not know it which was right. I wanted to confirm it whether there was not the need to use it because no_compress was not used. If I pick up cloth and raise it, it collapses, but stays by neighboring power. I think that this power to interfere mutually was included by the conventional spring system. However, I did not seem to be able to express it by the new spring system. Because only the part of the source file looks, I may say a wrong thing. I only want the system which can express material of the cloth to go back up. I feel a question in treating cloth and hair equally personally.

Jim Gaston commented

2015-07-08 21:10:12 +02:00

Added subscriber: @JimG

Jim Gaston commented

2015-07-08 21:10:12 +02:00

from 2.74 to 2.72 there were some refactoring changes.

in 2.74 'scaling' is set twice.
and 'cb' is set to the new value.

I've extracted the changes here.

please look at this. In my tests it seemed to have caused the differences between the releases.

Thank you and regards.

2.74------------------------------ IMPLICIT_BLENDER.C

	scaling = parms->bending + s->stiffness * fabsf(parms->max_bend - parms->bending);
	kb = scaling / (20.0f * (parms->avg_spring_len + FLT_EPSILON));
	
	scaling = parms->bending_damping;
	cb = scaling / (20.0f * (parms->avg_spring_len + FLT_EPSILON));

2.72------------------------------IMPLICIT.C

       	scaling = k + s->stiffness * fabsf( clmd->sim_parms->max_bend - k );

	cb = k = scaling / (20.0f * (clmd->sim_parms->avg_spring_len + FLT_EPSILON));

from 2.74 to 2.72 there were some refactoring changes. in 2.74 'scaling' is set twice. and 'cb' is set to the new value. I've extracted the changes here. please look at this. In my tests it seemed to have caused the differences between the releases. Thank you and regards. 2.74------------------------------ IMPLICIT_BLENDER.C scaling = parms->bending + s->stiffness * fabsf(parms->max_bend - parms->bending); kb = scaling / (20.0f * (parms->avg_spring_len + FLT_EPSILON)); scaling = parms->bending_damping; cb = scaling / (20.0f * (parms->avg_spring_len + FLT_EPSILON)); 2.72------------------------------IMPLICIT.C ``` scaling = k + s->stiffness * fabsf( clmd->sim_parms->max_bend - k ); ``` cb = k = scaling / (20.0f * (clmd->sim_parms->avg_spring_len + FLT_EPSILON));

Luis Bermudez commented

2015-07-08 21:18:00 +02:00

Thanks for testing the differences. This is what I believe is causing the differences as well. This is the only major change in the cloth code that I am aware of. cb should be changed based on the calculations in the research paper from Choi&Ko 2002; I'm not sure what cb is based on with these changes.

Martin Norris commented

2015-08-09 16:54:18 +02:00

Added subscriber: @MartinNorris

Martin Norris commented

2015-08-09 16:54:18 +02:00

Hi Everyone,

I added a patch D1454 for #45084 which I think also solves this problem
That is using the blend file from the opening with the patch the cude stays rigid {has a high stiffness}

With 2.75a there is no stiffness to the cube

Hope this helps

Martin

Hi Everyone, I added a patch [D1454](https://archive.blender.org/developer/D1454) for #45084 which I think also solves this problem That is using the blend file from the opening with the patch the cude stays rigid {has a high stiffness} ![#43911 with patch.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F222402/T43911_with_patch.png) With 2.75a there is no stiffness to the cube ![#43911 with 275a.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F222404/T43911_with_275a.png) Hope this helps Martin

Aaron Carlisle commented

2015-08-24 17:42:07 +02:00

Added subscriber: @Blendify

Aaron Carlisle commented

2015-08-24 17:42:08 +02:00

Has this been fixed with today commit

William Hensley commented

2015-08-25 08:45:38 +02:00

After testing with several models using the most recent build (a7dd209) and 2.73 (273fa0a), none of the models failed to exhibit reasonable behavior. Collision detection was superior in the most recent build. Results were otherwise similar.

I would consider this fixed.

After testing with several models using the most recent build (a7dd209) and 2.73 (273fa0a), none of the models failed to exhibit reasonable behavior. Collision detection was superior in the most recent build. Results were otherwise similar. I would consider this fixed.

Aaron Carlisle commented

2015-08-25 16:02:52 +02:00

Changed status from 'Open' to: 'Resolved'

Aaron Carlisle closed this issue

2015-08-25 16:02:52 +02:00

Aaron Carlisle commented

2015-08-25 16:02:52 +02:00

We can always reopen this if it appears to be broken still but glad to here this finally works again

Sign in to join this conversation.

No Label

Download

What's New

Blender Studio

Manual

Developers Blog

Documentation

Benchmark

Blender Conference

Development Fund

One-time Donations

Cloth Physics Bending #43911