Bullet spring2 tends to explode at high damping and stiffness #55958
Labels
No Label
Interest
Alembic
Interest
Animation & Rigging
Interest
Asset Browser
Interest
Asset Browser Project Overview
Interest
Audio
Interest
Automated Testing
Interest
Blender Asset Bundle
Interest
BlendFile
Interest
Collada
Interest
Compatibility
Interest
Compositing
Interest
Core
Interest
Cycles
Interest
Dependency Graph
Interest
Development Management
Interest
EEVEE
Interest
EEVEE & Viewport
Interest
Freestyle
Interest
Geometry Nodes
Interest
Grease Pencil
Interest
ID Management
Interest
Images & Movies
Interest
Import Export
Interest
Line Art
Interest
Masking
Interest
Metal
Interest
Modeling
Interest
Modifiers
Interest
Motion Tracking
Interest
Nodes & Physics
Interest
OpenGL
Interest
Overlay
Interest
Overrides
Interest
Performance
Interest
Physics
Interest
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Interest
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Interest
Python API
Interest
Render & Cycles
Interest
Render Pipeline
Interest
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Interest
Text Editor
Interest
Translations
Interest
Triaging
Interest
Undo
Interest
USD
Interest
User Interface
Interest
UV Editing
Interest
VFX & Video
Interest
Video Sequencer
Interest
Virtual Reality
Interest
Vulkan
Interest
Wayland
Interest
Workbench
Interest: X11
Legacy
Blender 2.8 Project
Legacy
Milestone 1: Basic, Local Asset Browser
Legacy
OpenGL Error
Meta
Good First Issue
Meta
Papercut
Meta
Retrospective
Meta
Security
Module
Animation & Rigging
Module
Core
Module
Development Management
Module
EEVEE & Viewport
Module
Grease Pencil
Module
Modeling
Module
Nodes & Physics
Module
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Module
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Module
Python API
Module
Render & Cycles
Module
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Module
Triaging
Module
User Interface
Module
VFX & Video
Platform
FreeBSD
Platform
Linux
Platform
macOS
Platform
Windows
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Normal
Priority
Unbreak Now!
Status
Archived
Status
Confirmed
Status
Duplicate
Status
Needs Info from Developers
Status
Needs Information from User
Status
Needs Triage
Status
Resolved
Type
Bug
Type
Design
Type
Known Issue
Type
Patch
Type
Report
Type
To Do
No Milestone
No project
No Assignees
4 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: blender/blender#55958
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
I did some tests with the new "spring2" constraints in Blender 2.79 master in order to make them work for our BCB add-on development and I noticed a serious instability issue with them. In larger structures with high stiffness and damping they cause strong jittering and explosion effects. And when stiffness and damping is reduced enough so that they don't explode, they are already too weak to keep something in place. This wasn't the case with the former springs.
Blend: bug_spring2.blend
This .blend file contains a structure with springs, which will show a slow deformation behavior in the latest official Blender 2.79 release. The same file simulated in 2.79 master branch, however, will make everything explode instead. You can reduce the stiffness to something like 10,000, then it only jitters but at the same time it looks like nothing is connected anymore.
I couldn't find an actual advantage over the old springs, which at least were stable at all times. In case this is not considered a bug, I'd ask to make the spring type optional at least to offer the user a way around this limitation.
Added subscriber: @KaiKostack-3
Added subscribers: @sreich, @angavrilov
Initially I wanted to expose access to both types of springs, but @sreich suggested to try just switching to the new one first, and that went in as D3125. Maybe exposing both is better after all.
This issue was referenced by
ec640510a8
The advantage of the new springs is that you can actually create stiff springs.
This is a bug in bullet, so it should also be reported there.
As for how to handle it in blender. I'd really like to avoid having 2 generic spring constraints.
So if the new one doesn't work well and can't be fixed, just revert the change and continue to use the old one.
I'm absolutely against reverting, because damping in the old constraint is junk.
Btw, looking at this file more, it actually relies on this junk damping behavior to work. With the old constraint setting damping all the way to 0 (1 in blender UI) completely kills a velocity term in the computation, which I expect is totally nonphysical, and yet this test file relies on it to achieve the observed behavior. If you set damping values to 0.999999, it actually stops collapsing and becomes all jiggly-bouncy but stable. Set it to 0.99999 or smaller, and the bounce self-amplifies and eventually explodes even with the old constraints.
And now after some more testing, observations re new springs:
With 2000 steps per second, spring linear stiffness 1e+14 (likely auto-clamped), angular stiffness 1e+7, linear damping 7000, angular damping 10 the structure doesn't explode and stands there bouncing .
Regarding old springs, I have a feeling that with damping 1 it may actually be in effect simulating plastic transformation with resistance, rather than a spring.
At first:
I'm in difficult position now, because we (the BCB team) indeed use highly damped springs to replicate plastic deformation within the BCB structural simulation software we developed over the past 3 years. We developed formulas to define a stiffness from the observed behavior when damping = 1 in order to make it work in a somewhat physical way for us. So even when this is not physical per se for a spring, this "flaw" in spring1 helped us to achieve the desired behavior of a deformable connection either way.
Now with the new springs it becomes obvious that we would lose this option for the BCB in the next official Blender release. In an earlier stage of development (before we had angular springs in Blender) we used an array of linear springs to connect two elements in order to replicate plastic deformation, since back then this was the only way to damp rotation for springs at all. It looks like that this method would still work, however, the disadvantage is that you have to use three or four times of the number of spring constraints to achieve the same result, hence my reluctance to go back.
All I can say is that I'm extremely interested to keep the option to have stable damping for the angular component for such structures without having to maintain an own Blender build. I'm just not sure about the best way to solve that. I can see following options:
So basically what we have here isn't that new springs are broken or something, but primarily that the old ones have a weird implementation of damping, which has a quirk that with the value exactly 1 the spring turns from a spring into something more like plastic deformation, or a spring combined with a ratchet that only extends depending on force and doesn't actually spring back (to get it to move back you actually need to apply opposing external force higher than the one that caused extension).
Thus you could say that effectively the old springs have an undocumented built-in semi-plastic deformation constraint feature. The new ones on the other hand have a feature of damping actually working like real physical damping. This could be viewed as an argument in favor of having both at least until there is an official plastic deformation constraint.
It's not exactly the case that we just used something not intended to be used in this way, because when I was testing the idea of plastic deformation for the first time, I actually assumed it would work even for smaller values of damping in a similar fashion. I actually expected that it would swing back and forth a little and I would have accepted that even. But since we wanted to minimize the swinging motion it was a logical step for me to set the damping to the maximum, which worked as expected.
That angular springs now react that chaotic is basically the core problem here. Because if it would work with some damping it would already be great, but it almost doesn't work with any (noticeable) angular damping in this case. For this particular reason I would see the damping = 1 trick more or less as a workaround for the actual problem.
Having said that, however, it leads me to the same conclusion that we should make it basically optional which spring type one want to use, with spring2 the default maybe.
I find the generic spring constraint to be the most useless of all the constraints, having 2 of them is just silly.
I wouldn't mind too much if the spring constraint had a type field that would be set to the old spring behaviour for old files and default to the new behaviour for new constraints.
Regarding angular springs not being stable, it's not that they are more unstable than linear ones. As I mentioned, it is just the case that unlike linear springs they don't effectively clamp stiffness to prevent exploding. [This video ]] was computed with exact same settings as the [ https:*www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAPwcbngiWQ | previous one , except for using 3000 instead of 2000 steps per seconds; yet the oscillation frequency changes. This is because linear stiffness is clamped and increasing step count increases the actual effective stiffness.
@sreich: if you don't want two spring constraints, how about just a 'legacy mode' checkbox in the blender spring constraint?
Edit: for some reason I didn't get email notifications and thus didn't read the two previous comments before posting this one.
@angavrilov Having a drop down menu to select the spring type, like I mentioned above, should be fine.
Given that the original constraint names are "spring" and "spring 2", naming is something of a problem though.
Thank you.
Not everything is useless that you don't use. ;)
Seems like it would be worth considering to make clamping itself optional, too. I guess this would communicate the very fact that clamping is happening even better to the user. Just a thought, though.
Changed status from 'Open' to: 'Resolved'