diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'source/blender/blenkernel/intern/softbody.c')
| -rw-r--r-- | source/blender/blenkernel/intern/softbody.c | 11 |
1 files changed, 5 insertions, 6 deletions
diff --git a/source/blender/blenkernel/intern/softbody.c b/source/blender/blenkernel/intern/softbody.c index 55236bfefd0..5af3f22cad2 100644 --- a/source/blender/blenkernel/intern/softbody.c +++ b/source/blender/blenkernel/intern/softbody.c @@ -952,7 +952,7 @@ static void free_softbody_intern(SoftBody *sb) * * it actually checks if the particle intrudes a short range force field generated * by the faces of the target object and returns a force to drive the particel out - * the strength of the field grows exponetially if the particle is on the 'wrong' side of the face + * the strength of the field grows exponentially if the particle is on the 'wrong' side of the face * 'wrong' side : projection to the face normal is negative (all referred to a vertex in the face) * * flaw of this: 'fast' particles as well as 'fast' colliding faces @@ -962,7 +962,7 @@ static void free_softbody_intern(SoftBody *sb) * besides our h is way larger than in QM because forces propagate way slower here * we have to deal with fuzzy(time) in the range of 1/25 seconds (typical frame rate) * yup collision targets are not known here any better - * and 1/25 second is looong compared to real collision events + * and 1/25 second is very long compared to real collision events * Q: why not use 'simple' collision here like bouncing back a particle * --> reverting is velocity on the face normal * A: because our particles are not alone here @@ -1707,11 +1707,10 @@ static int sb_detect_vertex_collisionCached(float opco[3], copy_v3_v3(nv3, mvert[vt->tri[2]].co); if (mprevvert) { - /* grab the average speed of the collider vertices - * before we spoil nvX + /* Grab the average speed of the collider vertices before we spoil nvX * humm could be done once a SB steps but then we' need to store that too - * since the AABB reduced propabitlty to get here drasticallly - * it might be a nice tradeof CPU <--> memory + * since the AABB reduced probability to get here drastically + * it might be a nice tradeoff CPU <--> memory. */ sub_v3_v3v3(vv1, nv1, mprevvert[vt->tri[0]].co); sub_v3_v3v3(vv2, nv2, mprevvert[vt->tri[1]].co); |