ok I don’t think it is a problem from SOFA.
As it is using OpenHaptics to communicate with the touch, be sure to have an up to date version and if you can try to run the example from the lib as well.
sorry my hexadecimal is a bit rusty.
771 correspond to:
#define HD_COMM_CONFIG_ERROR 0x0303
in openHaptics: hdDefines.h
Just to be sure, when you are using the touch setup, is the device well detected?
Are you able to run touch demo ? (I’m on windows, so not sure it exists on linux)
the driver error 771 if I well remember means that your device is busy.
Be sure before starting the scene that you have closed all touch app. like the demo or Touch Setup.
If none, also check in your task manager that there is no zombie task like an old exec of runSofa or touch app.
the normal you see in the window are coming from the OglModel of your scene.
Each OglModel has a Data
normal. I’m not used to create scene in python but I’m quite sure you can access directly Data values of component.
Be sure to have
updateNormalsset to true in the OglModel
Did someone say topology? Did I saw the bat-topology-signal?
yes sorry, all those components are still a bit messy. It is on the todo list to have a clearer api.
Until then, for basic suppression/add of topological elements, I would suggest to have a look at those…[Read more]
@outtt I see the delay in your video but I tested the liver18.12.scn on my computer and I don’t have the delay.
Could you tell me exactly which version of SOFA you are using. Is it the 18.12 from github that you compiled or a package?
Are you able to test on an up to date version of SOFA? There might have been additional fixes not included…[Read more]
ok I understand, the data binding has not been canceled. The code from the Geomagic didn’t changed.
But the API on how to solve the constraint changed to be more accurate. The delay is due to tool position computation regarding the constraint.
When you speak about the 50 FPS, is it using the demo scene of the plugin or your scene?
Ok, yes it is because the omni position is now gathered inside the Omni node where there is mechanicalStateController.
To link to the Instrument model, it uses VectorSpringForceField.
Letting the first Data link was creating inconsistencies between the collision and controllerState nodes communicating using the VectorSpringForceField and the…[Read more]
could you just post the old scene with the data binding you are highlighting.
I will check if this is still possible or with another mechanism.
The change in the scene were a consequence of changes in the constraint resolution API inside SOFA.
epernod replied to the topic Carving into model does not work when using another model in the forum Using SOFA 1 year, 5 months ago
just going quickly through the scene example, I think the tag “CarvingSurface” is missing on the target collision Model.
Then the class
TopologicalChangeManagercan give you which combination of collision model can be used for carving.
And yes only one collision model at a time can be used for your tool.
I had the same problem, it was because the cgal dll files were not found by CGALPlugin.dll
So you should add the cgal bin directory to your env path or look at this PR I try to fix that problem:
epernod replied to the topic AttachConstraint not compatible with freemotionanimationloop in the forum Using SOFA 1 year, 5 months ago
could you describe what is the result you obtain. Is it crashing, nothing happen?
Do you have any output log?
like this I could see 2 options. Either attachConstraint work only with defaultAnimationLoop or you have to specify indices1=”@../M1/np1.indices1″
yes you need a tetrahedron topology. I checked and only triangle model collision is working well at the moment. So you will need something like (code not tested):
<CarvingManager active="true" />
<Node name="Grid" >
<RegularGrid name="HexaTop" n="12 12 12" min="-10 -6 -10" max="10 14 10" />
@Binesh I just give a quick look at UncoupledConstraintCorrection. I saw that:
, d_handleTopologyChange(initData(&d_handleTopologyChange, true, "handleTopologyChange", "Enable support of topological changes for compliance vector (disable if another component takes care of this)"))
Do you know in which case “another component takes care of…[Read more]
thank you for raising this issue up.
Regarding you scene, you have in the same node a Mesh and EdgeSet components.
I will add an issue on github regarding that because this should not be allowed.
This means you have 2 topologies in the same node so the other component like MechanicalObject and Spring don’t know which topology to rely…[Read more]
- Load More