Non-tech question: History of Farseer?

Oct 31, 2007 at 12:42 AM
In a break from tech questions, I was curious about the history of the Farseer project. To preface, I know very little about 2-D physics systems (it strikes me that it might be quite different from the techniques used in 3D physics). I also recently discovered Box2d and wondered if the Farseer system was inspired by that one or perhaps some other system or if you just start out from scratch one day.... And if so, what are the best web sources for getting up to speed on 2D physics implementations. And do you plan to have doc coming?

No hurry on this question...
Coordinator
Oct 31, 2007 at 1:41 AM
Most of Farseer was inspred by an earlier version of Erin Cattos Box2D. The version he has on the web now is an updated version of the enigne Farseer was built on. I wish someone would port it to C# because I'm sure it's a great 2D engine.

The only thing that is a bit different from Box2D is Farseer's collision detection. I use distance grid's. I learned about distance grid from doing general research on the web. I thought it'd be a good fit for 2D physics. The nice thing about it is it does convex polygon-polygon collison.

Besides partial docs that are on this site, I'm not sure when I'll get to finishing them. I want to finish them, but if I do that then I have no time to work on my own stuff and right now my priority is making some games. That is, after all, why I origianlly started Farseer.

-jeff
Oct 31, 2007 at 2:07 AM
Speaking of documentation, are you referring to the online documentation or the Intellitext documentation? Because if you're just talking about the online documentation I'd like to add that what I would find even more useful is more Intellitext documentation on classes, methods, and attributes in the code.

By the way, maybe you could find someone else who would be willing to go through the engine bit by bit and just add documentation like this (for free of course)? Seems like there must be somebody...
Oct 31, 2007 at 4:22 AM
I don't usually use Intellitext documentation. I prefer to see how it's used in a code sample or a more detailed explanation.
Oct 31, 2007 at 12:08 PM
As for me, I use intellitext documentation quite a bit when it is available. I use online documentation/samples to get started, but after that, I use pretty much just use that intellisense popup to figure out what methods/classes are available, and intellitext is invaluable there.
Coordinator
Oct 31, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Edited Oct 31, 2007 at 12:35 PM
So it looks like both are needed... I'll keep it in mind and maybe try to add some here and there, but no promises.

<edit>
Wow, I didn't even notice that all the text in the comments pops up when you use a method. I think I'll add these Intellitext comments first as it is something I can do as I am in the code.

If there are any methods that are confusing, let me know and i'll add those first.
Oct 31, 2007 at 9:17 PM
Edited Oct 31, 2007 at 9:19 PM
It would be great to see methods gets XML comments (///-way) cause this way we can run Sandcastle and build MSDN-style documentation.
For example, comment on Body.Position like "Position of the physic body relative to it's center of mass." would have saved me quite some time finding bugs in sprite positioning.

PS: also it would be nice that bodies, geos etc. get methods to draw them for debug mode like you did in PhysicsSimulatorView class.