"mocap" = "motion capture", correct. procedural animation is animation driven by an input. like the shapes/colours of the materials can be driven but the types of movements the mocap itself or by the music (though i don't think that one is being done here) or by physics simulations or generated noise.

>> ^Jaace:
Funny... Algodoo must have at one time been "Phun" and then changed it's name because it is an exact replica.


Algodoo is developed by the same company and the same developers and is derived from Phun, but with some 150 new features and improvements.

>> ^rottenseed:
That thrust demonstration was fucking awesome


Odd that it would be powered by liquified sheep.

Your video, Algodoo - Amazing Physics Simulator Software, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Thanks for the quality! Wasn't even sure the video would sift, but you sure gave it a helluva boost

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
*quality

New! Acoustic Physics Simulator Accelerator Addon Processor from BlastoCorp! Only $599!

Its not , i would say its in the top 4 it has some problems with grip simulation at lows speeds also the tracks are too smooth to emulate the notch fealing you get on a real race track. lfs is defently the best designed in terms of getting into a race with other people though and the interface is relay nicely executed.

best racing sims in order.

I racing , Ritcherd burns rally , Gtr evolution , R-Factor , LFS

i don't like R factor but the fact is on average it has better physics simulation than LFS Evan if its a mess takes ages to set up and has hardly any decent online servers,

oh and don't bother with I racing because in my opinion it costs to much and you don't get good value for money Evan if it dose have the best physics and car handling simulation. you can find a "free" version of i racing that gives you access to all tracks and cars with no multilayer letting you practice driving on the most acuret sim without having to pay a ridiculous monthly fee.

Oh if you have R factor make sure you download BOBs ( maker of bobs track boulder)laser scanned track

I'm not much of a programmer, but I have done some physics simulations in C and Matlab. I also have some rudimentary experience with Java. And I am a devil at LaTeX!

Neato bandito! But now that the physics simulations are done, I'd like to see this course put into production

haha totally laughable. At the same time people are calling people idiot-conspiracy theorists, they are talking out of the other side of their mouth saying, "I do remember on 9/11 while watching the news, there was mention that one of those smaller buildings was purposely demolished."

Yeah, they went into a burning building and set up for a demo in a few hours. Ok.

----
KaiEr, what are you talking about?

"I can show you THOUSANDS of buildings, burned and destroyed, in which they didn't land all over a five mile radius. What else would you expect?"

Ok, show me THOUSANDS of burned and destroyed buildings that fell or were damaged, other than WWII type bombings, and other than controlled demolition where planning and explosives were used.

As to the 'we can possibly ever know what a plane would do' retarded argument. http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=179 (a B-25 flew into the Empire State Building in 1945)
"Investigation showed that the structural integrity of the Empire State Building was not compromised by this accident" ... "engulfed an an explosion of flaming, high-octane fuel. The burning gasoline traveled through hallways, stairwells, and elevator shafts, reaching as far as four floors below the point of impact as the building shook." ... "One of the bomber's engines completely penetrated the Empire State Building, and fell from the opposite side. The other engine flew into an elevator shaft and severed the cable of an elevator car" ... "impact left a hole in the north face of the Empire State Building eighteen feet wide by twenty feet high."

So sure, smaller plane, but only by half and maybe four times as much fuel.

How about actual physics simulations of the crash? Is that to conspiracy for you? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/09/020911072432.htm "At that speed, the plane itself is like a sausage skin," Sozen said. "It doesn't have much strength and virtually crumbles on impact."

Now they refuse to do that simulation for the WTC, and only simulated concrete columns, but again, have you seen the core of the WTC? It is no steel skin, or under-designed building. No amount of fuel could have damaged the core, which phonecalls from inside the WTC would imply the fires were not that hot.

Anyways, instead of THOUSANDS of buildings, just show me one steel building that was brought down by a fire buring inside. In just hours. Just one building.