Difference between revisions of "Talk:Geometry and Physics VAG"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
For now, I think geometry and physics are too closely related to be split. However, I can certainly understand a perspective that there might be two closely related viewpoints here. Geometry really doesn't need material properity information or have to participate in a physics engine. On the other hand, physics really has not meaning at the user level without something to act on. So in the end, I see geometry that has optional physical properties and a single viewpoint the covers both. Do others have thoughts on this? --[[User:Burhop Piccard|Burhop Piccard]] 19:04, 16 October 2007 (PDT) | For now, I think geometry and physics are too closely related to be split. However, I can certainly understand a perspective that there might be two closely related viewpoints here. Geometry really doesn't need material properity information or have to participate in a physics engine. On the other hand, physics really has not meaning at the user level without something to act on. So in the end, I see geometry that has optional physical properties and a single viewpoint the covers both. Do others have thoughts on this? --[[User:Burhop Piccard|Burhop Piccard]] 19:04, 16 October 2007 (PDT) | ||
*I liked the structure of your VAG and so used it as a template for [[Scalability VAG|Scalability]] and [[Quality Assurance VAG|QA]] VAGs ... well done. :-) --[[User:Morgaine Dinova|Morgaine Dinova]] 02:56, 18 October 2007 (PDT) | *I liked the structure of your VAG and so used it as a template for [[Scalability VAG|Scalability]] and [[Quality Assurance VAG|QA]] VAGs ... well done. :-) --[[User:Morgaine Dinova|Morgaine Dinova]] 02:56, 18 October 2007 (PDT) | ||
** Always good to be emulated :-) BTW, I tweaked the usecase part a bit to hopefully give a bit of structure. --[[User:Burhop Piccard|Burhop Piccard]] 06:32, 18 October 2007 (PDT) | |||
Revision as of 06:32, 18 October 2007
For now, I think geometry and physics are too closely related to be split. However, I can certainly understand a perspective that there might be two closely related viewpoints here. Geometry really doesn't need material properity information or have to participate in a physics engine. On the other hand, physics really has not meaning at the user level without something to act on. So in the end, I see geometry that has optional physical properties and a single viewpoint the covers both. Do others have thoughts on this? --Burhop Piccard 19:04, 16 October 2007 (PDT)
- I liked the structure of your VAG and so used it as a template for Scalability and QA VAGs ... well done. :-) --Morgaine Dinova 02:56, 18 October 2007 (PDT)
- Always good to be emulated :-) BTW, I tweaked the usecase part a bit to hopefully give a bit of structure. --Burhop Piccard 06:32, 18 October 2007 (PDT)