What language is easiest to do accurate inelastic 3D material dynamics with...

what language is easiest to do accurate inelastic 3D material dynamics with? im tired of fixed geometries and want to simulate the atomic structure of a material. i figured that wouldn't be too computationally expensive...right?

Other urls found in this thread:

petesqbsite.com/sections/tutorials/tuts/qfastman/QFASTMAN.html
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC122853/
youtu.be/dwvukCY5xok
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

probably english

Most of the weight is on the way you implement something.
A really good programmer using qbasic can completely obliterate a shitty one using asm.

>simulate the atomic structure of a material
what are you trying to make? virtual semen?

Do you not realise how many atoms there are in one object? Huge pain for not much gain.

wait until op learns that modeling exact and accurate atomic structure of in elastic material would only create fixed geometries

so the performance of a program is based on how you code and not what language you use?

wouldn't there be a huge gain in the fact that you can simulate almost any type of destruction for an object by just assigning the material parameter and get accurate results? like a tree, glass, ceramic, metal, flesh, plastic, rubber, oil, and so on. you basically take all the forces, from the van der wall forces, the pauli exclusion principle, bond energy, temperature, viscosity, de broglie wavelength, allotrope structure, density, momentum, and more parameters. basically the user can assign a geometric structure all of these and then if it collides it will interact with all of these parameters based on the solutions of the nonlinear partial differential equation representing each of them in real time. i was thinking of trying to also add in some turbulence for the wave propagation of fluids but i don't know how to model turbulence at all. i was thinking maybe an arithmetic sheave that if subject to a deformation model.

nigger, you can't simulate moles of atoms with a contemporary PC. bursting that bubble for you right now.

enjoy doing this without a supercomputer, see how far you'll get

you'll probably be able to work out the math if you're smart enough, but it's impossible to test it in a realistic time frame

The language do help/hinder, but in the end it's how you do the shit that gives that have the largest influence.

Just take a peek on this qbasic tutorial:
petesqbsite.com/sections/tutorials/tuts/qfastman/QFASTMAN.html

Guy went from 38 minutes with a "matematically correct" solution to less than a minute, while still keeping himself on qbasic.

But atoms consist of neutrons and protons, not moles

is there no way to do a fast numerical method that takes points which are close enough to what the actual equations give out?

you're seriously underestimating the amount of atoms present in anything that you mentioned here and the complexity of the forces acting over them, it's impossible to do a per atom accurate simulation of any object that has more than a few thousands of atoms

when did the education level of this board take such a massive fucking blow? does public education no longer exist in America?

then what if you simulate only a thousand atoms, then use a heuristic approach for the rest of the system? like scaling and transforming the subsystem and having some vision processor look at what the given parameters are and try to guesstimate how to transform those trajectories, instead of recalculating?

it would lose so much accuracy that it'd be basically useless and still a massive waste of computational power

Then you'd have, like, solidworks?
Yeah solidworks

Lose accuracy how? it's based off the simulation. you give the upper and lower bounds based off the initial conditions which would take up memory but not processing.

can solidworks do organic materials too though?

It can do any homogenous material if you're capable of setting it up
But I mean the real world isn't a rectangle made of exactly as many atoms wide as it is long, falling a flat 90° onto a perfectly flat surface

read this ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC122853/

>guys I need to simulate accurate physics of 1000000000000000000000000 atoms on my moms PC
Then we tell you you're retarded
>Wait nevermind how about 1000 atoms and some guessing?
Then we tell you it's less accurate
>wtf how? damn you Sup Forums
And that it exists
>but what about carbon atoms???!1?2?!
But I bet you'll argue that you're not retarded and that you're the victim of verbal scruff

>low quality bait

why even reply to me if you're gonna be this useless? you just gloss over the bound part because you're too much of an idiot or too upset to not reply?

>i figured that wouldn't be too computationally expensive...right?
it's extremely expensive

Stop breathing anytime

>generalizing organic materials to being comprised of carbon atoms

you have no right to call anyone retarded

That's a little next-level compared to what op wants, rendering molecular slippage and materials bending. He wants inelastic discrete fractures, but somehow the current methods used to estimate it aren't good enough for him (or he hasn't looked for a program that does) and he needs an unwritable number of atoms to essentially brute-force his way through a 101-tier physics problem

It's not useless, I'm helping you see how fucking retarded your posts are becoming
I am the self-awarey fairy here to show you how you look right now

And what's your definition of my organic chemistry bachelors?

it's not the complexity of the calculations that make it slow. It's the fact that you have to do billions and billions of them

if you're implying that organic materials could be represented by using only carbon atoms, i'd say that it's non existent

then it should be possible to have the calculations done on a small but spread out sample set where the gaps are filled in with some weighted factors that can endow the system with what would have been presented by the additional calculations.

I'm saying you don't know the technical definition of an organic material

IT'S LESS ACCURATE, DIDN'T YOU FUCKING READ ANYTHING WE WROTE?

But I also said please explain what you actually mean like twice
Yes, and there's plenty of programs that can do that
Go look you dipshit

I'm pretty sure that it isn't just carbon and nothing else

>trying to discuss an idea to make it
>its impossible you dumbass
>repeat the idea
>it exists dumbass go look for it

really activated my almonds

You're pretty sure ehh?
Well
Please
Explain
What you really meant to say
Because clearly have an idea of what you're trying to model but you're unable to tell me because you're too preoccupied arguing over semantics

ideas guys are not welcome

Right here honey

each individual particle still has to be simulated to some extent
go look up siggraph videos on youtube of water particle systems, thats the edge of what we can do in real time
so an atomic simulation is going to be hundreds, thousands, or millions of times slower than that

>semantics
>simulating a molecular structure

what are you even saying at this point?
no you're not welcome. you jump into this shit going "lol atoms are numerous" without any concept of numerical analysis and then get go "lol it'll be less accurate to reality if it's easier to process" like you just made a point instead of bringing up an example, because you are LITERALLY retarded.

>quoting the carbon post

neck your entire lineage

you are not welcome

if you want to start a project, then begin the project
you are an ideas guy, you are not knowledgeable, you are not welcome
return to your other board

Are you talking about organic substance or like, organic fruit
Because
Please, just tell
Me
And I
Can
Help
You

Still haven't defined an organic chemical to me
Please tell me I need to know for grad

how about a more accurate version of this

youtu.be/dwvukCY5xok

you could make the physics rules for it, but the amount of bodies required to simulate anything would be immense and impossible

you should start by studying n-body simulations and optimization and approximation techniques

>has anyone been so far as to even...

The first computational expense will be to maybe spend some time reading and digesting the words you is used.

Poor rabbit.