This is what gives me the above idea:
The number of necessary iterations varies depending on the physical system simulated and the amount of motion. It can be made adaptive by measuring the change from last iteration. If we stop the iterations early, the result might not end up being quite valid but because of the Verlet scheme, in next frame it will probably be better, next frame even more so etc. This means that stopping early will not ruin everything although the resulting animation might appear somewhat sloppier.
Source: http://www.gamasutra.com/resource_guide/20030121/jacobson_pfv.htm
seems to me that at the point where you compare the actual difference in length of the constraint to its restlength and correct if you intentionally slow the rate of change you will simulate a perfectly damped spring. (perfectly damped is one that returns to its rest length from a displacement with no oscillation)
The number of necessary iterations varies depending on the physical system simulated and the amount of motion. It can be made adaptive by measuring the change from last iteration. If we stop the iterations early, the result might not end up being quite valid but because of the Verlet scheme, in next frame it will probably be better, next frame even more so etc. This means that stopping early will not ruin everything although the resulting animation might appear somewhat sloppier.
Source: http://www.gamasutra.com/resource_guide/20030121/jacobson_pfv.htm
seems to me that at the point where you compare the actual difference in length of the constraint to its restlength and correct if you intentionally slow the rate of change you will simulate a perfectly damped spring. (perfectly damped is one that returns to its rest length from a displacement with no oscillation)