Re: Kinematic Collision

"David Black" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.games.devel.algorithms
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Hi,

About the inner/outer hull method, I think this is definitely the way to
go. Plus using recursion to handle sliding etc. (multiple checks to
handle gravity(sweep down), stepping(a sweep at a higher offset),
climbing, crouching etc).

I found that the most important thing to make this work is a very robust
sweep test(including hit normal etc). The sweep should also handle
initial intersection (no matter what you do 8h1t Happens(tm)) giving a
sensible depenetration vector and a distance to move to depenetrate the
objects. Pair wise seems good enough, although it would probably be
possible to make this recursive as well.

Since I added initial penetration handling my controller has not had any
problems, including moving lifts/platforms.

About using the PhysX stuff, I would say the CCD is OK for demo/basic
use but is probably not modular enough to do something more
sophisticated (eg Tomb Raider style) it doesnt have the concept of
states/transitions plus it seems too tied to the underlying geometric
database.

I also decided not to use the PhysX sweeps in my hobby project for a
couple of reasons, ie I didn't want to call into native code for every
shape query(this is XNA). Plus I think that handling of initial
intersection is "undefined". Not sure if this is still the case? (Any
idea Pierre?)

David 


On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:45 +0200, "Johan Gustafsson"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback, very helpful.
> 
> About the the inner hull sweeptest, this is kinda inverted to my bias,
> with my bias I did a sweep 
> using a larger hull and then when finding collision i calculate the
> position to intersection and
> subtract the bias. To me they are both the same but I'll definitely give
> it a try.
> 
> Using rigid bodies seems to me much more problematic and having to
> control the character using impulse/forces
> is the main reason I choose the first method.
> 
> 
> James Robertsson Wrote:
> /"Get rid of your bias.  It sounds like a hack and, from what you say, 
> isn't helping.  My guess is you're seeing problems because of bugs in 
> your code that actually calculates the collision times.  (Ie the 
> capsule/primitive intersection functions.)"
> /
> I'm actually using PhysX SDK for collision detection and working under
> the assumption that it
> should be very stable and problem free, but who knows.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008
> 30-Day 
> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and
> focus on 
> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
> Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
> _______________________________________________
> GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
> Archives:
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=gdalgorithms-list

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
Archives:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=gdalgorithms-list
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.