Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


the right way to represent inverse inertia tensor


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
5 replies to this topic

#1 Irlan R.   Members   -  Reputation: 1277

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 February 2013 - 08:22 AM

float Ix, Iy, Iz;
 
        Ix = Iy = Iz = 0.4f * mass * radius * radius; //solid sphere
 
        inertia.m11 = Ix;            inertia.m12 = 0;        inertia.m13 = 0;
        inertia.m21 = 0;            inertia.m22 = Iy;        inertia.m23 = 0;
        inertia.m31 = 0;            inertia.m32 = 0;        inertia.m33 = Iz;
 
        b_inertia = m_inertia_inverse = inertia.inverse();
        float inverseInertia = 1.0f / Ix;
 
i'm doing this way and it's giving me problems... are you agree that is the right way??


Sponsor:

#2 Dirk Gregorius   Members   -  Reputation: 715

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 February 2013 - 10:29 AM

The inverse of inertia tensor in 3D is an inertia tensor itself. The example of the sphere is missleading since it is some scalar factor times the identity matrix.



#3 Irlan R.   Members   -  Reputation: 1277

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 February 2013 - 11:28 AM

oh... then, i don't need to do: b_inertia = m_inertia_inverse = inertia.inverse(); right??


Edited by irlanrobson, 11 February 2013 - 11:29 AM.


#4 EWClay   Members   -  Reputation: 655

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 February 2013 - 12:35 PM

The inverse of inertia tensor in 3D is an inertia tensor itself. The example of the sphere is missleading since it is some scalar factor times the identity matrix.


Not sure what you are saying there. The units are different and a general inertia tensor is not equal to its inverse, and neither is it for a sphere.

Nothing looks obviously wrong with the matrix above.

#5 luca-deltodesco   Members   -  Reputation: 637

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 February 2013 - 12:51 PM

inverse_inertia = inertia.inverse();

 

Anyways, if it aids:

 

By choosing the correct coordinate system for the object (For basic objects, the obvious one), you can always diagonalise the inertia tensor, and so it, and its inverse can be stored in a vector instead of a matrix, and then the inverse is just the component wise inverse:

(Ix, Iy, Iz)^-1 = (1/Ix, 1/Iy, 1/Iz)


Edited by luca-deltodesco, 11 February 2013 - 12:57 PM.


#6 Irlan R.   Members   -  Reputation: 1277

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 February 2013 - 01:25 PM

oh

 

inverse_inertia = inertia.inverse();

 

Anyways, if it aids:

 

By choosing the correct coordinate system for the object (For basic objects, the obvious one), you can always diagonalise the inertia tensor, and so it, and its inverse can be stored in a vector instead of a matrix, and then the inverse is just the component wise inverse:

(Ix, Iy, Iz)^-1 = (1/Ix, 1/Iy, 1/Iz)

hm... so i can use vectors .... or i can use   float inverseInertia = 1.0f / Ix; instead of vectors and do the multiplication between them...






Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS