Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

too_many_stars

Member Since 29 May 2013
Offline Last Active Today, 09:53 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: 2 x OBB, SAT test and penetration depth

Today, 09:53 AM

Hi Irlan,

 

Thanks for the response, but I must admit I have no idea what you are talking about with respect to the following (that should come as no surprise however as I am a noob)

 

GJK

EPA

Polytope

native implementation by Gino Van Den Bergen

 

Thanks,

 

Mike


In Topic: 2 x OBB, SAT test and penetration depth

Yesterday, 04:47 PM

Hello again Randy, it just happens I was reading your article on torque and orientation.

 

If done correctly, can I use the overlap to calculate the penetration depth, or do I have to go to your "support points?"

 

I am not sure if I am even doing the right thing in calculating the penetration depth. Articles talk about Minkowski distances, and other algos I am not familiar with. I just took a stab at the overlap thinking intuitivly that it should work.

 

Thanks,

 

Mike


In Topic: Polygon outward facing normals

23 January 2015 - 03:58 PM

Thanks for the help guys, that makes sense.

 

I need to ask you a question Randy about your physics engine if you don't mind. I have been stuyding your tutorials for a couple of months now with Ian Millington's Game Physics Engine Develeopment.

 

You seperate your entities using what you call slop, however, Ian uses a more intuitive seperation along the normal in proportion to the inverse masses (which you also implement)

 

What are the advantages/disadvantages of seperatiing Millington's way vs your slop?

 

Thanks,

 

Mike


In Topic: Polymorphic pairwise collision testing implementation

19 December 2014 - 02:13 PM

Thank for the assistance guys. This has given me many useful ideas to clean up my code


In Topic: Polymorphic pairwise collision testing implementation

19 December 2014 - 11:24 AM

Hi NoAdmiral,

 

I like it, it's definetly better what I came up with.


PARTNERS