gish-like effects
Author
Not sure how many of you have played Gish (the physics based platform game), but Im trying to recreate similar physics. However, Im not sure how I would go about trying to do that. In particular, things like rotating about an axis. For example, if an object is on one side of the platform, then that side would rotate downwards and the other side of the axis would rotate upwards (or counter-clockwise).
Any ideas as to how this is best achieved? I tried looking through the Jakobsen (IO Hitman game) paper and got stuck at the point where I needed to move a stick outside of the triangle because a collision was detected. I manage to detect a collision but everytime I tried to push it out, it would just stutter and the stick would start to behave randomly. I tried different things to fix it, but it wouldnt work.
Also, will I have to learn Matrices for 2D physics?
Thanks
alternatively you could take a look at flatland.sourceforge.net
it’s a 2d wrapper over a capable physics system. This way you can do lots of things like joints and stacking without having to go through the “not to be underestimated” task of writing it your self.
take a look at some of the demos and see if its what your after
(sometimes I think I should get shares in this sdk I seem to be recommending it a lot)
it’s a 2d wrapper over a capable physics system. This way you can do lots of things like joints and stacking without having to go through the “not to be underestimated” task of writing it your self.
take a look at some of the demos and see if its what your after
(sometimes I think I should get shares in this sdk I seem to be recommending it a lot)
Author
Thanks for the replies. I want to make my own engine as a learning thing. I thought of doing circle-circle collisions as they're pretty simple, but if I had a square or something, I dont understand how that would work. Is that where I would do a circle-segment collision instead? Same thing for a stick. Would i just use the circle-segment collision routine? Thanks for the help. If there are any other ideas, then please post.
Check out this screenshot here. You can see how I represented a square with four circles, and you could make this even better by using another 8 and filling in the gaps. Overall, the results were realistic enough for a solid game. You could implement a similar system.
By the way, the website is not longer used by me but I am basing my 4e4 entry off of that physics engine. Just letting you know so you don't expect it to ever be updated.
By the way, the website is not longer used by me but I am basing my 4e4 entry off of that physics engine. Just letting you know so you don't expect it to ever be updated.
[edit: lol I see I just wasted my time writing all that out as skittleo has some excellent links on his page , nice work btw! :)]
Good to hear!!
Well to get you going there’s 2 ways of thinking. In the Jakobsen's paper is really deigned to be a fast way to do ragdolls so just concentrates on keeping things from interpenetrating. It does this by just moving the penetrating part and due to the nature of the system the physics follows with. Its relatively simple to set up and you can make shapes out of connected particles or fix 2 connected particles inside a collision shape.
the problem with this is that its not very realistic, and harder to do things like bouncing objects etc. For this you really need to make a rigid body physics system with some sort of decent collision detection system. This is a bit more challenging mathematically but worth it in the long run (I think)
if the Jakobsen paper will be good for you then try doing that
recommended links would be
for lots of example code:
http://uk.geocities.com/olivier_rebellion/
starting rigid body physics:
http://www.d6.com/users/checker/dynamics.htm
rigid body stuff:
Oliii
collision detection:
http://www.harveycartel.org/metanet/tutorials.html
Good to hear!!
Well to get you going there’s 2 ways of thinking. In the Jakobsen's paper is really deigned to be a fast way to do ragdolls so just concentrates on keeping things from interpenetrating. It does this by just moving the penetrating part and due to the nature of the system the physics follows with. Its relatively simple to set up and you can make shapes out of connected particles or fix 2 connected particles inside a collision shape.
the problem with this is that its not very realistic, and harder to do things like bouncing objects etc. For this you really need to make a rigid body physics system with some sort of decent collision detection system. This is a bit more challenging mathematically but worth it in the long run (I think)
if the Jakobsen paper will be good for you then try doing that
recommended links would be
for lots of example code:
http://uk.geocities.com/olivier_rebellion/
starting rigid body physics:
http://www.d6.com/users/checker/dynamics.htm
rigid body stuff:
Oliii
collision detection:
http://www.harveycartel.org/metanet/tutorials.html
Author
Thanks for the links. How do you make the square actually rotate on it own when tumbling down the ramp? Do you have to do anything extra, or does the verlet integrator do it on its own since your adding gravity to each particle?
Each particle has no notion of being a part of a larger body. Each has its own agenda on where it wants to go, but the constraints of the system keep this from happening. The fusion of particles and constraints amazingly creates a structured body that appears to behave as a whole, when in reality there is no such thing. So the verlet-integrator along with the coldet+response system and constraints makes it happen automatically with no extra work.
It was a ton of fun when I first started playing around with it. I never coded anything close to rigid body dynamics, but many times the results were indistinguishable from a more complex physics system. Pretty neat stuff.
Edit: Damn dyslexia.
It was a ton of fun when I first started playing around with it. I never coded anything close to rigid body dynamics, but many times the results were indistinguishable from a more complex physics system. Pretty neat stuff.
Edit: Damn dyslexia.
Author
Sneaky ;). Thats good to hear as Im no good at rotation stuff. Thanks for the quick reply. Off I go to try again.
the technique is use in molecular dynamics simulations. So in theory, the verlet + stiff constraint + particle mimics atomic binds. Except of billions of particles, you just reduce it to 4 for a box :)
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
