• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
pondwater

Dealing with multiple collision contact points

4 posts in this topic

I use a swept sphere vs a std::vector<Triangle> for my narrowphase CD, I store the contact data in the following struct:

[CODE]
struct CollisionPackage {
bool collision;
float t;
float distance_from_collision;
float sqr_distance_from_collision;
Vector collision_point;
Vector collision_normal;
}
[/CODE]


Now when dealing with multiple collision points, Im wondering what would be more efficient performance wise:

A) Create a std::vector<CollisionPackage>; one for every detected collision point. Once every triangle has been checked, sort through these and return the closest point (may be mutliple if more than one occurance of closest distance).

B) Once a single collision point is detected, check through the current std:::vector<CollisionPackage>, if its sqr_distance_from_collision or t value is lower than all current values, clear the std::vector and add this point. If it is equal sqr_distance_from_collision or t, add it to the vector. If less than, ignore it.

In terms of operations it would seem that B) would be more efficient as it contains less .push_back() calls. Is there any case where i would want to hold onto non-closest collisions?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in my 2d collision detection and response routine, the sum of the minimum translation vectors (MTV) of all the collision detection points will move an object out of all collisions. I just store a list of all colliding objects (not duplicating in case two collision points collide with the same object). I then calc the MTV between the colliding object each target object separately and move them apart for each collision. The sum is always the position for no collision.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
my game is in 3D. Preventing the sphere from intersecting is simple as I can use any of the closest contact points if they all share the same t values. But using your method, if hypotheically I averaged all the normals of my closets collsion points, would that give me an appropriate sliding plane?

I was originally going to do the following:

case A) 1 contact point, plane origin = contact point, plane normal = collision normal
case B) 2 contact points, plane origin = either point, plane normal = (sphere origin at contact) - ((pointA + pointB)/2)
case C) 3+ contact points, plane origin = any point, plane normal = cross(b - a, c - a)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you determine the normal for which would require the least amount of translation to separate the objects, that normal summed with any other minimum translation normals from other objects should theoretically be summable to remove the object from all collisions. in 2D, the normal aligns with an axis, in 3d it should align with a plane. So those 3 cases should help determine the appropriate normal of the intersecting plane to translate on to move your minimal distance :)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Net Gnome' timestamp='1329509527' post='4913998'] in my 2d collision detection and response routine, the sum of the minimum translation vectors (MTV) of all the collision detection points will move an object out of all collisions.[/quote]

Are you sure this is correct? I can think of many configurations where you can't get the global correct value by summing the local solutions (e.g if a circle is colliding with two planes whose normals face each other, summing the MTV will give incorrect results)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0