struct aabb1{
int x, y;
int width, height;
}
struct aabb2{
int left;
int up;
int right;
int down;
}
I've seen these two types of AABB:
I am used to the first type (it's what SDL uses), but recently I've encountered the second type, and the symmetry of it seems pretty attractive.struct aabb1{ int x, y; int width, height; } struct aabb2{ int left; int up; int right; int down; }
Which format for AABB is more commonly used?
Whichever is more appropriate to your needs.
Maybe it will help you to know how Bullet deals with the problem.
The box itself only has "half-dimensions" and is always origin-centered. Somithing like
struct AABB {
int hwidth, hheight;
};
This box is used to create rigid bodies, which provide a transform. In line of concept, it's like
AABB box(2, 3);
int pos[2] = {52, 37};
CollisionBody *cb = NewCollisionBody(box, pos);
I'm omitting rotations to make this super-extra-easy to understand.
I hope this will help you in taking a decision.
Wow, another way to represent AABB. Thanks for sharing.Maybe it will help you to know how Bullet deals with the problem.
The box itself only has "half-dimensions" and is always origin-centered. Somithing likestruct AABB { int hwidth, hheight; };
This box is used to create rigid bodies, which provide a transform. In line of concept, it's likeAABB box(2, 3); int pos[2] = {52, 37}; CollisionBody *cb = NewCollisionBody(box, pos);
I'm omitting rotations to make this super-extra-easy to understand.
I hope this will help you in taking a decision.
Bullet has two separated notions of Collision Shapes and Rigid Bodies (previously, Collision Objects).
While the CS itself is AABB, after using it for a rigid body, it is oriented.
The rigid body contains a pointer to the shape used to create it and a transform, besides other things such as mass and the current state. So, yes, I'd say the information is present and separated.
There are another few creation parameters which are not stored in the rigid body either, but I guess they're not relevant for the discussion.
