• 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
larsson_frostbite

Is OBB always the minimum bounding box?

5 posts in this topic

Hi,

 

I have asked this to a graphics programmer colleague but he didn't know. I couldn't find info online using MBB. Can someone make an assertion that OBB should always be the MBB? For example there can never be a bounding box smaller than OBB disregarding optimization?

 

If there is a significantly smaller bounding box than the OBB generated for a particular shape, can someone assert that the OBB implementation isn't very accurate?

 

 

 

Thanks in advance.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It greatly depends on how the original bounding box is set up.  If  the original bounding box on the object isn't a minimal bounding box, then no, an OBB would not be a MBB.  I'm just guessing here, but I suspect that finding a MBB is not a trivial task. If the bounding box of an object is a minimal bounding box, then it doesn't matter which way the object is oriented, as it will still stay relative to the object, and will always be minimal.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK:

 

An OBB is a cuboid that may be axis aligned but need not to be (to distinguish it from the special case AABB). As such any cuboid used as BB is an OBB. Assuming that the MBB is also a cuboid, the MBB is an OBB but an OBB is not necessarily also the MBB.

 

Looking at the methods to compute an OBB, e.g. the one by Eberly tries to iteratively approximate the MBB. Other methods, like the simple principal component analysis, may definitely produce sub-optimal results.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's not guaranteed to be minimal; it's only guaranteed to be "oriented".

You could force/guarantee yours are minimal ...

 

An AABB/MBB is easy because that's just projections (linear algebra). An OBB/MBB will be difficult as that's a partial-differential-calculus minimization problem.

Edited by Shannon Barber
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks alot guys. I thought they were the same. But if you were to calculate MBB, then your MBB as an OBB would be much better quality than non-MBB-OBBs, right?

 

Also is that really a hard problem? I remember reading somewhere where they were saying, searching all degrees of rotation is much better than the mathematically accurate one. So basically searching all angles, and then adaptively narrowing down the range to minimize iterations.

 

I also heard that this is after calculating the convex hull of the geometry if I am not wrong. This way your transformations will potentially be faster.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if you were to calculate MBB, then your MBB as an OBB would be much better quality than non-MBB-OBBs, right?

 

Yeah, sorta, kinda, not really. Close-enough is close-enough.

 

For example, you could use a sphere-tree for fast, gross, culling then resort to a "triangle perfect" collision detection.
What you really want for physics is a CSG representation of the model (constructive-solid-geometry) and perform the collision against that.

This allows you to describe curves, spheres, cylinders (i.e. wheels) accurately without requiring excessive tessellation.

 

It depends on what you are using the collision detection for.

You might have one collision mesh or geometry for movement collisions and a different one for detecting damage (to detect the location hit).

Edited by Shannon Barber
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