• 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
Doug Smith

Does this type of collision phyisics have a name?

9 posts in this topic

For years I've been using a collision system that involves each object having a radius and checking if the distance between the two objects is less than the sum of the two radiuses(radi?). Essentially it uses circles instead of boxes for collision checking. It works rather well for 2d space sims and any game that uses a top-down view. But I don't know if it's a common technique and if it is I'd like to know what it's called.

 

Also are there any significant drawbacks to using a system like this?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for drawbacks, the main problem is that a circle is not necessarily a close enough representation of your object. For a long thin object the bounding sphere will contain a huge amount of empty space. That will lead to a lot of false positives in intersection tests. An axis aligned or oriented box is a tighter fit in many cases.

Whether circles are good enough for your circumstances, well, that of course has more to do with your circumstances than the circles. Edited by BarrySkellern
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition (or more likely substraction) to BarrySkellerns post you can make those bounding-"circles" fitting more closely by calculating them to ellipses using matrices, as long as you are having basic understanding how matrices work and use them of course.

 

For games where you have to cheat, whenever a player is unlikely to see the trick, they are even precise enough for most collision detections whenever the player can't see the difference.

 

There is no actual general drawback of this method to others.

Edited by IceCave
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the responses. I might play around with the elipse idea later. Honestly the idea already occurred to me but I haven't really felt the need to put the time into implementing it. Getting all my objects to bounce off eachother properly is hard enough without adding shape variations into the mix.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good example of the limitations of sphere/circle tests for me is the old wing commander games.  They had simple sphere checks, and because of that anytime you got near a large ship you would suddenly collide with it, even if you were actually way above it.  Contrast that with the first X-wing game, which had a more complicated check, and suddenly you could fly in between the shield generators on a Star Destroyer, and it was amazing at the time.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I definitely wouldn't use it for large, complex objects, especially in a 3d space sim. The engine I'm working on uses circle collision for game objects and circle-line collision for game objects interacting with static objects like walls and such.

 

I don't really have a hard time coding more complex collision systems, but the problems arise when I want to apply physics to those collisions. At that point I'm pretty much coding my own version of Box 2d which would be an extreme amount of work. With circle collisions I can simply limit the physics system to billiard physics, allowing for realistic physics at the cost of collision accuracy. It's a trade off I'm happy with.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are also systems that use a hierarchy of spheres to more tightly represent the object. So the parent level is a large encompassing sphere but then the children are smaller and more of them etc. It can be taken to the level desired to get the fit required. But at some point the multiple sphere intersections will become slower.

 

I am assuming you are using the squared distance for comparison as well.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are also systems that use a hierarchy of spheres to more tightly represent the object. So the parent level is a large encompassing sphere but then the children are smaller and more of them etc. It can be taken to the level desired to get the fit required. But at some point the multiple sphere intersections will become slower.

 

I am assuming you are using the squared distance for comparison as well.

 

I'm not, actually. Is that supposed to do something?

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