• Advertisement

lastcodewarrior

Member
  • Content count

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

122 Neutral

About lastcodewarrior

  • Rank
    Newbie
  1. 2D airplane physics calculations

    I must admit that I haven't inspected your code very thoroughly. However, the physics of a plane is made of the "four forces": - gravity - lift - drag - engine power (this one may be absent in gliders) Gravity is trivial to compute (it's a fixed amount always directed downward in the earth reference frame). Lift and Drag are very similar. They both depends upon speed (squared) and other factors (air density and other constants depending upon the plane's geometry); they must be calculated using the absolute speed of the plane, and then applied in the right direction: drag must be applied in the opposite direction of speed, lift must be applied toward the plane "top", in the plane reference frame (NOT in the earth absolute reference frame!). Engine power is applied toward the plane "front", again in the plane reference frame. If you're doing everything correctly and the plane is still continuously accelerating, you're probably using an unrealistic lift/drag ratio, ie you're generating too much lift and too few drag so that you're violating energy conservation. In that case, simply try to reduce the lift coefficient (and/or increase the drag one) until the system becomes "stable"...
  2. collision detection w/compenetration

    [quote name='Krohm' timestamp='1336025583' post='4936981'] Also consider separate collision geometry. Graphic meshes build up in complexity much faster than collision can handle. [/quote] Yes, you are right, but from my previous example you can see that I'm having problems even with a very very simple geometry (a perfectly flat wall made by a simple triangle strip). Thank you, however, for the gimpact link, I'll give it a look!
  3. collision detection w/compenetration

    [quote name='jefferytitan' timestamp='1335997290' post='4936903'] I can't quite envision the situation where this happens [/quote] Well, look at the picture attached. The grey triangles are part of the wall, and the red one is part of the object. The red triangle is colliding with the wall (the 'c' vertex is penetrating the wall with a penetretation depth showed by the green arrows). Problem is that the red triangle is in collision with two wall triangles, both sharing the a-b side, and when the narrow-phase triangle-to-triangle collider calculates the penetration depth it will report a side-to-side collision between one (well, both) of the grey (wall) triangles a-b side and the red (object) triangle c-d side (showed by the blue arrows), because maybe the "blue" penetration depth is smaller than the "green" one. So, the collision normal will be reported along the blue line, whereas it's quite obvious that this is a "wrong" collision normal and that in that case the only "right" collision normal should be along the green line. Any subsequent penalty force applied to the red object, of course, will be wrong and the object will rebounce in a "wrong" way (which is, btw, exactly what is happening to me...) [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/sad.png[/img]
  4. collision detection w/compenetration

    Dear sirs, I have a (hopefully very silly) question about a collision detection problem that I'm unable to solve myself [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/sad.png[/img] I need to check collisions between a (well, some) tri-mesh based moving object and a very simple fixed 3d "dungeon". The "dungeon" has a flat floor (a simple plane, trivial to check collisions there) and some tri-mesh walls around (walls can be very long and complex, however their triangles are mostly oriented in vertical). There are plenty of examples about reducing the complexity of collision checks (through trees and so) and I've already cut the problem down to just checking some (few) triangles of my 3d object against some (few) triangle candidates of the wall. Again, checking triangle-triangle collisions is quite trivial (there are plenty of examples and algorithms around), but my problem is that my physics engine needs compenetration to calculate collision forces so I need to know not only where collision points are (easy), but also "how deep" the collision is and the collision "normals" in order to apply collision forces that "bounce" the object off the wall. Now, this is a bit of a problem because if I cut down the problem to just a triangle-triangle collision it becomes difficult to get the right amount of compenetration and, most important of all, the right colliding "normal"; as an example, in a triangle that belongs to a perfectly flat wall surface I can get (depending on how the triangles of the object mesh are compenetrating the wall) a triangle side-to-triangle side collision, with a collision "normal" pointing in an "impossible" physical direction. In such a collision the only "right" normal would be the wall triangle normal, because the triangle is part of a wider flat surface and its sides cannot "generate" collision points, but how can I avoid this in the last, triangle-triangle collision detection step? I've tried to investigate the gjk method but this only works for convex shapes and my walls are too complex to be reduced to convex pieces (they may be long and very twisty, with a complex local surface), so a triangle-triangle based algorithm would be preferable; anyone has any idea on how to solve this problem? Thank you very much for any help!
  5. Hi all, I don't know if this is the right place to ask for such a question, but does someone know if is it possible to apply more than one force feedback effect at once under directinput? I mean, I'd like to apply both a constant force AND a damping force to the same axis of a wheel/stick; there are many tutorials about constant forces or other effects around on the 'net, but no one regarding more than one effect per axis at once... is it possible? thanx in advance for your time!
  • Advertisement