Code center > Darwinbots3
2D or 3D?
Numsgil:
--- Quote from: Cyberduke ---http://www.codeplex.com/Wiki/View.aspx?Pro...=FarseerPhysics
--- End quote ---
Farseer I've played with a bit before. I think it'd be a good place to start.
--- Quote ---http://physics2d.googlepages.com/
My quad tree used the geometry from Physics2D.net (again with its roots in Box2D)
--- End quote ---
I think I played with this and it just wasn't feature complete enough.
--- Quote ---Ideally it would be good to have the physics as a completely separate module that could be swapped out for another one on a whim. That way you could play-test them all
--- End quote ---
My goal is for all the modules to work like this actually. So you could swap out the DNA module for something that uses neural nets. Or swap out the graphics module for something that uses DirectX19 or whatever. At some point I'm just going to write some interfaces and that's how all the modules will communicate.
--- Quote ---Also in regards to stacking, I don't think I have ever seen a physics engine do it perfectly. it's normally a matter of playing about with the parameters until you get something you can live with.
--- End quote ---
No, most of them don't handle it well. But I think it could be handled better than most do, especially in 2D. You can essentially reduce it down to a huge matrix inversion if you ignore things like a circle rolling down another circle (I could never figure out a clean way to handle that other than pushing them out from each other when they intersect).
Most users don't seem to mind a bit of stacking issues, though, so maybe it just doesn't matter.
Cyberduke:
Well I don’t know if you’re the same but for personal projects I have an annoying tendency to get hung-up about a particular feature and want to keep re-working it until its perfect, which of course just means that the project doesn’t get completed in anything like a reasonable timescale. At work I just get told to leave it be and move on. Get the project up and running so the testers can start playing with it, then come back to look at bits I am not happy with and are in need of some adjustments or refactoring.
Half the time when you come back to it you end up agreeing it’s probably fine as it is anyway.
Numsgil:
Yes, that is my problem. Mentally I understand the idea of getting it minimally working so you can start getting testers on it, but in practice it's a hard pill to swallow
Cyberduke:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvqY_pgA6DU...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFnmnMK1Yvw...feature=related
Heh Jello Physics would be cool, it's a soft body simulator, but it only looks to be capable of a few dozen active objects.
Cyberduke:
or something like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHPDJS74F70...feature=related
in a simulated fluid like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oGnCeE5wFM...feature=related
*puts reality goggles back on*
I would say we already have an upper limit of say 800 cells, if each one is described by 3 ridged bodies then we are talking a max of 2400 for the cells and say 200 for particles and projectiles, and that is probably our limit. 2600 objects constantly subjected to various forces and around say 15% of them involved in narrow phase collision detection at any one time is probably nearing the full load of 1 Core
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version