I figured someone probably asked this question before but I wasn't able to find an answer.
I'm writing a physics library for my game engine (2d, currently in actionscript3, but easily translatable to C based languages).
I'm having problems finding a good formula to calculate the inertia of my game objects.
The thing is, there are plenty of proven formulas to calculate inertia around a centroid of a convex polygon, but my structure is slightly different: I have game-objects with their own local space. You can add convex shapes such as circles and convex polygons to this local space to form complex objects. The shapes themselves again have their own local space. So there are three layers: World, object & shape space.
I would have no problems calculating the inertia of each individual polygon in the shape with the formulas provided on the moments of inertia Wikipedia article.
or the ones provided in an awesome collision detection & response article.
But I'm wondering how to relate this to my object structure, do I simply add all the inertia's of the shapes of the object? That's what another writer uses to calculate the inertia of triangulated polygons, he adds all the moments of inertia of the triangles. Or is there more to it?
I find this whole inertia concept quite difficult to understand as I don't have a strong physics background. So if anyone could provide me with an answer, preferably with the logic behind inertia around a given centroid, I would be very thankful. I actually study I.T. - Game development at my university, but to my great frustration none of the teachers in their ranks are experienced in the area of physics.
Laurens, the physics is much simpler if you stay in two dimensional space. In 2D space, rotations are described by a scalar, resistance to rotation (moment of inertia) is described by a scalar, and rotations are additive and commutative. Things get hairy (much, much hairier) in three dimensional space.
When you connect two objects, the combined object has its own center of mass. To calculate the moment of inertia of this combined object, you need to sum the moments of inertia of the individual objects and also add on offset term given by the Steiner parallel axis theorem for each individual object. This offset term is the mass of the object times the square of the distance to the composite center of mass.
The primary reason you need to know the moment of inertia is so that you can simulate the response to torques that act on your object. This is fairly straightforward in 2D physics. Rotational behavior is an analog to Newton's second law. Instead of F=ma you use T=Iα. (Things once again are much hairier in 3D space.) You need to find the external forces and torques, solve for linear acceleration and rotational acceleration, and then integrate numerically.
A good beginner's book on game physics is probably in order. You can find a list of recommended texts in this question at the gamedev sister site.
For linear motion you can just add them. Inertia is proportional to mass. Adding the masses of your objects and calculating the inertia of the sum is equivalent to adding their individual inertias.
For rotation it gets more complicated, you need to find the centre of mass.
Read up on Newton's laws of motion. You'll need to understand them if you're writing a physics engine. The laws themselves are very short but understanding them requires more context so google around.
You should specifically try to understand the concepts: Mass, Inertia, Force, Acceleration, Momentum, Velocity, Kinetic energy. They're all related.
Related
This is again a question about the CGAL 3D surface mesher.
http://doc.cgal.org/latest/Surface_mesher/index.html#Chapter_3D_Surface_Mesh_Generation
With the definition
Surface_3 surface(sphere_function, // pointer to function
Sphere_3(CGAL::ORIGIN, 64.0)); // bounding sphere
(as given too in the example code) I define an implicit surface given by 'sphere function' and a Sphere_3 of radius 8.
The difference is now, that the zeros of 'sphere function' are (contrary to its now misleading name) no longer bounded and inside Sphere_3. Instead 'sphere_function' represents an unbounded surface (think of x^2 + y^2 - z^2 - 1 = 0) and my intention is to triangularize its part that is in the Sphere_3.
In my examples up to now this worked quite well, if only for some annoying problem, I do not know how to overcome: The boundaries, where the implicit surface meets the Sphere, are very "rough" or "jagged" in a more than acceptable amount.
I already tried the 'Manifold_with_boundary_tag()', but it gave no improvements.
One road to improve the output that I am contemplating, is converting the triangulated mesh (a C2t3) into a Polyhedron_3 and this in a Nef_polyhedron and intersect that with a Nef_polyhedron well approximating a slightly smaller Sphere. But this seems a bit like shooting with cannons for sparrows, nevertheless I have currently no better idea and googling gave me also no hint. So my question: What to do about this problem? Can it be done with CGAL (and moderate programming effort) or is it necessary or better to use another system?
(Just for explanation for what I need this: I try to develop a program that constructs 3D-printable models of algebraic surfaces and having a smooth and also in the boundaries smooth triangulation is my last step that is missing before I can hand the surface over to OpenSCAD to generate a solid body of constant thickness).
The only solution I see is to use the 3D Mesh Generation with sharp feature preservation and no criteria on the cells. You will have to provide the intersection of the bounding sphere with the surface yourself.
There is one example with two intersecting spheres in the user manual.
Currently I'm working on a little project just for a bit of fun. It is a C++, WinAPI application using OpenGL.
I hope it will turn into a RTS Game played on a hexagon grid and when I get the basic game engine done, I have plans to expand it further.
At the moment my application consists of a VBO that holds vertex and heightmap information. The heightmap is generated using a midpoint displacement algorithm (diamond-square).
In order to implement a hexagon grid I went with the idea explained here. It shifts down odd rows of a normal grid to allow relatively easy rendering of hexagons without too many further complications (I hope).
After a few days it is beginning to come together and I've added mouse picking, which is implemented by rendering each hex in the grid in a unique colour, and then sampling a given mouse position within this FBO to identify the ID of the selected cell (visible in the top right of the screenshot below).
In the next stage of my project I would like to look at generating more 'playable' terrains. To me this means that the shape of each hexagon should be more regular than those seen in the image above.
So finally coming to my point, is there:
A way of smoothing or adjusting the vertices in my current method
that would bring all point of a hexagon onto one plane (coplanar).
EDIT:
For anyone looking for information on how to make points coplanar here is a great explination.
A better approach to procedural terrain generation that would allow
for better control of this sort of thing.
A way to represent my vertex information in a different way that allows for this.
To be clear, I am not trying to achieve a flat hex grid with raised edges or platforms (as seen below).
)
I would like all the geometry to join and lead into the next bit.
I'm hope to achieve something similar to what I have now (relatively nice undulating hills & terrain) but with more controllable plateaus. This gives me the flexibility of cording off areas (unplayable tiles) later on, where I can add higher detail meshes if needed.
Any feedback is welcome, I'm using this as a learning exercise so please - all comments welcome!
It depends on what you actually want and what you mean by "more controlled".
Do you want to be able to say "there will be a mountain on coordinates [11, -127] with radius 20"? Complexity of this this depends on how far you want to go. If you want just mountains, then radial gradients are enough (just add the gradient values to the noise values). But if you want some more complex shapes, you are in for a treat.
I explore this idea to great depth in my project (please consider that the published version is just a prototype, which is currently undergoing major redesign, it is completely usable a map generator though).
Another way is to make the generation much more procedural - you just specify a sequence of mathematical functions, which you apply on the terrain. Even a simple value transformation can get you very far.
All of these methods should work just fine for hex grid. If artefacts occur because of the odd-row shift, then you could interpolate the odd rows instead (just calculate the height value for the vertex from the two vertices between which it is located with simple linear interpolation formula).
Consider a function, which maps the purple line into the blue curve - it emphasizes lower located heights as well as very high located heights, but makes the transition between them steeper (this example is just a cosine function, making the curve less smooth would make the transformation more prominent).
You could also only use bottom half of the curve, making peaks sharper and lower located areas flatter (thus more playable).
"sharpness" of the curve can be easily modulated with power (making the effect much more dramatic) or square root (decreasing the effect).
Implementation of this is actually extremely simple (especially if you use the cosine function) - just apply the function on each pixel in the map. If the function isn't so mathematically trivial, lookup tables work just fine (with cubic interpolation between the table values, linear interpolation creates artefacts).
Several more simple methods of "gamification" of random noise terrain can be found in this paper: "Realtime Synthesis of Eroded Fractal Terrain for Use in Computer Games".
Good luck with your project
I'm considering exploiting ray coherence in my software per-pixel realtime raycaster.
AFAICT, using a uniform grid, if I assign ray coherence to patches of say 4x4 pixels (where at present I have one raycast per pixel), given 16 parallel rays with different start (and end) point, how does this work out to a coherent scene? What I foresee is:
There is a distance within which the ray march would be exactly the same for adjacent/similar rays. Within that distance, I am saving on processing. (How do I know what that distance is?)
I will end up with a slightly to seriously incorrect image, due to the fact that some rays didn't diverge at the right times.
Given that my rays are cast from a single point rather than a plane, I guess I will need some sort of splitting function according to distance traversed, such that the set of all rays forms a tree as it move outward. My concern here is that finer detail will be lost when closer to the viewer.
I guess I'm just not grasping how this is meant to be used.
If done correctly, ray coherence shouldn't affect the final image. Because the rays are very close together, there's a good change that they'll all take similar paths when traversing the acceleration structure (kd-tree, aabb tree, etc). You have to go down each branch that any of the rays could hit, but hopefully this doesn't increase the number of branches much, and it saves on memory access.
The other advantage is that you can use SIMD (e.g. SSE) to accelerate some of your tests, both in the acceleration structure and against the triangles.
Recently I've started developing voxel engine. What I need is only colorful voxels without texture, but at very large amount (much smaller than minecraft) - and the question is how to draw the scene very fast? I'm using c#/xna but this is in my opinion not very important in this case, let's talk about general cases. Look at these two games:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKdRri5jSMs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in0bavLJ8KQ
Especially I think video number 2 represents great optimization methods (my gfx card starts choking just at 192 x 192 x 64) How they achieve this?
What i would to have in the engine:
colorful voxels without texture, but shaded
many, many voxels, say minimum 512 x 512 x 128 to achieve something like video #2
shadows (smooth shadows will be great but this is not necessary)
optional: dynamic lighting (for example from fireballs flying, which light up near voxel structures)
framerate minimum 40 FPS
camera have 3 ways of freedom (move in x-axis, move in y-axis, move in z-axis), no camera rotation is needed
finally optional feature may be Depth of Field (it will be sweet ^^ )
What optimization I have already know:
remove unseen voxels that resides inside voxel structure (covered
from six directions by other voxels)
remove unseen faces of voxels - because camera have no rotation and always look aslant forward like in TPP games, so if we divide screen
by vertical cut, left voxels and right voxels will show only 3 faces
keep voxels in Dictionary instead of 3-dimensional array - jumping through array of size 512 x 512 x 128 takes miliseconds which is
unacceptable - but dictionary int:color where int describes packed
3D position is much much faster
use instancing where applciable
occluding? (how to do this?)
space dividing / octtree (is it good idea?)
I'll be very thankful if someone give me a tip how to improve existing optimizations listed above or can share ideas of new improvements. Thanks
1) Voxatron uses a software renderer rather than the GPU. You can read some details about it if you read the comments in this blog post:
http://www.lexaloffle.com/bbs/?tid=201
I haven't looked in detail myself so can't tell you much more than that.
2) I've never played 3D Dot Game Heroes but I don't have any reason to believe it uses voxels at all. I mean, I don't see any cubes being added or deleted. Most likely it is just a static polygon mesh with a nice texture applied.
As for implementing it yourself, do not try to draw the world by rendering cubes as this is very slow. Instead you should process the volume and generate meshes lying on the intersection of solid voxels and empty ones. Break the volume into suitable sized regions (e.g. 32x32x32) and generate a mesh for each.
I have written a book article about this which you might find useful. It's actually about smooth voxel terain but a lot of the priciples stll apply.
You can read it on Google books here: http://books.google.com/books?id=WNfD2u8nIlIC&lpg=PR1&dq=game%20engine%20gems&pg=PA39#v=onepage&q&f=false
And you can find the associated source code here: http://www.thermite3d.org
Since you are using XNA, you can just use instancing to get the desired effect: http://www.float4x4.net/index.php/2010/06/hardware-instancing-in-xna/
http://roecode.wordpress.com/2008/03/17/xna-framework-gameengine-development-part-19-hardware-instancing-pc-only/
The underlying concept is instancing: this feature lets you specify some amount of repeating data and some amount of varying data in a single DrawIndexedPrimitive call. In your case, the instance stream would be a single solid box, and the other stream would be the transform and color information.
I am writing a physics simulation using Ogre and MOC.
I have a sphere that I shoot from the camera's position and it travels in the direction the camera is facing by using the camera's forward vector.
I would like to know how I can detect the point of collision between my sphere and another mesh.
How would I be able to check for a collision point between the two meshes using MOC or OGRE?
Update: Should have mentioned this earlier. I am unable to use a 3rd party physics library as we I need to develop this myself (uni project).
The accepted solution here flat out doesn't work. It will only even sort of work if the mesh density is generally high enough that no two points on the mesh are farther apart than the diameter of your collision sphere. Imagine a tiny sphere launched at short range on a random vector at a huuuge cube mesh. The cube mesh only has 8 verts. What are the odds that the cube is actually going to hit one of those 8 verts?
This really needs to be done with per-polygon collision. You need to be able to check intersection of polygon and a sphere (and additionally a cylinder if you want to avoid tunneling like reinier mentioned). There are quite a few resources for this online and in book form, but http://www.realtimerendering.com/intersections.html might be a useful starting point.
The comments about optimization are good. Early out opportunities (perhaps a quick check against a bounding sphere or an axis aligned bounding volume for the mesh) are essential. Even once you've determined that you're inside a bounding volume, it would probably be a good idea to be able to weed out unlikely polygons (too far away, facing the wrong direction, etc.) from the list of potential candidates.
I think the best would be to use a specialized physics library.
That said. If I think about this problem, I would suspect that it's not that hard:
The sphere has a midpoint and a radius. For every point in the mesh do the following:
check if the point lies inside the sphere.
if it does check if it is closer to the center than the previously found point(if any)
if it does... store this point as the collision point
Of course, this routine will be fairly slow.
A few things to speed it up:
for a first trivial reject, first see if the bounding sphere of the mesh collides
don't calc the squareroots when checking distances... use the squared lengths instead.(much faster)
Instead of comparing every point of the mesh, use a dimensional space division algorithm (quadtree / BSP)for the mesh to quickly rule out groups of points
Ah... and this routine only works if the sphere doesn't travel too fast (relative to the mesh). If it would travel very fast, and you sample it X times per second, chances are the sphere would have flown right through the mesh without every colliding. To overcome this, you must use 'swept volumes' which basically makes your sphere into a tube. Making the math exponentially complicated.