[ODE] asynchronous collision detection

[Nate W]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, J. Perkins wrote:

> Since the subject has come up - is there a way to run the collision
> detection at a lower frequency than the physics? Should my split
> frequency example have worked?

Seems to me that if you run the physics twice without checking for
collisions, you'll get more interpenetration than you want, so you'll get
awkward large forces to counter un-penetrate things.  And if you run
collision checking twice without running the physics, the second collision
test will yeild the exact same results as the first pass, because nothing
will have moved since the first pass.

Sounds to me like you'll either get unstable simulations or you'll be
wasting processor time, neither of which is desirable.

If there ARE advantages to doing things asyncronously, I'd like to know
what they are and how it works, because it sounds counter-intuitive to me.

-- 

Nate Waddoups
Redmond WA USA
http://www.natew.com