[ODE] Re: Heightfield / Collision.

[gl]

Another complication - heightfield triangle layout.   I use
| \ | \ | \ |
| \ | \ | \ |

Is anyone else using
| / | / | / |,
| / | / | / |,

 or
| \ | / | \ |
| / | \ | / |

(ie. diamonds)?  If yes, can you change or are you stuck with it?
--
gl

----- Original Message -----
From: "gl" <gl@ntlworld.com>
To: "Amund Børsand" <amund@c2i.net>
Cc: <ode@q12.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: [ODE] Re: Heightfield / Collision.


>
> (here we go again)  Was this a personal reply?
>
> Either way, back to the list we go.
>
> I wasn't suggesting arbitrary vertex spacing, as we're working on a
> regularly spaced heightfield collider and want to take advantage of the
> optimisations you can make with them - rather, I was wondering if anyone
> needs different x spacing to y spacing, ie. vertices that are regularly
> spaced, but with different (fixed) spacings for each dimension?
>
> And/or if anybody needs non-square heightfields (ie. different quad counts
> per dimension)?
> --
> gl
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Amund Børsand" <amund@c2i.net>
> To: "gl" <gl@ntlworld.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 9:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [ODE] Re: Heightfield / Collision.
>
>
> "gl" <gl@ntlworld.com> skreiv:
>
> >
> > Another thing - does anyone have any need for non-square heightfields,
or
> > heightfields with different x/y vertex spacings?
>
> Yeah, I guess that would be nice, for instance in a car simulator, where
> you don't have to waste lots of polygons/whatever you use to draw
> terrain on stuff outside the road, but the road/track could be very
> dense and detailed. On the other hand, using polygons drawn from a
> heightmap,
> with constant x and y spacing, you could probably make some really fast
> interpolations between vertices, eliminating the need for tri-collision
> detection. You could probably also make the terrain seem smoother to
> whoever's travelling on it, instead of flat and edgy as a polymesh would
> be (though it would still _look_ flat and edgy.. unless you're clever
> with lightning maps or gouraud shading or something). But, ultimately,
> the coolest thing would of course to make this work with an irregular
> (x- and y-wise) polymesh/heightmap or something. Or, you could make a
> mesh from a heightmap, optimize it by removing vertices and polygons
> that make little difference to the look of the terrain, and then use the
> heightmap for collision detection and stuff. If you get my drift.
>
> Hm. Good ideas, man, I think I'll have to implement this myself. =) Let
> me know if you get it to work, and I'll do the same.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ODE mailing list
> ODE@q12.org
> http://q12.org/mailman/listinfo/ode
>