[ODE] Re: Heightfield / Collision.

[Chris Brodie]

> From: skjold@cistron.nl [mailto:skjold@cistron.nl]
> The picture I was having included the assumption that all 
> triangles were along the same 'grain' (i.e. the diagonal 
> separation of two triangles between each set of four 
> neighbouring points, is always in the same direction - 
> contrary to a diamond layout where those diagonals alternate).
> 
> The hillside would of course have slopes of varying 
> steepness, even if only slightly, and the triangles 
> representing that 'bumpyness' will all have elevations that 
> are slightly biased to one side. Therefore, the image I had 
> of it all has the sphere not rolling downwards but stuttering 
> off to one side.
> 
> This is just one of the ways in which I thought triangles 
> could pose a problem. I'm not basing this on anything other 
> than my own imagination, and also my argument assumes that 
> rolling hills are to be considered a representative scenario. 
> But it goes without saying that I could be very wrong on both 
> accounts :P


I havent read further yet but I can see the point here. The effect would be slight but depending on the terrain noticable, especially if the designer was trying to create some effect by having the object on the hill hit an object below. Sure the askew path would be repeatable. 

I guess a small 9*9 beizer patch with the heightfield as the control points is out of the question :)



NOTICE
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may contain copyright material of Macquarie Bank or third parties. If you are not the intended recipient of this email you should not read, print, re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail or any attachments, and should destroy all copies of them. Macquarie Bank does not guarantee the integrity of any emails or any attached files. The views or opinions expressed are the author's own and may not reflect the views or opinions of Macquarie Bank.