[ODE] What is the best unit
Simonsen at rocketmail.com
Mon Apr 11 04:57:12 MST 2005
Hi, Gao Yang;
because of numerical stability, try to balance things
up so that most units, mass-rations, etc, stay around
1.00; maybe 1.7 units would be good?
We also did some simulation of a character as a capped
cylinder for one of our games. Because players have
very specific expectations in terms of character
control (instant speedup / slow down, turning, etc),
you're going to end up hacking a bit to get a
character control module that feels good.
We ended up with a light-mass character object, with
high friction and high impulse forces being generated
when the player presses any keys. We initially used a
constraint to keep our capped cylinder from falling
over, but found that sufficiently large forces (like
falling of a cliff onto a sharp, interpenetrating
edge), would break the constraint (this was with
Renderware's Karma). As a fix (*cough..hack*) for
that, we ended up resetting the player's rotation
matrix each frame (get the position and Y axis
rotation, generate a new rotation matrix, translate by
position, set new matrix). It worked pretty well..
There was a talk at GDC 2 years ago, at the physics
round-table, where two of the Havok guys was talking
about having built a custom player controller for
1st/3rd person characters. It was built around a
particle, with a contract generating cylinder round
it. Has anyone experimented with something like that?
Best of luck,
--- Gao Yang <gaoyang at inerworx.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> Does anybody know what is the best unit for setting
> up humanoid sized
> objects (e.g. 1.7m) to be simulated in ODE? meter?
> diameter? centimeter?
> or as big as it can be?
> Gao Yang
> Adam D. Moss wrote:
> > gl wrote:
> >> Anyway, I recently thought that the 'explosions'
> resulting from deep
> >> or unintentional interpenetrations (eg.
> 'spawning' objects
> >> overlapping one another, or very high velocity
> collisions) could be
> >> solved by just storing the 'error correction'
> velocity seperately
> >> from the velocities due to the physical
> interaction. This would be
> >> cleared every frame, so as soon as objects are
> moved apart, they
> >> would no longer fly off into the distance.
> > This seems like a good idea and has crossed my
> mind before, but
> > I've dismissed it because it seems so obvious that
> I think it is
> > either flawed in important-but-subtle
> physics-engine ways or is
> > already implemented as such. :)
> > --Adam
> > begin:vcard
> fn:Gao Yang
> email;internet:gaoyang at inerworx.com
> > _______________________________________________
> ODE mailing list
> ODE at q12.org
Allan Simonsen simonsen at rocketmail.com
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
More information about the ODE