[ODE] Proposal: Change Heightfield Origin
hidden.asbestos at googlemail.com
Thu Jul 13 08:28:49 MST 2006
> 1) I believe it actually complicates things, and it is easy to apply the offset manually anyway.
> 2) I think neither origin is 'correct' (or wrong), therefore I suggest we keep it as simple as possible (the way it is now).
> Or perhaps we can make this optional somehow?
I've had a chance at changing this functionality now and it didn't go
very well. It's less efficient to do it naively and too significant a
change to totally redo for a different origin. I'm also getting
paranoid about offseting by half_width and half_depth which sounds
like a good way of introducing precision errors. I'm thinking that it
should be left as it is now...
If the geom was going to be used as a dynamic object then i'd push
hard to change this, but as it's a collision oriented type I think
that it's not such an important issue.
> Reminds me of something else, I think the we should make the 'float' data path
> precision-independent. If you are building with double precision, you need to pass the heightfield
> data as doubles, which is rather undesirable (my mistake really).
I agree it is misleading - I'll make this change. in future a double
precision path could be added on very easily, so if a feature request
pops up for that then it won't be hard to add.
More information about the ODE