RE: [Algorithms] Collision with less woes

[Warrick B. <War...@po...>]

You can't dangle a carrot like that and not elaborate further ;)  I confess
I do similar with a bit of a shove in some code but I don't like the thought
of it either as I can imagine it's quite possible for it to cause some
sticking/fall-through problems - I think I've probably been lucky so far to
not see this happen but of course that doesn't mean it won't!  If there is a
'better' way to handle this I'd love to know also.

Warrick.

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Bloom [mailto:cb...@cb...]
Sent: 19 February 2002 00:08
To: gda...@li...
Subject: Re: [Algorithms] Collision with less woes



I think it's very important to NOT do this "shove", but I don't have time
to go into details about why right now...

At 04:10 PM 2/18/2002 -0500, Douglas Cox wrote:
>This seems to work pretty well for us.  I'm using a swept-sphere to tri
test 
>in the same way as you described.  When the sphere is found to be embedded
( 
>inside a tri or < some EPSILON from it ), the collision is flagged and I 
>generate a single 'shove' to push it back out.  Generally the shove is very

>small because the embedded distance is due to precision error.

-------------------------------------------------------
Charles Bloom    cb...@cb...    http://www.cbloom.com


_______________________________________________
GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
GDA...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
Archives:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=6188