Re: [Algorithms] Kinematic Collision

[Pierre T. <pie...@gm...>]

>
> I think a lot of people are overthinking character collision
> detection and think you need volumetric representation
> with sweep tests, etc.
>

I think a lot of people are overthinking a lot of things those days... :)

When in actuality you can often get away with a few line
> segment probes to detect collision with the world and use
> a simple capsule test (or similar) to avoid character-
> character interpenetration.
>

I remember a PPT describing the system used in GoW, yeah. It looked a lot
like what we used some 10 years ago now, when I was working for a french
compagny that should remain nameless. It was my first attempt at character
collision detection with the world, and I used raycasts because I didn't
know anything else. And indeed, it worked ok. Not perfect or anything but
good enough for our needs.

Now, 10 years later, writing code for a middleware... we can't decently sell
simple raycasts to customers constantly asking for "next gen" solutions, can
we? They never let you "get away with" anything :)

That being said, and just to stay on-topic rather than going on a tangent to
discuss the pros & cons of middleware, it might be worth it to provide two
different CCTs to users: one "complex" version and one "light", simpler
version. I saw a lot of people using the "complex" version for all
characters in the world, all the time, while there is often another
sub-system doing pretty much the same job for NPCs: path-finding. The
path-finder already computed a collision-free path, so for those characters
it's a lot easier to "get away with" simple raycasts. And when all NPCs use
the cheapest version, it doesn't matter anymore if the player uses a more
costly but perhaps more robust test. (Whether it really -needs- it or not is
another story, whose answer is probably game-specific),

- Pierre