Re: [Algorithms] GJK

[Will P. <wi...@cs...>]

I have one working as well, but I'm not taking hill-climbing into account
(I could add it, but for simple shapes like cubes I wouldn't be surprised
if it were more expensive to generate the adjacencies and load-time and
check them in the support point computation routine).  I haven't
encountered cycling yet, though it's easy enough to detect that issue.

I substituted this GJK implementation in the place of the separating plane
stuff I had beforehand, and although it doesn't find a full contact
manifold, it looks pretty decent in the context of a rigid body
simulation.

Will

----
Will Portnoy
http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/will

On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Pierre Terdiman wrote:

> Ok, I have my very first version running - and my head hurts.
> 
> Pretty basic for the moment, but it seems to work. The computed distance
> does not look very accurate nonetheless. For example I saw it reported as
> 0.000261 altough the two objects obviously collided. Duno if it's normal. I
> skipped the backup procedure (I actually *forgot* about it) but my basic
> tests worked anyway. I think Gino was right when he discarded it. Running
> time is correct, provided you use hill-climbing. If you don't.... *grin*, if
> you don't, just forget it. (ok, unless your meshes have few triangles). I
> used Rabbitz' subroutine for Johnson's algorithm, so that I could build the
> Gilbert part on a working basis. Now I'm going to recode that one my way.
> 
> I think some day I'll also pack all my notes in a ppt file for interested
> people.
> 
> Pierre
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> GDA...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
>