2D Collison Response (Guendelman vs. Catto)
Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 2:55 am
I've implemented a 2D rigid body system that supports convex polygon collision detection.
Its collision detection uses a Distance Grid similar to that discussed in the 'Nonconvex Rigid Bodies with Stacking' paper by Guendelman
For the collision response, I've implemented Erin Cattos Impulse based system described in his Box2D demo.
Everything seems to work pretty good. I'm curious though the differences and trade offs between using the Box2D impulse system vs. using the system described in the Guendelman paper where the response is broken in to Collision Response and Resting Contact.
Just thought if there was anyone familiar with both techniques that could do a little quick compare and contrast on the techniques. I'm trying to decide which is better from both a stabilty stand-point as well as performance stand point.
Thanks.
Its collision detection uses a Distance Grid similar to that discussed in the 'Nonconvex Rigid Bodies with Stacking' paper by Guendelman
For the collision response, I've implemented Erin Cattos Impulse based system described in his Box2D demo.
Everything seems to work pretty good. I'm curious though the differences and trade offs between using the Box2D impulse system vs. using the system described in the Guendelman paper where the response is broken in to Collision Response and Resting Contact.
Just thought if there was anyone familiar with both techniques that could do a little quick compare and contrast on the techniques. I'm trying to decide which is better from both a stabilty stand-point as well as performance stand point.
Thanks.