[Flightgear-devel] Collision Detection and Network
Hi ! If u rememember me, I`m the guy who wants to use Flight Gear for his Master thesis and the virtual flying fitness machine. :) I need for my thesis a working and powerful network system in flight gear. This may go so far that you can transfer a video and audio stream with it. So you could see and talk with the persons u play online. I also need a function that shows somekind of arrow on the HUD that shows in the direction of another player. And I need a working collision system. And if I still have time a force feedback system. Im willing to implement these things into flightgear and thought to myself, that I could contribute to the project by adding them later to the general cvs. Is this ok for you developers ? If you have tips about where and how to implement these things, I`m open to suggestions. Cu, Floh ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Collision Detection and Network
I don't know if that could help you, but all you want to do (streaming, collision detection...) already exists in open source projects, you just have to integrate them into FG (which is still however a great deal of work). If you think it is interesting, I can supply you with links to these projects. -Message d'origine- De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] la part de Florian Schießl Envoyé : mardi 7 décembre 2004 17:08 À : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet : [Flightgear-devel] Collision Detection and Network Hi ! If u rememember me, I`m the guy who wants to use Flight Gear for his Master thesis and the virtual flying fitness machine. :) I need for my thesis a working and powerful network system in flight gear. This may go so far that you can transfer a video and audio stream with it. So you could see and talk with the persons u play online. I also need a function that shows somekind of arrow on the HUD that shows in the direction of another player. And I need a working collision system. And if I still have time a force feedback system. Im willing to implement these things into flightgear and thought to myself, that I could contribute to the project by adding them later to the general cvs. Is this ok for you developers ? If you have tips about where and how to implement these things, I`m open to suggestions. Cu, Floh ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Collision Detection and Network
Hi. It was my plan to use third parties open source solutions. If you know good projects feel free to send me the links. thx :) Cu, Floh RENNUIT Antoine 203220 Thésard wrote: I don't know if that could help you, but all you want to do (streaming, collision detection...) already exists in open source projects, you just have to integrate them into FG (which is still however a great deal of work). If you think it is interesting, I can supply you with links to these projects. I need for my thesis a working and powerful network system in flight gear. This may go so far that you can transfer a video and audio stream with it. So you could see and talk with the persons u play online. I also need a function that shows somekind of arrow on the HUD that shows in the direction of another player. And I need a working collision system. And if I still have time a force feedback system. Im willing to implement these things into flightgear and thought to myself, that I could contribute to the project by adding them later to the general cvs. Is this ok for you developers ? If you have tips about where and how to implement these things, I`m open to suggestions. Cu, Floh ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Collision Detection and Network
I use the lower layers of VRPN to distribute all the data related to virtual reality applications, and for compressed video (streaming works well). VRPN higher layers are dedicated to make a distributed abstraction layer over virtual reality devices such as mocap, or force feedback devices. Maybe it will work for the device you intend to drive... VRPN : http://www.cs.unc.edu/Research/vrpn/ As for collision, I think most popular free collision detection engines can be found at the UNC. I don't know what you intend to do with your collision detection... Maybe you should try V-collide engine. Careful with collision detection, it can really lower your computer's performances if you put too many, and too complicated meshes into the collision engine. COLLISION : http://www.cs.unc.edu/~geom/collide/index.shtml Antoine. -Message d'origine- De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] la part de Florian Schießl Envoyé : mardi 7 décembre 2004 17:55 À : FlightGear developers discussions Objet : Re: [Flightgear-devel] Collision Detection and Network Hi. It was my plan to use third parties open source solutions. If you know good projects feel free to send me the links. thx :) Cu, Floh RENNUIT Antoine 203220 Thésard wrote: I don't know if that could help you, but all you want to do (streaming, collision detection...) already exists in open source projects, you just have to integrate them into FG (which is still however a great deal of work). If you think it is interesting, I can supply you with links to these projects. I need for my thesis a working and powerful network system in flight gear. This may go so far that you can transfer a video and audio stream with it. So you could see and talk with the persons u play online. I also need a function that shows somekind of arrow on the HUD that shows in the direction of another player. And I need a working collision system. And if I still have time a force feedback system. Im willing to implement these things into flightgear and thought to myself, that I could contribute to the project by adding them later to the general cvs. Is this ok for you developers ? If you have tips about where and how to implement these things, I`m open to suggestions. Cu, Floh ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION: possible or not?
On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 09:15:09AM +0200, Mathias Fröhlich wrote: 1. Have a callback function in FGInterface which is able to provide you a terrain level and a surface normal for a given lat/lon pair. I'd even suggest also giving linear and rotational velocities for the surface polygon(s). This will allow to model things like A/C carriers, oil platforms moving and pitching in the sea. And earthquakes, if somebody cares :-) Kind regards, -Gerhard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION
Hi, sorry for my so late answer, but I can't connect to Internet every day! My post has developed a very big discussion. Thanks to all!! I'm going to see the hitlist.cxx file in the hitlist directory to learn more about the actual situation. Anyway, to realize my truck driving simulator I need a collision detection able to detect collision with the aircraft on runways, with the buildings, with the terrain. I know that is not so easy!! I have no experience in 3d programming now, the driving simulator is an idea for my thesis at the university, but I have only few months (=6) to spend about. With the previous post I have tried to understand if the collision det implementation was a reasonable effort for me, in other words if it was possible in this period of time! But, as I can see, it seems to be very hard!! Marco ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION
marco gugel wrote: Hi, sorry for my so late answer, but I can't connect to Internet every day! My post has developed a very big discussion. Thanks to all!! I'm going to see the hitlist.cxx file in the hitlist directory to learn more about the actual situation. Anyway, to realize my truck driving simulator I need a collision detection able to detect collision with the aircraft on runways, with the buildings, with the terrain. I know that is not so easy!! I have no experience in 3d programming now, the driving simulator is an idea for my thesis at the university, but I have only few months (=6) to spend about. With the previous post I have tried to understand if the collision det implementation was a reasonable effort for me, in other words if it was possible in this period of time! But, as I can see, it seems to be very hard!! For a complete collision detection, I would implement something in PLIB. Plib is maintaining a bounding sphere for every leaf and branch in the scenegraph tree, and it already uses bounding sphere intersection for its culling test. To see if 2 objects intersect, I would determine if the bounding sphere of their top branch intersect. If not, end of work. If they intersect, I would go down one level and examine the bounding spheres of their components, and so on until either there is no intersection, or some leaves of one object intersect with some of the other object. At the lowest level, I will have to test the actual triangles instead of spheres to have a real result. There will be a special traversal mask to ignore some leaves that are in fact transparent to achieve an effect that do not reflect a physical feature of the object ( for example a cloud or a light halo ). I don't know if it makes sense to you. Don't hesitate to ask. Cheers, -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION
Frederic Bouvier wrote: marco gugel wrote: Hi, sorry for my so late answer, but I can't connect to Internet every day! My post has developed a very big discussion. Thanks to all!! I'm going to see the hitlist.cxx file in the hitlist directory to learn more about the actual situation. Anyway, to realize my truck driving simulator I need a collision detection able to detect collision with the aircraft on runways, with the buildings, with the terrain. I know that is not so easy!! I have no experience in 3d programming now, the driving simulator is an idea for my thesis at the university, but I have only few months (=6) to spend about. With the previous post I have tried to understand if the collision det implementation was a reasonable effort for me, in other words if it was possible in this period of time! But, as I can see, it seems to be very hard!! For a complete collision detection, I would implement something in PLIB. Plib is maintaining a bounding sphere for every leaf and branch in the scenegraph tree, and it already uses bounding sphere intersection for its culling test. To see if 2 objects intersect, I would determine if the bounding sphere of their top branch intersect. If not, end of work. If they intersect, There might be one step in between here, which I have been thinking of a bit. It would be easy to implement a bounding cylinder (2d collision detection) and only if there is a hit go to the bounding sphere. For me it looks like that approach would be much less costly as directly determining a bounding sphere. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION
How about at a lower level, perform a sort of some sort and isolate polygons that face each other, put these polygons into an array, and then only perform intersection checks on the polygons in these arrays? Regards, Ampere On May 2, 2004 12:41 pm, Erik Hofman wrote: There might be one step in between here, which I have been thinking of a bit. It would be easy to implement a bounding cylinder (2d collision detection) and only if there is a hit go to the bounding sphere. For me it looks like that approach would be much less costly as directly determining a bounding sphere. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION: possible or not?
On Sonntag, 2. Mai 2004 01:18, Norman Vine wrote: Every thing you need, or perhaps I should say, everything FlightGear knows about the local scenery is contained in in the hitlist data structure. SRC / Scenery / hitlist.[ch]xx AFAIK The only doumentation is the code it self. :) Ok, will start digging there. Thanks ... Greetings Mathias -- Mathias Fröhlich, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION: possible or not?
On Sonntag, 2. Mai 2004 12:23, Gerhard Wesp wrote: On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 09:15:09AM +0200, Mathias Fröhlich wrote: 1. Have a callback function in FGInterface which is able to provide you a terrain level and a surface normal for a given lat/lon pair. I'd even suggest also giving linear and rotational velocities for the surface polygon(s). This will allow to model things like A/C carriers, oil platforms moving and pitching in the sea. And earthquakes, if somebody cares :-) Yep, you are right. At least the carrier stuff is interresting I think :) Greetings Mathias -- Mathias Fröhlich, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION
Erik Hofman wrote: There might be one step in between here, which I have been thinking of a bit. It would be easy to implement a bounding cylinder (2d collision detection) and only if there is a hit go to the bounding sphere. For me it looks like that approach would be much less costly as directly determining a bounding sphere. The truly adventurous should note that the mostly 2D nature of the problem lends itself nicely to a tree-based (quadtree or BSP) hierarchical representation. The coarse intersection of bounding spheres should be the next level of refinement, finally followed by testing of individual polygons. Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION
Andy Ross writes: Erik Hofman wrote: There might be one step in between here, which I have been thinking of a bit. It would be easy to implement a bounding cylinder (2d collision detection) and only if there is a hit go to the bounding sphere. For me it looks like that approach would be much less costly as directly determining a bounding sphere. The truly adventurous should note that the mostly 2D nature of the problem lends itself nicely to a tree-based (quadtree or BSP) hierarchical representation. The coarse intersection of bounding spheres should be the next level of refinement, finally followed by testing of individual polygons. Currently all sub elements of a flightgear scenery tile are loaded in to a 'wide' graph. ie root | | | | | Tile Node(s) | __ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Fan Nodes all at eaqual depth And what IMO is needed for *fast* collision detection is a 'deeper' graph ROOT | | | | | | Tile Node | QUAD TREE of Fan Nodes with assosciated SSG bounding spheres This could be implemented as a load time optimization step Cheers Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION: possible or not?
On Freitag, 30. April 2004 18:57, Andy Ross wrote: Erik Hofman wrote: Why do you think that collision detection is not implemented? You can crash to the ground and to the buildings (maybe even other aircraft?), so there must be some logic behind this. Ground handling right now only uses a flat, horizontal ground plane at the MSL altitude of the aircraft coordinate origin. This works fine for runways, but isn't good enough for ground vehicles. This is the reason that you can't fly off the ski jump on the carrier without crashing, and why aircraft don't roll down hills. AFAIK all the FDMs share the same bug here. What's needed is to intersect each gear strut against the local scenery independently, and have a per-gear ground plane. Sadly, yes. So what a FDM definitly needs to know is the terrain level, sea level and surface normal of an arbitrary given lat/lon pair (Most likely somewhere in the environment of the location of the aircraft). An additional value which signals the ground type we have here would be good too, so you would need to hit the runway ... I think we have three possible solutions from the FDM - Flightgear interface point of view. 1. Have a callback function in FGInterface which is able to provide you a terrain level and a surface normal for a given lat/lon pair. 2. On every update push *all* tiles in an environment of the aircraft to the FDM and leave it to the FDM to fiddle with that information. 3. Provide a callback function to query a surface tile for a given lat/lon pair. I am not shure about the word 'surface tile' I do not know what this exactly means in Flightgear, especially I do not know if knowledge of surface tiles is sufficient to know if we roll on a runway or on grass ... Pros and Cons IMO: Method 1. is the easiest to use for a FDM programmer. But is definitly unusable for a netfdm based approach Curt Olsen shortly told about on jsbsim-devel (FDM = FlightGear interface). Method 2. most likely either provides a too small environment to match the fdm's needs or continously pushes too much data which is never used. This one and the next one would require some additional code in the FDM to directly gain the data the FDM is interessted in (terrain level/sealevel/surface normal/surface type). Method 3. The most intelligent one I think, Just queries a new tile if it is really required for computations. Method 1 and 3 can also be combined in the sense that the FDM just sees a solution like method 1, but the actual queries are done based on a FDM local tile cache. Using this I can imagine that it is still possible to do some netfdm based solution Curt Olsen told about shortly ... Suggestions? Someone with internal knowledge about Flightgear to help building such a beast? Greetings Mathias -- Mathias Fröhlich, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION: possible or not?
On Sat, 1 May 2004 09:15:09 +0200, you wrote: I think we have three possible solutions from the FDM - Flightgear interface point of view. 1. Have a callback function in FGInterface which is able to provide you a terrain level and a surface normal for a given lat/lon pair. 2. On every update push *all* tiles in an environment of the aircraft to the FDM and leave it to the FDM to fiddle with that information. 3. Provide a callback function to query a surface tile for a given lat/lon pair. I am not sure I understand 3, so excuse me should I just reformulate it: 4. There is one callback providing the level (altitude) for lat/lon. (and no normal!). The FDM is free to call it three times and from the three results create a normal, which does not need to coincide with the normal of any terrain poly. Actually, the normal computation might be part of flightgear (and not the FDM). Greetings Mathias Bye bye, Wolfram. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION: possible or not?
On Samstag, 1. Mai 2004 13:54, Wolfram Kuss wrote: On Sat, 1 May 2004 09:15:09 +0200, you wrote: I think we have three possible solutions from the FDM - Flightgear interface point of view. 1. Have a callback function in FGInterface which is able to provide you a terrain level and a surface normal for a given lat/lon pair. 2. On every update push *all* tiles in an environment of the aircraft to the FDM and leave it to the FDM to fiddle with that information. 3. Provide a callback function to query a surface tile for a given lat/lon pair. I am not sure I understand 3, so excuse me should I just reformulate it: 4. There is one callback providing the level (altitude) for lat/lon. (and no normal!). The FDM is free to call it three times and from the three results create a normal, which does not need to coincide with the normal of any terrain poly. Actually, the normal computation might be part of flightgear (and not the FDM). I really meant to get a normal from flightgear. But you will get some average normal by the method you told about. Also something to think about since it will make the normal steady dependent on the lat/lon pair. Definitly better for numerical computations ... What this method 3 was meant to do is to minimize the callback traffic by having a FDM local tile cache and handling the actual queries to the elevation data and normals based on this cache. This is motivated by 1. A mail of Curt Olsen where he asked if it would be possible to handle the FDM-Flightgear data exchange via something like a netfdm. But if the dataflow is squeezed through a socket, it is definitly better not to query for each lat/lon pair which is required by the FDM. 2. The fact that at least for every gear this query is done once a timestep and the code I prepare at the moment to get rid of this boring jitter needs to recompute the gear forces more then one time in a timestep. This will result in many such queries and thus these queries must be fast. How this cache is built or how this data is available from within flightgear is someting I have not looked at. So, can somone help me out with a short descripion how flightgears surface can be queried and what data such a query result holds? Or may be someone can point me to some documentation about that? Greetings Mathias -- Mathias Fröhlich, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION: possible or not?
Mathias Fröhlich writes: What this method 3 was meant to do is to minimize the callback traffic by having a FDM local tile cache and handling the actual queries to the elevation data and normals based on this cache. So, can somone help me out with a short descripion how flightgears surface can be queried and what data such a query result holds? Or may be someone can point me to some documentation about that? Every thing you need, or perhaps I should say, everything FlightGear knows about the local scenery is contained in in the hitlist data structure. SRC / Scenery / hitlist.[ch]xx AFAIK The only doumentation is the code it self. Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION: possible or not?
Hi, as I told to Andy Ross I would like to implement a truck driving simulation in FlightGear but my doubt regards the collision detection, which is not implemented! It's only a week that I study FlightGear code and I have now no idea if the collision detection is reasonably implementable or not and, if yes, how. I would appreciate your opinions. Thanks, Marco ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION: possible or not?
Marco Gugel wrote: as I told to Andy Ross I would like to implement a truck driving simulation in FlightGear but my doubt regards the collision detection, which is not implemented! It's only a week that I study FlightGear code and I have now no idea if the collision detection is reasonably implementable or not and, if yes, how. Well, there's the catch: if someone knew how to do it well enough to explain it to you completely, it would already have been done. :) Yes. There are definitely general-purpose polygon intersection routines in FlightGear (see Scenery/hitlist.cxx). But no: no one has studied with them sufficiently to integrate them with the existing FDMs. Honestly, the only real way to do development on a software project (any project) is to dive in and read code. Our product is a program, not a tool; there is no SDK for FlightGear. :) And as regards your other question: yes, this is a difficult task. The collision issue probably isn't so bad (although YASim is going to have some performance issues to tackle: currently it can have dozens of contact points per aircraft), but the non-slip gear model is just plain hard. Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION: possible or not?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, as I told to Andy Ross I would like to implement a truck driving simulation in FlightGear but my doubt regards the collision detection, which is not implemented! It's only a week that I study FlightGear code and I have now no idea if the collision detection is reasonably implementable or not and, if yes, how. Why do you think that collision detection is not implemented? You can crash to the ground and to the buildings (maybe even other aircraft?), so there must be some logic behind this. What is it that you really want to do? Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION: possible or not?
Erik Hofman wrote: Why do you think that collision detection is not implemented? You can crash to the ground and to the buildings (maybe even other aircraft?), so there must be some logic behind this. Ground handling right now only uses a flat, horizontal ground plane at the MSL altitude of the aircraft coordinate origin. This works fine for runways, but isn't good enough for ground vehicles. This is the reason that you can't fly off the ski jump on the carrier without crashing, and why aircraft don't roll down hills. AFAIK all the FDMs share the same bug here. What's needed is to intersect each gear strut against the local scenery independently, and have a per-gear ground plane. Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION: possible or not?
marco.gugel said: Hi, as I told to Andy Ross I would like to implement a truck driving simulation in FlightGear but my doubt regards the collision detection, which is not implemented! It's only a week that I study FlightGear code and I have now no idea if the collision detection is reasonably implementable or not and, if yes, how. I would appreciate your opinions. That depends on how you define reasonably. If you aren't familiar with 3D programming then it might not be reasonable. But it can be done. Take a look at the hitlist code in the Scenery directory to get an idea of what is being tested now and how. Currently we get a ground elevation value by running intersection test of a perpendicular vector from the aircraft to the scenery below (you can drill down from the ground elevation call in the main loop--src/Main/main.cxx--if you prefer). Such tests can be done in any direction you want, and you don't need to do the test in every direction every frame (the direction you are traveling in might be most important :-)). You can extrapolate results if you know the shape and size of the object and or the shape and size of the vehicle (e.g. you might know that if the center bumper is less than 0.5m away from a wall the corner must have hit). You can also do tests from multiple points on the vehicle. And you can zero in on objects of concern (test more often) depending on their distance and the speed/direction of the vehicle. The FDM's might be doing something roughly similar based on attitude of the aircraft and the altitude above ground level only. I don't think they have enough detail to do what you describe. You will need to build a subsystem to do something like what I've described above. AFAIK it does not yet exist. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION: possible or not?
Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Erik Hofman wrote: Why do you think that collision detection is not implemented? You can crash to the ground and to the buildings (maybe even other aircraft?), so there must be some logic behind this. AFAIK all the FDMs share the same bug here. it's a feature :-P We looked into this some time ago - IIRC Norman was involved in this, too. It would be really nice to do this, but of course we'd need to be able to somehow acquire an altitude location for each gear. This is probably no big deal to calculate, but then, too, you have to worry about boundaries and straddling. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION: possible or not?
On Friday 30 April 2004 17:50, Erik Hofman wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, as I told to Andy Ross I would like to implement a truck driving simulation in FlightGear but my doubt regards the collision detection, which is not implemented! It's only a week that I study FlightGear code and I have now no idea if the collision detection is reasonably implementable or not and, if yes, how. Why do you think that collision detection is not implemented? You can crash to the ground and to the buildings (maybe even other aircraft?), so there must be some logic behind this. What is it that you really want to do? Is collision detection part of the model/dynamics set per aircraft? Just I've been flying through the buildings in San Fran all afternoon in the bo105. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION: possible or not?
Andy Ross said: Erik Hofman wrote: Why do you think that collision detection is not implemented? You can crash to the ground and to the buildings (maybe even other aircraft?), so there must be some logic behind this. Ground handling right now only uses a flat, horizontal ground plane at the MSL altitude of the aircraft coordinate origin. This works fine for runways, but isn't good enough for ground vehicles. This is the reason that you can't fly off the ski jump on the carrier without crashing, and why aircraft don't roll down hills. AFAIK all the FDMs share the same bug here. What's needed is to intersect each gear strut against the local scenery independently, and have a per-gear ground plane. That wouldn't be difficult to do at all. Modeling the fdm behavior on a slope might be...I don't know. But I think this poster is looking for other types of collision detection, not just the ground. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION: possible or not?
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 09:49:01 -0700 Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marco Gugel wrote: as I told to Andy Ross I would like to implement a truck driving simulation in FlightGear but my doubt regards the collision detection, which is not implemented! It's only a week that I study FlightGear code and I have now no idea if the collision detection is reasonably implementable or not and, if yes, how. snip And as regards your other question: yes, this is a difficult task. The collision issue probably isn't so bad (although YASim is going to have some performance issues to tackle: currently it can have dozens of contact points per aircraft), And then you have object models which use alpha transparency to get the polygon count down... Rick ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Collision Detection and PLIB
On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 23:50:57 -0600, Peter Holko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello, (sorry in advance if I posted to the inappropriate mailing list) I am a senior project developer from Arianne MMORPG (http://sourceforge.net/projects/arianne/) and we are using PLIB for our 3D Client. ..guys, is Arianne useable in networking FlightGear??? -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Collision Detection and PLIB
Hello, (sorry in advance if I posted to the inappropriate mailing list)I am a senior project developer from Arianne MMORPG (http://sourceforge.net/projects/arianne/) and we are using PLIB for our 3D Client. I was wondering if and how you guys implemented collision detection forFlightgear using PLIB. We currently load .ssg models (converted to .ssg from .ase) and were looking into using some kinda of bounding shape collision detection (sphere, cube, planes). However, because PLIB seems to hide an alot of information after model loading from the user, we cannot see any practical way using PLIB to implement a cd system.We aren't looking for anything complex, just simple and that works. If you could please help us that would be great. I can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or if you wish to visit our IRC channel at irc.freenode.net #Arianne . Thank you very much for your time. Peter Holko (aka Anarki) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
