Switching bounding box to a bounding capsule

[saindd]

The bounding box behavior is terrible. Does the Torque Physics engine support capsule colliders?

[LukasPJ]

If you use Bullet or PhysX that should support capsule I guess.

Torque Physics doesn't support capsule in any optimized manner. I guess you could create some convex collision mesh, but it's not gonna be as optimized as a "proper" capsule collider algorithm.

So if you are not satisfied with the bounding box, try using another convex collision mesh instead.

[saindd]

If the bounding box is dropped, only the player class code has to be changed? Or is this a very deep feature of T3D?

Also, how can i set Bullet as the defacto-standard? Without any abstraction? I find Torque Physics very limiting. I can't work with joints, apply limits, use ragdolls or anything.

[MilkywayM16]

What torque really needs is a proper hitbox system

[LukasPJ]

I don't think there's a guide for bullet, but here's one for PhysX:

http://wiki.torque3d.org/coder:physx-setup

I'd guess it's sort of the same, just with Bullet.

And of course you can't get away with the abstraction layer code-wise, without manually removing it, but then again why would you do that? What's wrong with a physics-abstraction-layer?

Bullet should have joints and ragdolls and all that, it really sounds like you should've used Bullet all along.

Edit: Not 100% sure about ragdolls, you might have to write that yourself.. Someone was working on it for PhysX at least.

[saindd]

There is a decent hitbox system already: http://www.garagegames.com/community/resource/view/6538/

You can pretty much have any hitbox structure you want. I prefer Valve's approach, which is pretty nice. My problems is with player movement and interaction with the physics world. A box is a terrible way to detect collisions with other meshes and the terrain.

@LukasPJ, the abstraction layer does not allow me to call and interact with Bullet directly, therefore, i'm not able to fully use it's power. I guess i'll endup removing all the code for PhysX and the default Torque Physics.

[MilkywayM16]

I actually had no idea about that resource, thanks for posting it. Something like that might be great to replace the default bounding box hit detection

[Azaezel]

There is a decent hitbox system already: http://www.garagegames.com/community/resource/view/6538/

You can pretty much have any hitbox structure you want. I prefer Valve's approach, which is pretty nice. My problems is with player movement and interaction with the physics world. A box is a terrible way to detect collisions with other meshes and the terrain.

@LukasPJ, the abstraction layer does not allow me to call and interact with Bullet directly, therefore, i'm not able to fully use it's power. I guess i'll endup removing all the code for PhysX and the default Torque Physics.

 

For what it's worth, got a pop-in version https://github.com/Azaezel/Torque3D/tree/player_hitboxes_rev2 forget why I pulled the PR on that... something about aftermarket animation or node tweaks.

[MilkywayM16]

There is a decent hitbox system already: http://www.garagegames.com/community/resource/view/6538/

You can pretty much have any hitbox structure you want. I prefer Valve's approach, which is pretty nice. My problems is with player movement and interaction with the physics world. A box is a terrible way to detect collisions with other meshes and the terrain.

@LukasPJ, the abstraction layer does not allow me to call and interact with Bullet directly, therefore, i'm not able to fully use it's power. I guess i'll endup removing all the code for PhysX and the default Torque Physics.

 

For what it's worth, got a pop-in version https://github.com/Azaezel/Torque3D/tree/player_hitboxes_rev2 forget why I pulled the PR on that... something about aftermarket animation or node tweaks.

That's great! Any chance you'll resubmit a PR on it and get it into a future release?

[Azaezel]

Probably not. it was after all intended to be a bridge step for the entity component phase. Won't be removing it from hosting though if folks wanna snag it and tinker.

[MilkywayM16]

Probably not. it was after all intended to be a bridge step for the entity component phase. Won't be removing it from hosting though if folks wanna snag it and tinker.

What do you mean it was intended as a bridge step? What entity component phase?

[JeffR]

Are you familiar with the entity/component stuff I've been working on?

The E/C stuff has a redone collision scheme, making it way easier to set up collisions on stuff in whatever way the user wants.

[MilkywayM16]

Are you familiar with the entity/component stuff I've been working on?

The E/C stuff has a redone collision scheme, making it way easier to set up collisions on stuff in whatever way the user wants.

Oohh, I was unaware. Dropping pursuit of that resource makes sense then if it would become obsolete soon.