physics for games programmers tutorial motion and collision – its all relative squirrel eiserloh...

Physics for Games Programmers Tutorial

Motion and Collision – It’s All Relative

Squirrel [email protected]

Lead ProgrammerRitual Entertainment

www.ritual.comwww.algds.org

mailto:[email protected]

2

Takeaway A comfortable, intuitive understanding

of:

The Problems of Discrete Simulation Continuous Collision Detection Applying Relativity to Game Physics Configuration Space Collisions in Four Dimensions The Problems of Rotation Why this is all really important even if you’re

doing simple cheesy 2d games at home in your underwear in your spare time

3

The Problem Discrete physics simulation falls

embarrassingly short of reality. “Real” physics is prohibitively

expensive... ...so we cheat. We need to cheat enough to be able to

run in real time. We need to not cheat so much that

things break in a jarring and unrecoverable way.

Much of the challenge is knowing how and when to cheat.

4

Overview

Simulation Tunneling Movement Bounds Swept Shapes Einstein Says... Minkowski Says... Rotation

5

Also, I promise...

No math

Simulation(Sucks)

7

Problems with Simulation

Flipbook syndrome

8


Flipbook syndrome Things can happen

in-between snapshots

9


Flipbook syndrome Things mostly

happen in-between snapshots

10




Curved trajectories treated as piecewise linear

11




Curved trajectories treated as piecewise linear

Terms often assumed to be constant throughout the frame

12


Flipbook syndrome Things mostly happen

in-between snapshots Curved trajectories

treated as piecewise linear

Terms often assumed to be constant throughout the frame

Error accumulates

13

Problems with Simulation (cont’d)

Rotations are often assumed to happen instantaneously at frame boundaries

14



Energy is not always conserved Energy loss can be

undesirable Energy gain is evil

Simulations explode!

15



Energy is not always conserved Energy loss can be

undesirable Energy gain is evil

Simulations explode!

Tunneling (Also evil!)

16

Overlapping Objects

Question #1: Do A and B overlap?

Plenty of reference material to help solve this, but...

...this is often the wrong question to ask (begs tunneling).

Tunneling(Sucks)

18

Tunneling

Small objects tunnel more easily

19

Tunneling (cont’d)

Possible solutions Minimum size requirement?

Inadequate; fast objects still tunnel

20


Fast-moving objects tunnel more easily

21


Possible solutions Minimum size requirement?

Inadequate; fast objects still tunnel Maximum speed limit?

Inadequate; since speed limit is a function of object size, this would mean small & fast objects (bullets) would not be allowed

Smaller time step? Helpful, but inadequate; this is essentially the

same as a speed limit

22


Besides, even with min. size requirements and speed limits and a small timestep, you still have degenerate cases that cause tunneling

23


Tunneling is very, very bad – this is not a “mundane detail” Things falling through world Bullets passing through people or walls Players getting places they shouldn’t Players missing a trigger boundary

Okay, so tunneling really sucks. What can we do about it?

Movement Bounds

25

Movement Bounds

Disc / Sphere

26

Movement Bounds

Disc / Sphere

AABB (Axis-Aligned Bounding Box)

27

Movement Bounds

Disc / Sphere

AABB (Axis-Aligned Bounding Box)

OBB (Oriented Bounding Box)

28

Movement Bounds

Question #2: Could A and B have collided during the frame?

Better than Question #1 (solves tunneling!), but...

29

Movement Bounds

Question #2: Could A and B have collided during the frame?

Better than Question #1 (solves tunneling!), but...

...even if the answer is “yes”, we still don’t know for sure (false positives).

30

Movement Bounds

Conclusion Good: They prevent tunneling! (i.e. no

false negatives)

Bad: They don’t actually tell us whether A and B collided (still have false positives).

Good: They can be used as a cheap, effective early rejection test.

Swept Shapes

32

Swept Shapes

Swept disc / sphere (n-sphere): capsule

33

Swept Shapes


Swept AABB: convex polytope (polygon in 2d, polyhedron in 3d)

34

Swept Shapes



Swept triangle / tetrahedron (simplex): convex polytope

35

Swept Shapes



Swept triangle / tetrahedron (simplex): convex polytope

Swept polytope: convex polytope

36

Swept Shapes (cont’d)

Like movement bounds, only with a perfect fit!

37



Still no false negatives (tunneling).

38




Finally, no false positives, either!

39




Finally, no false positives, either!

No, wait, nevermind. Still have ‘em. Rats.

40


Conclusion Suck? Can be used as early rejection test, but... ...movement bounds are better for that. If you’re not too picky... ...they DO solve a large number of nasty

problems (especially tunneling) ...and can serve as a poor man’s

continuous collision detection for a basic engine.

42

Einstein Says...

Coordinate systems are relative

Relative Coordinate Systems

44


World coordinates

45


World coordinates A’s local

coordinates

46


World coordinates A’s local

coordinates B’s local

coordinates

47


x2 + y2 = r2(x-h)2 + (y-k)2 = r2

Math is often nicer at the origin.

48

Einstein Says...

Coordinate systems are relative Motion is relative

Relative Motion

50

Relative Motion

"Frames of Reference"

World frame

51

Relative Motion


World frame A's frame

52

Relative Motion


World frame A's frame B's frame

53

Relative Motion


World frame A's frame B's frame Inertial frame

54

Relative Motion

A Rule of Relativistic Collision Detection:

It is always possible to reduce a collision check between two moving objects to a collision check between a moving object and a stationary object (by reframing)

55

(Does Not Suck)

Relative Collision Bodies

57


Collision check equivalencies (disc)

58



...AABB

59



...AABB Can even reduce

one body to a singularity

60



...AABB Can even reduce

one body to a singularity

“Tracing” or “Rubbing” collision bodies together

61



...AABB Can even reduce one

body to a singularity “Tracing” or

“Rubbing” collision bodies together

Spirograph-out the reduced body’s origin

62

Relative Collision Bodies (cont’d)

Disc + disc

63


Disc + disc AABB + AABB

64


Disc + disc AABB + AABB Triangle + AABB

65


Disc + disc AABB + AABB Triangle + AABB AABB + triangle

66


Disc + disc AABB + AABB Triangle + AABB AABB + triangle Polytope +

polytope

67


Disc + disc AABB + AABB Triangle + AABB AABB + triangle Polytope +

polytope Polytope + disc

68


Things start to get messy when combining bodies explicitly / manually.

(Especially in 3d.) General solution?

Minkowski Arithmetic

70

Minkowski Sums

The Minkowski Sum (A+B) of A and B is the result of adding every point in A to every point in B.

71

Minkowski Sums

The Minkowski Sum (A+B) of A and B is the result of adding every point in A to every point in B.

Minkowski Sums are commutative:A+B = B+A

Minkowski Sum of convex objects is convex

72

Minkowski Differences

The Minkowski Difference (A-B) of A and B is the result of subtracting every point in B from every point in A (or A + -B)

73

Minkowski Differences

The Minkowski Difference (A-B) of A and B is the result of subtracting every point in B from every point in A

Resulting shape is different from A+B.

74

Minkowski Differences (cont’d)

Minkowski Differences are not commutative:A-B != B-A

Minkowski Difference of convex objects is convex (since A-B = A+ -B)

75


Minkowski Differences are not commutative:A-B != B-A

Minkowski Difference of convex objects is convex (since A-B = A+ -B)

Minkowski Difference produces the same shape as “Spirograph”

76


If the singularity is outside the combined body, A and B do not overlap.

77


If the singularity is outside the combined body, A and B do not overlap.

If the singularity is inside the combined body (A-B), then A and B overlap.

78


Aorigin vs. Borigin

-Borigin -Borigin

___ ___(A-B)origin vs. 0

79


In world space, A-B is “near” the origin

80


Since the singularity point is always at the origin (B-B), we can say...

If (A-B) does not contain the origin, A and B do not overlap.

81


If (A-B) contains the origin, A and B overlap.

In other words, we reduce A vs. B to:

combined body (A-B) vs.point (B-B, or origin)

82


If A and B are in the same coordinate system, the comparison between A-B and the origin is said to happen in configuration space

...in which case A-B is said to be a configuration space obstacle (CSO)

83


Translations in A or B simply translate the CSO

84


Rotations in A or B mutate the CSO

85

Minkowski Sum vs. Difference

Lots of confusion over Minkowski “Sum” vs. “Difference”.

Sum is used to “fatten” an object by “adding” another object (in local coordinates) to it

Difference is used to put the objects in configuration space, i.e. A-B vs. origin.

Difference sometimes called Sum since A-B can be expressed as A+(-B)!

86

Minkowski Sum vs. Difference (cont’d)

Difference is the same as “Spirograph” or “rubbing”

Difference is not commutative! A-B != B-A

Difference and sum produce different-shaped results

Difference produces CSO (configuration space obstacle)

87

(Does Not Suck)

Relative Everything

89

Relative Everything

Let’s combine: Relative Coordinate Systems Relative Motion Relative Collision Bodies

90

Relative Everything (cont’d)

A vs. B in world frame

91



A vs. B, inertial frame

92




A is moving, B is still

93





A is CSO, B is point

94





A is CSO, B is point A is moving CSO, B

is still point

95




A is moving, B is still A is CSO, B is point A is moving CSO, B

is still point A is still CSO, B is

moving point

96


Question #3: Did A and B collide during the frame?

Yes! We can now get an exact answer.

No false negatives, no false positives!

However, we still don’t know WHEN they collided...

97


Why does the exact collision time matter? Outcomes can be

different Order of events (e.g.

multiple collisions) is relevant

Collision response is easier when you can reconstruct the exact moment of impact

98


The Minkowski Difference (A-B) / CSO can also be thought of as “the set of all translations [from the origin] that would cause a collision”.

A.K.A. the set of “inadmissible translations”.

Determining Collision Time

100


Method #1: Frame Subdivision

101

Subdividing Movement Frame

If a swept-shape (or movement bounds) test says “yes”:

102

Subdividing Movement Frame

If a swept-shape (or movement bounds) test says “yes”:

Cut the frame in half; perform two separate tests (first half first, second half second).

First positive test is when the collision occurred.

103

Subdividing Movement Frame (cont’d)

Can recurse (1/2, 1/4, 1/8...) to the desired level of granularity

104

Subdividing Movement Frame (cont’d)

Can recurse (1/2, 1/4, 1/8...) to the desired level of granularity

If both tests negative, no collision (was a false positive).

Still inexact (minimizing, not eliminating, false positives)

Gets expensive

105


Method #1: Frame Subdivision Method #2: 4D* Continuous Collision

Detection *(N+1 dimensions; 3D for 2D physics,

etc.)

Spacetime

107

Spacetime

Spacetime is a Physics construct which combines N-dimensional space with an extra dimension for time, yielding a unified model with N+1 dimensions.

Space (1D) + time (1D) = spacetime (2D) Space (2D) + time (1D) = spacetime (3D) Space (3D) + time (1D) = spacetime (4D)

108

Spacetime Diagrams

1D space + time = 2D Just an X vs. T

graph!

109

Spacetime Diagrams


graph! 2D space + time =

3D No problem.

110

Spacetime Diagrams


graph! 2D space + time =

3D No problem.

Another example (2d space + time = 3D)

111

Spacetime Diagrams

1D space + time = 2D Just an X vs. T graph!

2D space + time = 3D No problem.

Another example (2d space + time = 3D)

3D space + time = 4D Brainbuster!

?

112

Spacetime Diagrams (cont’d)

Note that an N-dimensional system in motion is the same as a still snapshot in N+1 dimensions

1D animation = 2D spacetime still image 2D animation = 3D spacetime still image 3D animation = 4D spacetime still image

113


2D spacetime still image

1D animation

114


3D spacetime still image

2D animation

115


How do you envision a 4D object?

Use 2D animation -> 3D spacetime diagram as a mental analogy.

Fun reading: Flatland by Edwin Abbott

Think about a 4D object that you’re already familiar with.

(The universe in motion!)

116


Invented by Hermann Minkowski Also called “Minkowski Diagrams”

117

(Rules)

Time-Swept Shapes

119

Time-Swept Shapes

Sweep out shapes, but do it over time in a spacetime diagram

Define time over frame as being in the interval [0,1]

As before, we can play around with lots of relativistic variations:

120

Time-Swept Shapes (cont’d)


121




122




A is CSO, B is point

123




A is CSO, B is point A is still CSO, B is

moving (swept) point

124


To solve for collision time, we intersect the point-swept ray against the CSO

The ‘t’ coordinate at the intersection point is the time [0,1] of collision

Collision check is done in N+1 dimensions

Which means, in a 3D game, we collide a 4D ray vs. a 4D body! (What?)

125


Wait, it gets easier... When we view this

diagram (CSO vs moving point) down the time axis, i.e. from “overhead”:

Since CSO is not moving, it looks 2D from overhead...

126


We can reduce this back down to N dimensions (from N+1) since we are looking down the time axis!

So it becomes an N-dimesional ray vs. N-dimensional body again.

Which means, in a 3D game, we collide a 3D ray vs. a 3D body.

128


Question #4: When, during the frame, did A and B collide?

Finally, the right question - and we have a complete answer!

With fixed cost, and with exact results (no false anything).

129


BTW, this is essentially the same as solving for the fraction of the singularity-translation ray from our original Minkowski Difference “inadmissible translations” picture!

Quality vs. Quantity

or

“You Get What You Pay For”

131

Quality vs. Quantity

The more you ask, the more you pay. Question #1: Do A and B overlap? Question #2: Could A and B have

collided during the frame? Question #3: Did A and B collide

during the frame? Question #4: When, during the

frame, did A and B collide?

Rotations(Suck)

133

Rotations

Continuous rotational collision detection sucks

Rotational tunneling alone is problematic

134

Rotations

Continuous rotational collision detection sucks

Rotational tunneling alone is problematic

Methods we’ve discussed here often don’t work on rotations, or their rotational analogue is quite complex

135

Rotations (cont’d)

However: Rotational tunneling is usually not as

jarring as translational tunneling Rotational speed limits are actually

feasible Can do linear approximations of swept

rotations Can use bounding shapes to contain pre-

and post-rotated positions This is something that many engines

never solve robustly

Summary

137

Summary The nature of simulation causes us real

problems... problems which can’t be ignored. Have to worry about false negatives (tunneling!)

as well as false positives. Knowing when a collision event took place can

be very important (especially when resolving it). Sometimes a problem (and math) looks easier

when we look at it from a different viewpoint. Can combine bodies in cheaty ways to simplify

things even further.

138

Summary (cont’d)

Einstein and Minkowski are cool. Rotations suck. Doing real-time collision detection in

4D spacetime doesn’t have to be hard.

Or expensive. Or confusing.

139

Questions?

Feel free to reach me by email at:

[email protected] or

[email protected]

physics for games programmers tutorial motion and collision – its all relative squirrel eiserloh...

Documents

d slide

frame slide

capsule slide

rotation slide

math slide

convex polytope slide

speed limit slide

piecewise linear slide