I am making a paperjs app where you have circles and each circle can move freely. Some circles are connected to each other by means of lines which would cause the circles to come nearer to one another - ie the line simulates an elastic band between circles. However the circles are not allowed to overlap, so I want to make some kind of collision repulsion. Currently I have implemented this as a repulsive force between circles. For each circle I check the location of all other circles, and each circle's velocity vector is increased in the opposite direction to the circle close to it, in proportion to how close it is to this one. So in effect something like velocityvector += -(vectorFromThereToHere / 10)
However this has the effect that between the attractive force between connected circles and the repulsive force between all circles, you end up with a continual back and forth jittering.
What then would be the best way to implement some kind of repulsion between circles that wouldn't cause any juddering but would simply allow the circles' edges to touch one another whilst not coming any closer together? In effect I want the circles to simply bump into each other, not be allowed to slide over one another, but they are allowed to slide along each other's outside edge frictionlessly to get to where their momentum carries them.
You could implement an inelastic collision, followed by a position-fixing step. The idea is to apply an impulse on the objects in the direction of the normal of the impact.
// vx: velocity vector of object x
// ux: velocity vector of object x after impact
// mx: mass of the object x (1 if all objects are the same size)
// n: normal of impact (i.e.: p1-p2 in the case of circles)
// I: the coefficient of the impulse
// Equation of an inelastic collision
u1 * n = u2 * n
// Equations of the velocities after the impact
u1 = v1 + I * n / m1
u2 = v2 - I * n / m2
// solved for I:
I = (v1 - v2) * n / ((n*n)*(1/m1 + 1/m2))
When you have I you just have to apply the velocity changes. You might as well check if I > 0 before applying the impulses, to prevent the shapes stick together. Let's see how it works, and add position iterations if the balls start to overlap slowly after all these anyway.
PS: You might repeat the whole collision step in a single timeframe as well, to get better results when objects are involved in many collisions (because they are stuck together in a big ball)
Related
Good day, I am trying to create a simple 2D solar system model in javascript, but am having some trouble understanding how to go about calculating where planets will be for the next frame, aswell as a few other bits which I'll go into detail with soon.
After watching this very nice video and a whole bunch of his others, I made a quick MS paint image to try and simplify my situation.
With the second scene, you can see that the new position is calulated using the velocity, gravitational pull, and the angle between these two 'directions'?
I cannot get my head around how to figure this all out.
Below is a JS fiddle of my code. You'll notice I'm trying my best to use real NASA given data to keep it accurate.
You'll want to look specifically at lines 138 which is where all the calculations for its next move are made.
https://jsfiddle.net/c8eru7mk/9/
attraction: function(p2) {
// Distance to other body
var dx = p2.position.x - this.position.x;
var dy = p2.position.y - this.position.y;
var d = Math.sqrt(dx ** 2 + dy ** 2); // Possibly correct
// Force of attracrtion
this.f = G * (this.mass * p2.mass) / (d ** 2); // Possibly Correct
// Direction of force, If you read it hard enough you should be able to hear my screams of pain
// Not sure if this is correct, most likely not.
var theta = Math.atan2(dy, dx);
var fx = Math.cos(theta) * this.f;
var fy = Math.sin(theta) * this.f;
this.velocity.x += fx / this.mass;
this.velocity.y += fy / this.mass;
this.position.x += this.velocity.x;
this.position.y += this.velocity.y;
}
The problems I'm currently facing are
If I am to use NASA values, the distance between planets is so big, they won't fit on the screen, and I can't simply scale the distances down by multiplying them by 0.0002 or whatever, as that'll mess with the gravitational constant, and the simulation will be completely off.
I have no idea how to caluclate the next position and my brain has imploded several times this past week trying to attempt it several times.
I have no idea on how to check if my configuration data of planets is wrong, or if the simulation is wrong, so I'm pretty much just guessing.
This is also my first time actually coding anything more complex than a button in javascript too, so feedback on code layout and whatnot is welcome!
Many thanks
Using NASA values is not a problem when using separate coordinates for drawing. Using an appropriate linear transfomration from real coordinates to screen coordinatees for displaying does not influence the physical values and computations.
For simulating the motion of a planet with iterative updates one can assume that the gravitational force and the velocity are constant for a small portion of time dt. This factor dt is missing in your conversions from accelration to velocity and from velocity to distance. Choosing an appropriate value for dt may need some experiments. If the value is too big the approximation will be too far off from reality. If the value is too small you may not see any movement or rounding errors may influence the result.
For the beginning let us assume that the sun is always at (0,0). Also for a start let us ignore the forces between the planets. Then here are the necessary formulas for a first not too bad approximation:
scalar acceleration of a planet at position (x,y) by the gravitational force of the sun (with mass M): a = G*M/(d*d) where d=sqrt(x*x+y*y). Note that this is indepent of the planet's mass.
acceleration vector: ax = -a*x/d, ay = -a*y/d (the vector (-x,-y) is pointing towards the sun and must be brought the length a)
change of the planet's velocity (vx,vy): vx += ax*dt, vy += ay*dt
change of the planet's position: x += vx*dt, y += vy*dt
I am trying to find the closest distance from a point to large, complex Mesh along a plane in a direction range:
for (var zDown in verticalDistances) {
var myIntersect = {};
for (var theta = Math.PI / 2 - 0.5; theta < Math.PI / 2 + 0.5; theta += 0.3) {
var rayDirection = new THREE.Vector3(
Math.cos(theta),
Math.sin(theta),
0
).transformDirection(object.matrixWorld);
// console.log(rayDirection);
_raycaster.set(verticalDistances[zDown].minFacePoint, rayDirection, 0, 50);
// console.time('raycast: ');
var intersect = _raycaster.intersectObject(planeBufferMesh);
// console.timeEnd('raycast: '); // this is huge!!! ~ 2,300 ms
// console.log(_raycaster);
// console.log(intersect);
if (intersect.length == 0) continue;
if ((!('distance' in myIntersect)) || myIntersect.distance > intersect[0].distance) {
myIntersect.distance = intersect[0].distance;
myIntersect.point = intersect[0].point.clone();
}
}
// do stuff
}
I get great results with mouse hover on the same surface but when performing this loop the raycasting is taking over 2 seconds per cast. The only thing i can think of is that the BackSide of the DoubleSide Material is a ton slower?
Also i notice as I space out my verticalDistances[zDown].minFacePoint to be farther apart raycast starts to speed up up (500ms /cast). So as the distance between verticalDistances[i].minFacePoint and verticalDistances[i+1].minFacePoint increases, the raycaster performs faster.
I would go the route of using octree but the mouse hover event works extremely well on the exact same planeBuffer. Is this a side of Material issue,. that could be solved by loading 2 FrontSide meshes pointing in opposite directions?
Thank You!!!!
EDIT: it is not a front back issue. I ran my raycast down the front and back side of the plane buffer geometry with the same spot result. Live example coming.
EDIT 2: working example here. Performance is little better than Original case but still too slow. I need to move the cylinder in real time. I can optimize a bit by finding certain things, but mouse hover is instant. When you look at the console time the first two(500ms) are the results i am getting for all results.
EDIT 3: added a mouse hover event, that performs the same as the other raycasters. I am not getting results in my working code that i get in this sample though. The results I get for all raycast are the same as i get for the first 1 or 2 in the sample around 500ms. If i could get it down to 200ms i can target the items i am looking for and do way less raycasting. I am completely open to suggestions on better methods. Is octree the way to go?
raycast: : 467.27001953125ms
raycast: : 443.830810546875ms
EDIT 4: #pailhead Here is my plan.
1. find closest grid vertex to point on the plane. I can do a scan of vertex in x/y direction then calculate the min distance.
2. once i have that closest vertex i know that my closest point has to be on a face containing that vertex. So i will find all faces with that vertex using the object.mesh.index.array and calculate the plane to point of each face. Seems like a ray cast should be a little bit smarter than a full scan when intersecting a mesh and at least cull points based on max distance? #WestLangley any suggestions?
EDIT 5:
#pailhead thank you for the help. Its appreciated. I have really simplified my example(<200 lines with tons more comments); Is raycaster checking every face? Much quicker to pick out the faces within the set raycasting range specified in the constructor and do a face to point calc. There is no way this should be looping over every face to raycast. I'm going to write my own PlaneBufferGeometry raycast function tonight, after taking a peak at the source code and checking octree. I would think if we have a range in the raycaster constructor, pull out plane buffer vertices within that range ignoring z. Then just raycast those or do a point to plane calculation. I guess i could just create a "mini" surface from that bounding circle and then raycast against it. But the fact that the max distance(manual uses "far") doesn't effect the speed of the raycaster makes me wonder how much it is optimized for planeBuffer geometries. FYI your 300k loop is ~3ms on jsfiddle.
EDIT 6: Looks like all meshes are treated the same in the raycast function. That means it wont smart hunt out the area for a plane Buffer Geometry. Looking at mesh.js lines 266 we loop over the entire index array. I guess for a regular mesh you dont know what faces are where because its a TIN, but a planeBuffer could really use a bounding box/sphere rule, because your x/y are known order positions and only the Z are unknown. Last edit, Answer will be next
FYI: for max speed, you could use math. There is no need to use ray casting. https://brilliant.org/wiki/3d-coordinate-geometry-equation-of-a-plane/
The biggest issue resolved is filtering out faces of planeBufferGeometry based on vertex index. With a planeBufferGeometry you can find a bounding sphere or rectangle that will give you the faces you need to check. they are ordered in x/y in the index array so that filters out many of the faces. I did an indexOf the bottom left position and lastIndexOf the top right corner position in the index array. RAYCASTING CHECKS EVERY FACE
I also gave up on finding the distance from each face of the object and instead used vertical path down the center of the object. This decreased the ray castings needed.
Lastly I did my own face walk through and used the traingle.closestPointToPoint() function on each face.
Ended up getting around 10ms per point to surface calculation(single raycast) and around 100 ms per object (10 vertical slices) to surface. I was seeing 2.5 seconds per raycast and 25+ seconds per object prior to optimization.
I am currently working moving different cars around a race track. I am using the formula listed in
Canvas move object in circle
arccos (1- ( d ⁄ r ) 2 ⁄ 2 )
to vary the speed of the cars around the ends of the track and it works very well. What I don't understand is how the formula is derived. I have been working on trying to derive it from the second derivative of the arcsin or arccos but I can't get out the formula (so am guessing I'm walking the wrong path). Anyways, I am never comfortable using code I don't understand, so I would appreciate it if someone could shed some light on it for me.
As detailed in the linked question, the movement of an object along a circle can be parametrized with a single angle theta which in loose terms describes how many "revolutions" the object has already made. Now, the question is for which angle theta the object is at Euclidean distance d from the initial (current) position A:
In other words, if you fix the time step delta of your simulation, the problem can be restated as to how one should adjust (increment) the angle so that the object displaces within the time interval delta to distance d.
From the law of cosines, one gets:
d^2 = r^2 + r^2 - 2*r*r*cos(theta) = 2*r^2*(1 - cos(theta))
Thus:
cos(theta) = 1 - 1/2*(d/r)^2
theta = arccos(1 - 1/2*(d/r)^2)
i want to make an animation in javascript where an object moves on a path.
For this i need a function that returns me X/Y coordinates on the path for a given time.
The path should be a triangle with soft edges.
At the beginning of the animation it should soft move into the triangle path - but this i could solve maybe in a different function .. more important to me is the function which can return me the X/Y coordinates for the move on the triangle.
The animation should then loop endless on the triangle path.
Are there (online) tools to create coordinates for such a animation?
Can someone help me with the function?
I'd recommend something like sqrt(x²+y²)=2.5+sin(atan2(y,x)*3)/5 - polar: ρ(θ)=2.5+sin(3θ)/5. It's a simple polar coordinate system, and adding a compressed sine wave (3 periods per turn) on a circle:
θ(t) = t // angle
ρ(t) = 2.5 + 0.2 * sin (t * 3) // radius
// of course, you can play with the parameters :-)
You can easily convert those polar coordinates into cartesion ones.
The animation at the beginning, moving from the center into the path, would need an extra function of course. Yet, it could be done with the same mechanic - leaving out the circle part: ρ(θ)=2.5*sin(3θ)
I'm trying to do a Tiny Wings like in javascript.
I first saw a technique using Box2D, I'm using the closure-web version (because of the memory leaks fix).
In short, I explode the curve into polygons so it looks like that:
I also tried with Chipmunk-js and I use the segment shape to simulate my ground like that:
In both cases, I'm experiencing some "crashes" or "bumps" at the common points between polygons or segments when a circle is rolling.
I asked about it for Chipmunk and the author said he implemented a radius property for the segment to reduce this behavior. I tried and it indeed did the trick but it's not perfect. I still have some bumps(I had to set to 30px of radius to get a positive effect).
The "bumps" append at the shared points between two polygons :
Using, as illandril suggested to me, the edging technique (he only tested with polygon-polygon contact) to avoid the circle to crash on an edge:
Also tried to add the bullet option as Luc suggested and nothing seems to change.
Here the demo of the issue.
You can try to change the value to check :
bullet option
edge size
iterations count
the physics
(only tested on latest dev Chrome)
Be patient (or change the horizontal gravity) and you'll see what I mean.
Here the repo for the interested.
The best solution is edge shapes with ghost vertices, but if that's not available in the version/port you're using, the next best thing is like the diagram in your question called 'edging', but extend the polygons further underground with a very shallow slope, like in this thread: http://www.box2d.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7917
I first thought the problem could come from the change of slope between two adjacent segments, but since on a flat surface of polygons you still have bumps I think the problem is rather hitting the corner of a polygon.
I don't know if you can set two sets of polygons, overlapping each other ? Just use the same interpolation calculations and generate a second set of polygons just like in the diagram hereafter : you have the red set of polygons built and add the green set by setting the left vertices of a green polygon in the middle of a red polygon, and its right vertices in the middle of the next red polygon.
![diagram][1]
This should work on concave curves and... well you should be flying over the convex ones anyway.
If this doesn't work try setting a big number of polygons to build the slope. Use a tenth of the circle's radius for the polygon's width, maybe even less. That should reduce your slope discontinuities.
-- Edit
In Box2D.js line 5082 (in this repo at least) you have the PreSolve(contact, manifold) function that you can override to check if the manifolds (directions in which the snowball are impulsed when colliding the polygons) are correct.
To do so, you would need to recover the manifold vector and compare it to the normal of the curve. It should look like that (maybe not exactly) :
Box2D.Dynamics.b2ContactListener.prototype.PreSolve = function (contact, oldManifold) {
// contact instanceof Box2D.Dynamics.Contacts.b2Contact == true
var localManifold, worldManifold, xA, xB, man_vect, curve_vect, normal_vect, angle;
localManifold = contact.GetManifold();
if(localManifold.m_pointCount == 0)
return; // or raise an exception
worldManifold = new Box2D.Collision.b2WorldManifold();
contact.GetWorldManifold( worldManifold );
// deduce the impulse direction from the manifold points
man_vect = worldManifold.m_normal.Copy();
// we need two points close to & surrounding the collision to compute the normal vector
// not sure this is the right order of magnitude
xA = worldManifold.m_points[0].x - 0.1;
xB = worldManifold.m_points[0].x + 0.1;
man_vect.Normalize();
// now we have the abscissas let's get the ordinate of these points on the curve
// the subtraction of these two points will give us a vector parallel to the curve
var SmoothConfig;
SmoothConfig = {
params: {
method: 'cubic',
clip: 'mirror',
cubicTension: 0,
deepValidation: false
},
options: {
averageLineLength: .5
}
}
// get the points, smooth and smooth config stuff here
smooth = Smooth(global_points,SmoothConfig);
curve_vect = new Box2D.Common.Math.b2Vec2(xB, smooth(xB)[1]);
curve_vect.Subtract(new Box2D.Common.Math.b2Vec2(xA, smooth(xA)[1]));
// now turn it to have a normal vector, turned upwards
normal_vect = new Box2D.Common.Math.b2Vec2(-curve_vect.y, curve_vect.x);
if(normal_vect.y > 0)
normal_vect.NegativeSelf();
normal_vect.Normalize();
worldManifold.m_normal = normal_vect.Copy();
// and finally compute the angle between the two vectors
angle = Box2D.Common.Math.b2Math.Dot(man_vect, normal_vect);
$('#angle').text("" + Math.round(Math.acos(angle)*36000/Math.PI)/100 + "°");
// here try to raise an exception if the angle is too big (maybe after a few ms)
// with different thresholds on the angle value to see if the bumps correspond
// to a manifold that's not normal enough to your curve
};
I'd say the problem has been tackled in Box2D 2.2.0 , see its manual, section 4.5 "Edge Shapes"
The thing is it's a feature of the 2.2.0 version, along with the chainshape thing, and the box2dweb is actually ported from 2.2.1a - don't know about box2dweb-closure.
Anything I've tried by modifying Box2D.Collision.b2Collision.CollidePolygonAndCircle has resulted in erratic behaviour. At least a part of the time (e.g. ball bumping in random directions, but only when it rolls slowly).