The collision should not depend on the frame rate.
Example:
Every time Amarok shows the name of the next track (with OSD), the number of frames gets very low and all NPCs fall through the floor. I looks funny but...
You can use it for cheating too. With a low frame rate (or a frame drop) you can walk through the balustrade and visit the lower floors of the space station.
Edit: ->> https://dev.orxonox.net/ticket/204
collision depends on frame rate
Moderator: PPS-Leaders
- Nowic
- Thanathon, God of the lower Planes
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:53 pm
- Location: Zürich
- Contact:
collision depends on frame rate
"I've always lived cheaply. I live like a student, basically. And I like that because it means that money is not telling me what to do. I can do what I think is important for me to do. It freed me to do what seemed worth doing." -- Richard Stallman
To fix this, the collision engine must recognize whether there was a collision between the two locations of the player in two frames or not, because as it is now, the collision engine just checks if the location is valid.
example:
Or let's just say:
+1 feature: tunneling effect
example:
Code: Select all
Frame 1:
....P....[ ].........
Frame 2:
high fps: .........[ P ]......... collision detected
low fps: .........[ ]....P.... no collision
+1 feature: tunneling effect
Last edited by x3n on Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I created a ticket for this yesterday (the mainloop ticket) https://dev.orxonox.net/ticket/204. Suggestions, ideas?
I'm working on a solution as suggested by x3n. I think it's the fastest way to get rid of that 'feature'.
I like your ticket, Patrick.
However, after thinking a lot on the redesign of the main loop, I doubt, whether we should already implement it in the cleanup branch. If I worked on the reimplementation of the main loop, I'd probably rather create further bugs before anything became better.
Thus, couldn't the PPS assistants suggest this ticket as a PPS-Project?
I like your ticket, Patrick.
However, after thinking a lot on the redesign of the main loop, I doubt, whether we should already implement it in the cleanup branch. If I worked on the reimplementation of the main loop, I'd probably rather create further bugs before anything became better.
Thus, couldn't the PPS assistants suggest this ticket as a PPS-Project?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests