@DyadGame @raiganburns It is more lenient than iterative push, and that is actually what is best about it. It feels _much_ better.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori
@DyadGame@raiganburns The reason is because small imperfections in the collision geometry can be tunneled by this scheme, which is _good_.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@DyadGame@raiganburns The iterative push scheme falls apart when you have small imperfections, and you have to solve them another way.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@DyadGame@raiganburns As for post-collision velocity, you have a number of options of how you want to handle them, which we'll cover.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@DyadGame@raiganburns But basically I strictly prefer p-search now if you can write it for your game. I think it's always better.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @sssmcgrath
@DyadGame@raiganburns I am getting that impression, yes :)1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@raiganburns did you see my tweet about it applying a layer of variable density foam to everything? is that not how it'd behave?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sssmcgrath
@DyadGame@raiganburns "Variable density foam"? I think you may be misunderstanding how the algorithm works?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@DyadGame@raiganburns In most cases it computes the same answer as search-in-t, but it computes it more robustly.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@DyadGame @raiganburns In other cases they compute different results, but in my opinion the search-in-p result is always better.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.