@nothings @raiganburns @DyadGame So it's "free" to do search-in-p because we already had to do run-time CSG for all the polygon soup.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@raiganburns@DyadGame split-time-along collisions doesn't need to do run-time CSG, it just does independent minkowskis.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nothings
@cmuratori@raiganburns@DyadGame so I don't see why you'd already need to do run-time CSG that would make search-in-p free.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nothings
@nothings@raiganburns@DyadGame Because we wanted an actually robust definition of the walkable area, not an ad-hoc one.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@raiganburns@DyadGame When you draw two solid objects, you can CSG them, or you can just draw with a zbuffer.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nothings
@cmuratori@raiganburns@DyadGame Drawing them both with a zbuffer isn't "ad hoc" or "non-robust". Same for colliding vs multiple minkowskis1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nothings
@nothings@raiganburns@DyadGame Define "colliding". What algorithm are you proposing?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@raiganburns@DyadGame You justified search-in-p because you ALREADY needed CSG of geo even *before* you wanted search-in-p.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nothings
@cmuratori@raiganburns@DyadGame But you have not said what it is needed for other than search-in-p. Not needed for raycast-in-t collision.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nothings
@nothings@raiganburns@DyadGame Please answer my question. When you say it is not "ad hoc" to "collide" against multiple minkowskis.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@nothings @raiganburns @DyadGame What do you mean by "collide"? What algorithm are you talking about that isn't ad hoc?
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.