Re: Distributed Collision Detection

Mitra ([email protected])
Sun, 8 Oct 1995 20:18:43 -0700

At 10:45 PM 10/8/95, Bernie Roehl wrote:
>Mitra writes:
>> some machine is controlling
>> the behavior, and if collision detection is relevant for the object , then
>> it is that machine that should be figuring out the collision detection. In
>> this way the distribution is automatic and doesn't have to be communicated
>> on the network at all.
>
>That's the way it should work at the first level of implementation, but of
>course we'll eventually need more. For example, if we want to have a world
>where the laws of physics resemble a subset of those in the real world, then
>we'll want to be able to implement things like conservation of momentum.
>Some information about the collision must be transferred.

Correct, but that is a specific set of behaviors, in a specific set of
worlds, and even then its not the collision that's communicated but the
result of a calculation done by whatever machine was controlling the object
that collided - at least that's how I think it would work?>

=- Mitra

=================================================================
Mitra
[email protected]
Internet Consulting
(415)826-2499
<http://earth.path.net/mitra>
fax (415)826-4423

  • Next message: v0!d: "Re: vrml browsers for mac.."
  • Previous message: Mark Owen: "Re: vrml browsers for mac.."
  • Maybe in reply to: Braddock Gaskill: "Distributed Collision Detection"
  • Next in thesad: Braddock: "Re: Distributed Collision Detection"