This project has moved and is read-only. For the latest updates, please go here.

One Entity in multiple Collision groups?

May 27, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Like many people using this library, I am thoroughly impressed and truly grateful for the effort that was put into making this a viable physics solution for XNA games. I have been tinkering with several of the objects just for proof of concept stuff and everything seems to gel quite nicely. As I began to delve deeper into my own goals, I became curious about a few things:

1. I haven't fully integrated the Farseer system into my game just yet and was wondering if I should wait until the next version or go ahead and use what is currently available. I've read that it won't be backwards compatible, so I don't want to get really involved in the code realize I need to upgrade... Are there going to be additional features in the new version, or similar features, but organized differently? Also, any idea as to when the next version will be released? (Sorry to put you on the spot).

2. Is it possible (or will it be possible) to have the same entity exist in multiple collision groups? I may be approaching this the wrong way, but I found myself having trouble with having an entity being tied to only one collision group. For instance, if I have the player ship, player ship bullets, and enemy bullets, I don't want enemy bullets and player bullets to collide... also, I don't want player bullets and the player ship to collide. However, I do want enemy bullets and the player ship to collide. Given the current objects in the Farseer library, is it possible to achieve something like this? The only solution I can think of would be for the player ship and player bullets to exist in the same collision group, but also have the player bullets and enemy bullets exist together in a separate collision group... does that make sense?

Thanks again SO much for putting this together and providing so much to the community!
May 29, 2007 at 12:29 PM
1. The next version is a partial re-do of the existing and, as you say, will not be completly backward compatible. There will be some additional features and some existing stuff will be re-done.

2. This is a know in issue and will be delt with in the next version. I don't have a good solution for you with the existing code.

Sorry for the short answers. Recently had a new baby (well my wife did) and he's been keeping me busy....