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

Convex vs. Concave Polygons

Feb 4, 2009 at 1:55 AM
Important Question - 

If a new narrow phase collision system allowed geometry to be created and altered in real time (not currently possible) would being limited to convex polygons be an issue?

The reason we (the developers) are asking this question is to find out how important it will be to include polygon decomposition code (convert concave polygon into several convex polygons) into our new narrow phase.
The new narrow phase should allow for nearly instant creation of any size geometry and hopefully a special fracture function to allow geometry to self-destruct in a fairly realistic way (at least for 2D).

Feb 4, 2009 at 9:24 AM
Ok, ...

I had a very long post for you stating why you should include functions to convert the polygons. ... but as I began to think about it more and more and what I would have to change (polygon from texture). know, in the end it might make things much easier for me.

I'm about to enrich the polygon from texture functionality with 'fake holes' and 'multiple polygons per texture' ... now, that should be pretty easy if my code would create part polygons and just connect them if needed.

So, I'll wait for a decision on that.

Convex only? Why not. I'm cool with that, but I'd like to scratch the old version of polygon from texture, since I don't know if I have time to do both.

Feb 5, 2009 at 5:29 AM
Well i have no personal preference for concave or convex polygons, but wouldn't it be easier for noobs to be able to define their polygons either way?
Feb 5, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Edited Feb 5, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Noobs should use polygon from texture.

It's pretty good code and generates quite quality impressive polygons.
I know because I wrote it, lol.

Just joking ;) ... but yeah, I'd say noobs should use it. Also the additional functionality is on it's way.

Oh, ... of course farseer isn't limited to XNA. I forgot -.- ... stupid me.