Any plans to expose exact force and torque added during collisions

AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights a significant limitation in Unity's collision detection system, specifically regarding the lack of detailed information on force and torque during collisions. Users express frustration with the existing parameters like "Collision.relativeVelocity" and "Collision.impulse," which do not adequately represent the complexities of real-world collisions. There is a call for exposing more precise data on the combined force and torque applied at each contact point, which would enhance accuracy in simulations and damage calculations. The need for this information is emphasized, especially for those developing custom physical joints. Overall, the community seeks improvements to better account for collision forces in Unity.
blackdoom
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
This has been a huge limitation for me since picking up unity. So there's "Collision.relativeVelocity" which doesn't even represent a before/after change. There's "Collision.impulse" which gives some kind of averaged force. But collisions add force at points resulting in both force and torque impulses being applied to the object. So what does an average "impulse" even mean realistically? Are they just cutting out the torque and not including it arbitrarily?

It seems to me the obvious and most useful information would be the combined force/torque added from each contact point to each of the objects in the collision. I'm currently working on custom physical joints and they work smoothly and beautifully but for the fact I can't accurately account for collision forces immediately.

Are there any plans to expose this information? Even for tasks like calculating damage (which do okay using the current information) it would be more accurate and consistent.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
blackdoom said:
This has been a huge limitation for me since picking up unity. So there's "Collision.relativeVelocity" which doesn't even represent a before/after change. There's "Collision.impulse" which gives some kind of averaged force. But collisions add force at points resulting in both force and torque impulses being applied to the object. So what does an average "impulse" even mean realistically? Are they just cutting out the torque and not including it arbitrarily?

It seems to me the obvious and most useful information would be the combined force/torque added from each contact point to each of the objects in the collision. I'm currently working on custom physical joints and they work smoothly and beautifully but for the fact I can't accurately account for collision forces immediately.

Are there any plans to expose this information? Even for tasks like calculating damage (which do okay using the current information) it would be more accurate and consistent.
Welcome to the PF. :smile:

Your post is a little hard for me to parse. What is "unity" in this context? Is it an object oriented game/physics engine programming language? Can you give some examples (diagrams/pictures and code) of the kinds of collisions you are asking about?
 
I'm curious about your use of the word "expose." This seems to imply that the information is known but hidden. In truth, most collisions are poorly described; they depend upon the minute details of the contacting surfaces, and every impact modifies that surface geometry to some extent so they cannot be exactly repeated.

What exactly are you asking for?
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top