Generalizing collision normal between two arbitrary shapes

AI Thread Summary
In developing a physics engine, the calculation of collision normals is crucial and can vary based on different methods, such as being perpendicular to the collision angle or the edge of body 'B'. Assuming the collision normal is always [1,0] is generally not advisable, as it oversimplifies the complexities involved. A more accurate approach involves calculating the vector between the centers of the two shapes and determining the angle to derive the normal. Additionally, considering the tangent plane at the point of contact and the direction of relative velocity is essential for a proper definition of collision normals. Accurate collision normal calculations are vital for realistic physics simulations.
StarWarsNerd
Messages
19
Reaction score
1
I am working on a physics engine, and I have a question about the collision normal. There are a lot of different ways people say to calculate this, perpendicular to the collision angle, perpendicular to the edge of body 'B', etc. I was wondering if it would be okay to assume the collision normal is always [1,0]. If that is not okay, is this:
  • vector = distance(A.Center, B.Center)
  • angle = atan2(vector.Y, vector.X) + PI / 2
  • normal = [cos(angle), sin(angle)]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Not sure how you are defining collision normal, but basing it on the line joining the mass centres does not sound right.
First, there is the question of the tangent plane at the point of contact. The normal to that could be considered a collision normal.
Next, there is the relative velocity. The direction of that vector is also relevant.
 
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