Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[WIP] add agent_radius to aabb obstacles #51

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

nickydonna
Copy link

@nickydonna nickydonna commented Sep 11, 2024

Testing agent_radius

Related to #50

@nickydonna nickydonna changed the title add agent_radius to aabb obstacles [WIP] add agent_radius to aabb obstacles Sep 11, 2024
@nickydonna
Copy link
Author

nickydonna commented Sep 11, 2024

@mockersf here I did a bit of a test, with the primitives, and added controls to the demo, and it seems to work fairly well. If you think it's ok I'll continue with the other ones

@@ -152,7 +149,7 @@ impl ObstacleSource for PrimitiveObstacle {
copypasta::arc_2d_inner(
0.0,
std::f64::consts::PI,
primitive.radius,
primitive.radius + agent_radius,
Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Here I'm unsure if we need to add it to both calculation in the Capsule

@nickydonna
Copy link
Author

Just pushed support for avian3d, but is pretty slow. I'm trying to add expand to parry Trimesh, which should be faster, but right now, the example timesout with Direct update

@mockersf
Copy link
Member

Looks good, thanks!

For primitives, could you check for CircularSector and CircularSegment? When I tried they required adjustments.

On my laptop the auto_navmesh_avian3d is working correctly on your PR, was it already timeouting before your changes?

@mockersf
Copy link
Member

I added agent radius on the navmesh in #59

@nickydonna nickydonna closed this Sep 27, 2024
@nickydonna
Copy link
Author

Thanks, sorry for not been able to fllow up on this,

@mockersf
Copy link
Member

mockersf commented Sep 27, 2024

no worries!

I've been poked by someone else to do the second idea I spoke about in #50, and turns out it was easier that I thought!

Thanks for looking into it

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants