The invention relates to simulation of contact between bodies for applications such as graphics animation.
With the improvement in performance of computers in recent years, it is now possible to draw virtual 3D worlds with a reasonable amount of detail on conventional PCs in realtime. To add even more realism to these virtual worlds, interactive physical simulation can add a lifelike experience when virtually touching and pushing objects.
In order to be able to interactively simulate several rigid body objects like chairs, tables, or boxes in real time, the physical simulation normally is based on a simplified model of the virtual world. One common simplification is called rigid body simulation. That means the shape or surfaces of all objects (or rigid bodies) in the virtual world do not change during simulation and only a few properties and modules are needed to describe and perform this rigid body simulation.
Objects have the following static properties (which do not change during the physical simulation):
Rigid bodies have dynamic properties such as:
An important aspect of physical simulation is in preventing objects from simultaneously occupying the same space at the same time, known as object penetration, requiring the calculation of non-penetration constraint forces to keep objects apart during collisions. Another important aspect is the simulation of friction which acts to retard the relative motion of objects in contact and which is necessary for the implementation of stable stacks of objects (groups of objects in contact but not moving held in place by a combination of external forces, e.g. gravity, and friction forces).
At present, a problem with the simulation methods employed is that they either do not account for friction effects or, if they do, it is at the cost of a large processor overhead for executing complex algorithms to simultaneously determine both non-penetration and friction forces.
“Rigid Body Contact: Collision Detection to Force Computation”, Mirtich, Biran (March 1998) presented at IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, includes a summary of the previous approaches. Contact modelling for rigid body simulation includes detecting contacts and computing point forces. The task of calculating these contact forces includes calculating the forces to satisfy the non-penetrating constraints and calculating the friction forces. In the prior art all processing that determines the contact forces does so by approximation in some way. This causes errors to be introduced. These errors can be large, especially if the contact forces are determined in sequential independent processes.
“Modelling Physical Objects for Simulation”, Sweeney, Paula et al, Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference. Phoenix Dec. 8-11, 1991, IEEE, US, December 1991 pp. 1187-1193, describes a physical attribute modeller which enables simulation of the interaction of objects. Simulation is by the design and manipulation of objects with intrinsic dynamic properties—stiffness, mass and angular momentum. Attributes are assigned to the object as a whole, such as the co-efficient of friction.
The invention is directed towards providing an improved system and method for simulating dynamic contact of objects.
According to the invention, there is provided a method carried out by a simulator for simulating contact of rigid body objects, at discrete intervals of time, the method comprising the steps of:
In one embodiment, fed back inputs are a new dynamic property for each contact point outputted by the non-penetration constraint process, and a force value required for non-penetration outputted by the friction process.
In another embodiment, the non-penetration constraint process is executed after the friction process.
In a further embodiment, the values from both processes are fed to an integrator which moves the simulation forward by a time step.
In one embodiment, the force values from the non-penetration constraint process from the previous time step are stored and fed forward to the friction process in the next time step.
In another embodiment, a value of an integrated relative velocity vector is maintained throughout simulation, with a zero value at the initial point of contact.
In a further embodiment, the friction process calculates a force required to reduce or eliminate errors accumulated in the integrated relative velocity vector.
In one embodiment, the simulator determines that there is sliding if said force exceeds a threshold.
In another embodiment, if the simulator determines that there is sliding it does not determine restoring force values.
In another embodiment, if the simulator breaks contact and determines a new contact point it sets the integrated relative velocity vector to zero.
In another embodiment, the friction process is executed for each of a plurality of subsets of contact points.
According to another aspect, the invention provides a simulator comprising means for performing a method as defined above.
The invention will be more clearly understood from the following description of some embodiments thereof, given by way of example only with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which:
A computer, such as a conventional PC, is programmed as a simulator to simulate contact of bodies with a realistic friction effect. For a collision or contact, the primary inputs for simulation are:
The simulation generates a series of force values to supersede the values (a) above.
In more detail, when the surfaces of two objects collide (or get into contact), a collision detection module translates the collision detection information into contact information. This contact information is the contact area between the two objects. In practice it is sufficient to simplify this contact area by a set of contact points, for example, a box standing on the ground has four contact points (the four vertices of the box touching the ground). Such a contact point can be described by:
The simulator simulates time by simulating only discrete timesteps. The main simulation loop is:
If several processes which apply forces or impulses to rigid bodies are run sequentially, the results of processes which are run early within the simulation loop can be partially overridden by the subsequent processes. That means that only the very last process in a simulation loop (Oust before the integration step) can actually predict the position of the objects at the next physical timestep.
The purpose of the simulator is to realistically simulate the behaviour of two touching objects. For example, a box on a hill should remain there unless the hill gets too steep.
The inputs (B) above are:
Referring to
In the invention, the non-penetration constraints 6 and friction values 8 are calculated separately and sequentially, in separate processes.
Referring to
In addition to the normal input parameters, each process receives the output of the other process as an additional input 36, 37. This additional input consists of a new dynamic property for each contact point, which is calculated by the non-penetrating process and passed to the friction process: the force which is applied by the non-penetrating process in the direction of the surface normal to keep the objects from penetrating.
This approach allows for simplification of both tasks. Therefore there is much faster non-penetration constraint force value processing. As the non-penetration constraint process is more important than the friction process it should be called as late as possible in the simulation loop, ideally just before the integrator. So there is the following simulation loop:
In the case that there are two processes in a physical simulation say A and B which are both dependent on the output of the other process, the following occurs in many cases:
The processes A and B are simulated sequentially (first A then B) and the output of B, which is the input to A, is actually taken from the previous iteration of the simulation loop.
So for the friction and collision resolution problem there is the following simulation loop:
To minimise errors in the friction simulation, the friction problem is formulated as follows:
Instead of eliminating the relative velocities of two objects at a point of contact, keep the length of the integrated (over time) relative velocity (IRV) of the objects at the point of contact at zero. Velocity is a 3D vector and the integrated relative velocity (IRV) is a 3D vector, where the length of a vector is a scalar.
This means that if the results of one friction algorithm call are partially overridden by other force/impulse applying processes, these errors will not be ignored but will be accumulated in the IRV vector. So during the next iteration of the simulation loop the friction process can try to reduce this IRV length. So over time the errors will not be ignored and will therefore not accumulate.
So a force is calculated which is needed to reduce the length of the IRV vector (like a standard penalty algorithm as employed by alternative methods for solving this problem). If the forces which are needed to eliminate the length of the IRV vector exceed a maximum threshold force, than the objects are deemed to be sliding and the current value of the integrated relative velocity is reduced to reflect this.
There are several ways of calculating the integrated relative velocity (IRV):
To speed up the simulation of friction, the contact points are split into groups of contact points and the friction process is run on each group of contact points sequentially. This helps to speed up the simulation significantly, particularly if the size of these groups is limited to a few (or one) contact point(s). The error introduced by this approach is in many cases acceptable (and due to the use of the IRV, will not accumulate over time).
There are several ways of determining these groupings:
The diagram of
It will be appreciated that in the invention the introduced error is integrated over multiple solutions as time progresses. The simulation minimises this integrated error. Also, by solving the non-penetration constraint and the friction constraint in separate steps, there can be fast and simple processing for the friction problem and simplified and more accurate processing for the non-penetration problem.
The invention is not limited to the embodiments described but may be varied in construction and detail.
| Number | Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01650044 | Apr 2001 | EP | regional |
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5947981 | Cosman | Sep 1999 | A |
| 6167145 | Foley et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6509899 | Anderson | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6714901 | Cotin et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
| 6909431 | Anderson | Jun 2005 | B1 |
| 6947879 | Yamada et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
| 6958752 | Jennings, Jr. et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
| 20020180739 | Reynolds et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20020183992 | Ayache et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20030112281 | Sriram et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20040148268 | Reil | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040220793 | Hawkes et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20050075154 | Bordes et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050075849 | Maher et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050086040 | Davis et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050162433 | Tonge et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050165873 | Zhang et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050165874 | Zhang et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050251644 | Maher et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20060100835 | Bordes et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060106591 | Pierre et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060149516 | Bond et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20020161562 A1 | Oct 2002 | US |