Timeline for Integration of gravitational interaction
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 9, 2021 at 14:33 | vote | accept | Mendes | ||
| Mar 3, 2021 at 19:06 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Feb 1, 2021 at 18:51 | history | edited | Mendes | CC BY-SA 4.0 | deleted 249 characters in body |
| Feb 1, 2021 at 18:48 | answer | added | Mendes | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 1, 2021 at 14:18 | comment | added | Mendes | @Sacha, DMGregory, this is for educational purpose, learn another approach can't hurt, if you have keywords (or link to tutorials). Keelhaul, "the increased force is counterbalanced by the increased inertia", I still don't understand very well why, but this is another question, thanks | |
| Feb 1, 2021 at 8:28 | comment | added | Keelhaul | The "ah" you currently compute is the force, not the acceleration. To get the latter, remove the asteroid.mass (a more massive asteroid must not fall faster, the increased force is counterbalanced by the increased inertia, hence why the asteroid mass is irrelevant to get the gravitationnal acceleration) | |
| Jan 31, 2021 at 17:31 | comment | added | DMGregory♦ | Note that we lack analytic solutions for 3+ interacting bodies in the general case, so if you have plans to go beyond interactions with a single pair you may be forced to stick to step-based numerical integration methods. | |
| Jan 31, 2021 at 17:13 | comment | added | Sacha | Are you interested in actually simulating it step-by-step by integration, or are you open to analytical solutions? | |
| Jan 31, 2021 at 16:07 | history | rollback | Mendes | Rollback to Revision 2 | |
| Jan 31, 2021 at 16:06 | history | edited | Mendes | CC BY-SA 4.0 | deleted 249 characters in body |
| Jan 31, 2021 at 15:59 | history | edited | Mendes | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 249 characters in body |
| Jan 31, 2021 at 15:57 | comment | added | Mendes | Haha, not false ^^. I updated code thanks again, the code was updated | |
| Jan 31, 2021 at 15:51 | comment | added | DMGregory♦ | Re: bottlenecks, compare the costs of one square root and one division versus three trig functions: an arctangent, a cosine, and a sine. | |
| Jan 31, 2021 at 15:48 | comment | added | Mendes | Actually this working well, (just need handle case where d=0). I started using a wrong method (movements looks good but values was totally wrong). So I want to be sure it's the right way todo. Vector normalization ? That was the thing I tried to do but with big misconception (like this ugly thing: ax = ah * (x*x/d)). This is too early but sqrt() isn't bottleneck ? simulation will take lot of object/planets. I keep it in a side, thank you! | |
| Jan 31, 2021 at 15:21 | comment | added | DMGregory♦ | You can replace your trigonometry with a vector normalization instead (ax = x * (ah / sqrt(d))) but otherwise this looks reasonable. Is there anything you're unsatisfied with about how this is performing in your game? | |
| Jan 31, 2021 at 15:10 | review | First posts | |||
| Feb 1, 2021 at 19:40 | |||||
| Jan 31, 2021 at 15:08 | history | asked | Mendes | CC BY-SA 4.0 |