irrBullet and TerrainSceneNode

[ChrisDicko]

Is there a way of extracting the IMesh reference from an Irrlicht TerrainSceneNode for the second parameter of irrBullet IBvhTriangleMeshShape to supply the collision mesh?

Using terrain->getMesh() for the IMesh parameter dies on the line createShape(collMesh); in the IBvhTriangleMeshShape ctor.

I have found a previous post on how to extract terrain triangles for Bullet using a btTriangleMesh but can't see a way to bend that to work with the irrBullet wrapper.

[Radikalizm]

The difficulty with the terrain scene node would be that it constantly changes because of its LOD algo, so you don't have one static IMesh which you can feed to bullet

This would be possible if you'd just use a terrain mesh though

[ChrisDicko]

Thanks Radikalizm

I was intending to try using just the LOD 0 which was how the "pure" Bullet code in a previous post worked. Might just stay with Bullet rather than the irrBullet wrapper. It's for sample code in a games dev class, I was hoping to ease the pain a bit using a wrapper.

[ChaiRuiPeng]

@Chris

i full heartedly suggest using pure bullet it might seem easier to use a wrapper. but once you become familiar with using pure bullet it is much easier and using a wrapper can be confusing, since its a whole different interface and you have to go through TWO layers of abstraction just to solve a problem that would have been easier to fix if you were using pure bullet.

[serengeor]

@Chris

i full heartedly suggest using pure bullet it might seem easier to use a wrapper. but once you become familiar with using pure bullet it is much easier and using a wrapper can be confusing, since its a whole different interface and you have to go through TWO layers of abstraction just to solve a problem that would have been easier to fix if you were using pure bullet.

I agree, I used irrbullet also irrBP myself tough they became a bit unneeded, because working with bullet itself is easy.

The second layer just makes it harder to use, like when you have to access stuff wrapper doesn't provide.

[hybrid]

Accessing the underlying mesh is shown in the example. This holds for the non-LOD mesh only, though.

[ChaiRuiPeng]

Accessing the underlying mesh is shown in the example. This holds for the non-LOD mesh only, though.

you seem to be stressing importance of reading examples today

[Radikalizm]

Accessing the underlying mesh is shown in the example. This holds for the non-LOD mesh only, though.

you seem to be stressing importance of reading examples today

Maybe that's because a lot of questions asked today could be solved by reading the examples

[ChrisDicko]

Thanks for all the comments and yes we will stay with just bullet.

As far as the terrain example goes (I do always read the forums/samples/google before posting) it shows how to extract the terrain data with getMeshBufferForLOD etc but not how to take that data and build an IMesh reference as required by irrBullet which was the original post question.

[cobra]

@Chris

i full heartedly suggest using pure bullet it might seem easier to use a wrapper. but once you become familiar with using pure bullet it is much easier and using a wrapper can be confusing, since its a whole different interface and you have to go through TWO layers of abstraction just to solve a problem that would have been easier to fix if you were using pure bullet.

I agree, I used irrbullet also irrBP myself tough they became a bit unneeded, because working with bullet itself is easy.

The second layer just makes it harder to use, like when you have to access stuff wrapper doesn't provide.

That's why most wrappers (or at least mine) have functions in each class to get a pointer to what it wraps so that when you need to work more low-level you can.

Moreover, with my wrapper you can get irrBullet types from pure Bullet types with ease, so doing any pure Bullet work using irrBullet is very easy and even faster than doing it the other way.

[serengeor]

@Chris

i full heartedly suggest using pure bullet it might seem easier to use a wrapper. but once you become familiar with using pure bullet it is much easier and using a wrapper can be confusing, since its a whole different interface and you have to go through TWO layers of abstraction just to solve a problem that would have been easier to fix if you were using pure bullet.

I agree, I used irrbullet also irrBP myself tough they became a bit unneeded, because working with bullet itself is easy.

The second layer just makes it harder to use, like when you have to access stuff wrapper doesn't provide.

That's why most wrappers (or at least mine) have functions in each class to get a pointer to what it wraps so that when you need to work more low-level you can.

Moreover, with my wrapper you can get irrBullet types from pure Bullet types with ease, so doing any pure Bullet work using irrBullet is very easy and even faster than doing it the other way.

Thats what I meant with the part "The second layer just makes it harder to use, like when you have to access stuff wrapper doesn't provide."
You can access what you need with pointers but it feels just not right.

[Sudi]

You can access what you need with pointers but it feels just not right.

You just don't feel right

[serengeor]

You can access what you need with pointers but it feels just not right.

You just don't feel right

I do feel right.
Doing stuff with bullet is really easy, and doing it by digging trough additional layer is a bit weird. Unless doing some sandbox apps, then the wrapper makes it a bit easier, because it cleans up everything when you remove objects.

[ChaiRuiPeng]

You can access what you need with pointers but it feels just not right.

You just don't feel right

you just feel serengeor does not feel right
and anyways. wrappers might be good for some people, bad for some. if all you want is just simple collision detection to control simple characters with pill shapes && and you dont want to read through the ton of bullet api, then a wrapper sounds good for you. however i am one of those people that need bullet in its purest form right now.

[cobra]

You can access what you need with pointers but it feels just not right.

You just don't feel right

I do feel right.
Doing stuff with bullet is really easy, and doing it by digging trough additional layer is a bit weird. Unless doing some sandbox apps, then the wrapper makes it a bit easier, because it cleans up everything when you remove objects.

It's true that using pure Bullet for simple games is easy, but the reason I created irrBullet is because I need very advanced physics in my game, and the only way to do that in a logical manner is with a wrapper.