Is btCompoundShape bad choice for static objects?

Post Reply
pwr00
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 8:01 pm

Is btCompoundShape bad choice for static objects?

Post by pwr00 »

Hi!

I am working on a game with a friend where we are using blocks for building up the landscape (like Minecraft). We are trying to find the best way to handle the physics for the landscape. Previously we used btTriangleMesh for building up the collision. But we got pretty bad performance. I was thinking that it might be cause by the triangle mesh being built up from polygons formed as boxes and not as a continuing patch of polygons.

So I wanted to see if there were any other ways of doing this. Since the surface of the landscape is blocks built up from polygons, we thought that it would be a good idea to test to build up the landscape out of btCompoundShape built up from btBoxShape. But this resulted in worse performance.

Reading on this forum I get the impression that btCompundShape might not be that good choice for this. One post suggested that it was not optimized for static objects, which would rule it out from being used for building up a landscape. Is this really true?
Or is it because I'm using so many boxes in each compund shape that they can't handle it? I'm using approx 4,100 boxes per compund shape.
Another alternative that I tested was to create simply boxes without the compundShape but that didn't do much better.

Do anyone have any suggestions that would point me in the correct direction?

I'm using OgreBullet for integrating Bullet with Ogre.
Post Reply