Search Results

Search found 7 results on 1 pages for 'rk4'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • Runge-Kutta (RK4) integration for game physics

    - by Kai
    Gaffer on Games has a great article about using RK4 integration for better game physics. The implementation is straightforward but the math behind it confuses me. I understand derivatives and integrals on a conceptual level but I haven't manipulated equations in a long time. Here's the brunt of Gaffer's implementation: void integrate(State &state, float t, float dt) { Derivative a = evaluate(state, t, 0.0f, Derivative()); Derivative b = evaluate(state, t+dt*0.5f, dt*0.5f, a); Derivative c = evaluate(state, t+dt*0.5f, dt*0.5f, b); Derivative d = evaluate(state, t+dt, dt, c); const float dxdt = 1.0f/6.0f * (a.dx + 2.0f*(b.dx + c.dx) + d.dx); const float dvdt = 1.0f/6.0f * (a.dv + 2.0f*(b.dv + c.dv) + d.dv) state.x = state.x + dxdt * dt; state.v = state.v + dvdt * dt; } Can anybody explain in simple terms how RK4 works? Specifically, why are we averaging the derivatives at 0.0f, 0.5f, 0.5f, and 1.0f? How is averaging derivatives up to the 4th order different from doing a simple euler integration with a smaller timestep? After reading the accepted answer below, and several other articles, I have a grasp on how RK4 works. To answer my own questions: Can anybody explain in simple terms how RK4 works? RK4 takes advantage of the fact that we can get a much better approximation of a function if we use its higher-order derivatives rather than just the first or second derivative. That's why the Taylor series converges much faster than Euler approximations. (take a look at the animation on the right side of that page) Specifically, why are we averaging the derivatives at 0.0f, 0.5f, 0.5f, and 1.0f? The Runge-Kutta method is an approximation of a function that samples derivatives of several points within a timestep, unlike the Taylor series which only samples derivatives of a single point. After sampling these derivatives we need to know how to weigh each sample to get the closest approximation possible. An easy way to do this is to pick constants that coincide with the Taylor series, which is how the constants of a Runge-Kutta equation are determined. This article made it clearer for me: http://web.mit.edu/10.001/Web/Course%5FNotes/Differential%5FEquations%5FNotes/node5.html. Notice how (15) is the Taylor series expansion while (17) is the Runge-Kutta derivation. How is averaging derivatives up to the 4th order different from doing a simple euler integration with a smaller timestep? Mathematically it converges much faster than doing many Euler approximations. Of course, with enough Euler approximations we can gain equal accuracy to RK4, but the computational power needed doesn't justify using Euler.

    Read the article

  • RK4 Bouncing a Ball

    - by Jonathan Dickinson
    I am trying to wrap my head around RK4. I decided to do the most basic 'ball with gravity that bounces' simulation. I have implemented the following integrator given Glenn Fiedler's tutorial: /// <summary> /// Represents physics state. /// </summary> public struct State { // Also used internally as derivative. // S: Position // D: Velocity. /// <summary> /// Gets or sets the Position. /// </summary> public Vector2 X; // S: Position // D: Acceleration. /// <summary> /// Gets or sets the Velocity. /// </summary> public Vector2 V; } /// <summary> /// Calculates the force given the specified state. /// </summary> /// <param name="state">The state.</param> /// <param name="t">The time.</param> /// <param name="acceleration">The value that should be updated with the acceleration.</param> public delegate void EulerIntegrator(ref State state, float t, ref Vector2 acceleration); /// <summary> /// Represents the RK4 Integrator. /// </summary> public static class RK4 { private const float OneSixth = 1.0f / 6.0f; private static void Evaluate(EulerIntegrator integrator, ref State initial, float t, float dt, ref State derivative, ref State output) { var state = new State(); // These are a premature optimization. I like premature optimization. // So let's not concentrate on that. state.X.X = initial.X.X + derivative.X.X * dt; state.X.Y = initial.X.Y + derivative.X.Y * dt; state.V.X = initial.V.X + derivative.V.X * dt; state.V.Y = initial.V.Y + derivative.V.Y * dt; output = new State(); output.X.X = state.V.X; output.X.Y = state.V.Y; integrator(ref state, t + dt, ref output.V); } /// <summary> /// Performs RK4 integration over the specified state. /// </summary> /// <param name="eulerIntegrator">The euler integrator.</param> /// <param name="state">The state.</param> /// <param name="t">The t.</param> /// <param name="dt">The dt.</param> public static void Integrate(EulerIntegrator eulerIntegrator, ref State state, float t, float dt) { var a = new State(); var b = new State(); var c = new State(); var d = new State(); Evaluate(eulerIntegrator, ref state, t, 0.0f, ref a, ref a); Evaluate(eulerIntegrator, ref state, t + dt * 0.5f, dt * 0.5f, ref a, ref b); Evaluate(eulerIntegrator, ref state, t + dt * 0.5f, dt * 0.5f, ref b, ref c); Evaluate(eulerIntegrator, ref state, t + dt, dt, ref c, ref d); a.X.X = OneSixth * (a.X.X + 2.0f * (b.X.X + c.X.X) + d.X.X); a.X.Y = OneSixth * (a.X.Y + 2.0f * (b.X.Y + c.X.Y) + d.X.Y); a.V.X = OneSixth * (a.V.X + 2.0f * (b.V.X + c.V.X) + d.V.X); a.V.Y = OneSixth * (a.V.Y + 2.0f * (b.V.Y + c.V.Y) + d.V.Y); state.X.X = state.X.X + a.X.X * dt; state.X.Y = state.X.Y + a.X.Y * dt; state.V.X = state.V.X + a.V.X * dt; state.V.Y = state.V.Y + a.V.Y * dt; } } After reading over the tutorial I noticed a few things that just seemed 'out' to me. Notably how the entire simulation revolves around t at 0 and state at 0 - considering that we are working out a curve over the duration it seems logical that RK4 wouldn't be able to handle this simple scenario. Never-the-less I forged on and wrote a very simple Euler integrator: static void Integrator(ref State state, float t, ref Vector2 acceleration) { if (state.X.Y > 100 && state.V.Y > 0) { // Bounce vertically. acceleration.Y = -state.V.Y * t; } else { acceleration.Y = 9.8f; } } I then ran the code against a simple fixed-time step loop and this is what I got: 0.05 0.20 0.44 0.78 1.23 1.76 ... 74.53 78.40 82.37 86.44 90.60 94.86 99.23 103.05 105.45 106.94 107.86 108.42 108.76 108.96 109.08 109.15 109.19 109.21 109.23 109.23 109.24 109.24 109.24 109.24 109.24 109.24 109.24 109.24 109.24 109.24 109.24 109.24 109.24 109.24 ... As I said, I was expecting it to break - however I am unsure of how to fix it. I am currently looking into keeping the previous state and time, and working from that - although at the same time I assume that will defeat the purpose of RK4. How would I get this simulation to print the expected results?

    Read the article

  • Game Physics With RK4 Implementation For A 2D Platformer

    - by oscar.rpr
    I been reading about RK4 for physics implementation in a game, so I read in some pages and all people recommend me this page: http://gafferongames.com/game-physics/fix-your-timestep/ This page shows clearly how this one works, but I can't figure out how to implement in my game, maybe I don't understand that good but I find some things that are not really clearly to me. In my game, the player decides when change direction in the X-Axis but I can't figure out how with this RK4 implementation change the direction of the object, in the example the point goes side to side but I don't understand how I can control when he goes right or left. So if anyone can give a little bit of clarity in this implementation and my problem which I do not understand I will be really grateful. Thanks beforehand

    Read the article

  • Physics engine that can handle multiple attractors?

    - by brice
    I'm putting together a game that will be played mostly with three dimensional gravity. By that I mean multiple planets/stars/moons behaving realistically, and path plotting and path prediction in the gravity field. I have looked at a variety of physics engines, such as Bullet, tokamak or Newton, but none of them seem to be suitable, as I'd essentially have to re-write the gravity engine in their framework. Do you know of a physics engine that is capable of dealing with multiple bodies all attracted to one another? I don't need scenegraph management, or rendering, just core physics. (collision detection would be a bonus, as would rigid body dynamics). My background is in physics, so I would be able to write an engine that uses Verlet integration or RK4 (or even Euler integration, if I had to) but I'd much rather adapt an off the shelf solution. [edit]: There are some great resources for physics simulation of n-body problems online, and on stackoverflow

    Read the article

  • Physics System ignores collision in some rare cases

    - by Gajoo
    I've been developing a simple physics engine for my game. since the game physics is very simple I've decided to increase accuracy a little bit. Instead of formal integration methods like fourier or RK4, I'm directly computing the results after delta time "dt". based on the very first laws of physics : dx = 0.5 * a * dt^2 + v0 * dt dv = a * dt where a is acceleration and v0 is object's previous velocity. Also to handle collisions I've used a method which is somehow different from those I've seen so far. I'm detecting all the collision in the given time frame, stepping the world forward to the nearest collision, resolving it and again check for possible collisions. As I said the world consist of very simple objects, so I'm not loosing any performance due to multiple collision checking. First I'm checking if the ball collides with any walls around it (which is working perfectly) and then I'm checking if it collides with the edges of the walls (yellow points in the picture). the algorithm seems to work without any problem except some rare cases, in which the collision with points are ignored. I've tested everything and all the variables seem to be what they should but after leaving the system work for a minute or two the system the ball passes through one of those points. Here is collision portion of my code, hopefully one of you guys can give me a hint where to look for a potential bug! void PhysicalWorld::checkForPointCollision(Vec2 acceleration, PhysicsComponent& ball, Vec2& collisionNormal, float& collisionTime, Vec2 target) { // this function checks if there will be any collision between a circle and a point // ball contains informations about the circle (it's current velocity, position and radius) // collisionNormal is an output variable // collisionTime is also an output varialbe // target is the point I want to check for collisions Vec2 V = ball.mVelocity; Vec2 A = acceleration; Vec2 P = ball.mPosition - target; float wallWidth = mMap->getWallWidth() / (mMap->getWallWidth() + mMap->getHallWidth()) / 2; float r = ball.mRadius / (mMap->getWallWidth() + mMap->getHallWidth()); // r is ball radius scaled to match actual rendered object. if (A.any()) // todo : I need to first correctly solve the collisions in case there is no acceleration return; if (V.any()) // if object is not moving there will be no collisions! { float D = P.x * V.y - P.y * V.x; float Delta = r*r*V.length2() - D*D; if(Delta < eps) return; Delta = sqrt(Delta); float sgnvy = V.y > 0 ? 1: (V.y < 0?-1:0); Vec2 c1(( D*V.y+sgnvy*V.x*Delta) / V.length2(), (-D*V.x+fabs(V.y)*Delta) / V.length2()); Vec2 c2(( D*V.y-sgnvy*V.x*Delta) / V.length2(), (-D*V.x-fabs(V.y)*Delta) / V.length2()); float t1 = (c1.x - P.x) / V.x; float t2 = (c2.x - P.x) / V.x; if(t1 > eps && t1 <= collisionTime) { collisionTime = t1; collisionNormal = c1; } if(t2 > eps && t2 <= collisionTime) { collisionTime = t2; collisionNormal = c2; } } } // this function should step the world forward by dt. it doesn't check for collision of any two balls (components) // it just checks if there is a collision between the current component and 4 points forming a rectangle around it. void PhysicalWorld::step(float dt) { for (unsigned i=0;i<mObjects.size();i++) { PhysicsComponent &current = *mObjects[i]; Vec2 acceleration = current.mForces * current.mInvMass; float rt=dt; // stores how much more the world should advance while(rt > eps) { float collisionTime = rt; Vec2 collisionNormal = Vec2(0,0); float halfWallWidth = mMap->getWallWidth() / (mMap->getWallWidth() + mMap->getHallWidth()) / 2; // we check if there is any collision with any of those 4 points around the ball // if there is a collision both collisionNormal and collisionTime variables will change // after these functions collisionTime will be exactly the value of nearest collision (if any) // and if there was, collisionNormal will report in which direction the ball should return. checkForPointCollision(acceleration,current,collisionNormal,collisionTime,Vec2(floor(current.mPosition.x) + halfWallWidth,floor(current.mPosition.y) + halfWallWidth)); checkForPointCollision(acceleration,current,collisionNormal,collisionTime,Vec2(floor(current.mPosition.x) + halfWallWidth, ceil(current.mPosition.y) - halfWallWidth)); checkForPointCollision(acceleration,current,collisionNormal,collisionTime,Vec2( ceil(current.mPosition.x) - halfWallWidth,floor(current.mPosition.y) + halfWallWidth)); checkForPointCollision(acceleration,current,collisionNormal,collisionTime,Vec2( ceil(current.mPosition.x) - halfWallWidth, ceil(current.mPosition.y) - halfWallWidth)); // either if there is a collision or if there is not we step the forward since we are sure there will be no collision before collisionTime current.mPosition += collisionTime * (collisionTime * acceleration * 0.5 + current.mVelocity); current.mVelocity += collisionTime * acceleration; // if the ball collided with anything collisionNormal should be at least none zero in one of it's axis if (collisionNormal.any()) { collisionNormal *= Dot(collisionNormal, current.mVelocity) / collisionNormal.length2(); current.mVelocity -= 2 * collisionNormal; // simply reverse velocity along collision normal direction } rt -= collisionTime; } // reset all forces for current object so it'll be ready for later game event current.mForces.zero(); } }

    Read the article

  • Runge-Kutta Method with adaptive step

    - by infoholic_anonymous
    I am implementing Runge-Kutta method with adaptive step in matlab. I get different results as compared to matlab's own ode45 and my own implementation of Runge-Kutta method with fixed step. What am I doing wrong in my code? Is it possible? function [ result ] = rk4_modh( f, int, init, h, h_min ) % % f - function handle % int - interval - pair (x_min, x_max) % init - initial conditions - pair (y1(0),y2(0)) % h_min - lower limit for h (step length) % h - initial step length % x - independent variable ( for example time ) % y - dependent variable - vertical vector - in our case ( y1, y2 ) function [ k1, k2, k3, k4, ka, y ] = iteration( f, h, x, y ) % core functionality performed within loop k1 = h * f(x,y); k2 = h * f(x+h/2, y+k1/2); k3 = h * f(x+h/2, y+k2/2); k4 = h * f(x+h, y+k3); ka = (k1 + 2*k2 + 2*k3 + k4)/6; y = y + ka; end % constants % relative error eW = 1e-10; % absolute error eB = 1e-10; s = 0.9; b = 5; % initialization i = 1; x = int(1); y = init; while true hy = y; hx = x; %algorithm [ k1, k2, k3, k4, ka, y ] = iteration( f, h, x, y ); % error estimation for j=1:2 [ hk1, hk2, hk3, hk4, hka, hy ] = iteration( f, h/2, hx, hy ); hx = hx + h/2; end err(:,i) = abs(hy - y); % step adjustment e = abs( hy ) * eW + eB; a = min( e ./ err(:,i) )^(0.2); mul = a * s; if mul >= 1 % step length admitted keepH(i) = h; k(:,:,i) = [ k1, k2, k3, k4, ka ]; previous(i,:) = [ x+h, y' ]; %' i = i + 1; if floor( x + h + eB ) == int(2) break; else h = min( [mul*h, b*h, int(2)-x] ); x = x + keepH(i-1); end else % step length requires further adjustments h = mul * h; if ( h < h_min ) error('Computation with given precision impossible'); end end end result = struct( 'val', previous, 'k', k, 'err', err, 'h', keepH ); end The function in question is: function [ res ] = fun( x, y ) % res(1) = y(2) + y(1) * ( 0.9 - y(1)^2 - y(2)^2 ); res(2) = -y(1) + y(2) * ( 0.9 - y(1)^2 - y(2)^2 ); res = res'; %' end The call is: res = rk4( @fun, [0,20], [0.001; 0.001], 0.008 ); The resulting plot for x1 : The result of ode45( @fun, [0, 20], [0.001, 0.001] ) is:

    Read the article

1