Colisions/Cables/Quick Test/Textures

[phlabibit]

After playing this game a bit I know a couple things I think would be nice for a new version.

When a tower falls onto the bridge it should "collide" and destroy the bridge more.  The train should not drive through a fallen tower..  it should also collide.

Cables should have a tension level, or perhaps a second kind of cable that will not "droop".  The Golden Gate Bridge is not held up by straight cables that bend, the Heavy Cable is supposed to curve, and tension is holding it up...  it is not a straight cable that bends.

An even faster mode where you can quick test a bridge would be nice, rather than waiting up to 5 minutes for the train to cross 4 times.

How about a couple choices of texture for the "cement" anchor points, that might be fun.  How about the train!? I have already messed around with the textures, but would be fun to share with friends and pick from some choices.

[Andy24]

all of your Ideas have been posted in other areas but I agree they would all be nice but there are problems with some

the collision detection would cost too much somputing speed because it would need to run for over a thousand links each frame. also many links intersect auto maticly like the diagnals in the center of the girders. this would cause some nasty problems.

the problem with the quick mode is that most of the time your computer spends is on physics calculations anyway so this wouldn't speed up th game much and would cause you to need to just sit around and wait for it. plus you couldn't see which link broke first.

there is a string about pretensioning cables and one about eyecandy already

the one about eyecandy is at http://www.chroniclogic.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=6&topic=17

and" target="_blank">http://www.chroniclogic.com/cgi-bin....7

and I cant find the one about pre stressing anywhere if someone could post its location that would be nice

Noooooooo!! Collision detection would make my huge mechanical follies virtually impossible!!

*sobs bitterly*

[Moebius]

possibly, you could have collision detection occur on a beam-by-beam basis rather than a link-by-link basis

[mendel]

Good idea! That could be used for a two-tiered CD: 1) do CD on beams, 2) only those that collide in step 1 are then checked for link collisions.

[Entroper]

Most collision-detection systems do use some form of separation.  http://www.pontifex2.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>  If you couldn't keep all the links in each beam together, you could still store them in an octree or something.

I'm still very much in favor of going back to the one link per beam system of BB, but I don't really think it'll ever happen...