On 2010.8.28 1:42 AM, R. Alan Monroe wrote:
In other words, use a small enough time step that the difference is not big enough to be a problem. But if you're doing that, you might as well pick one sufficiently small time step and use a variable number of them per frame, so that the physics is always predictable whatever the frame rate.While we're on the time topic, is there an easy way to do slo-mo, a la Peggle Extreme Fever or a Burnout multi-car pileup?
Hmm. If your standard physics time-step is small enough that you can avoid problems like collision, making the time-step smaller than that doesn't seem like it'd hurt anything. (Though I might misunderstand some of the argument earlier.) And if it did, maybe it's enough that you don't need to care. Or if you were _really_ concerned, you could even back up the world objects' status at time 0, simulate times .1, .2, .3 &c instead of your usual 1, 2, 3, &c, and when you were done showing off, revert to time 0 and do a 1-unit time-step to eliminate any deviation from your usual physics.