Chipmunk 对于简单的碰撞检测来说是不是太过分了？
我正在开发一款物理原理非常简单的游戏。我只需要检测球（点）何时撞击墙壁（线段）。没有重力，没有摩擦，碰撞是完全弹性的。
我已经编写了碰撞检测代码，但我即将对项目进行一些重大更改，因此有机会将其全部替换为 Chipmunk 物理库。这是个好主意吗？
一方面，Chipmunk 将比我自己的代码进行更严格的测试和优化，而且我不必做维护它的工作。
另一方面，在我的情况下，花栗鼠的性能可能会较差，因为它的设计目的是支持许多我不会使用的功能。
我希望更熟悉 Chipmunk 的人能够让我省去分析它或亲自阅读代码来做出这个决定的精力。
I'm working on a game where the physics are very simple. I just need to detect when a ball (point) hits a wall (line segment). There is no gravity, no friction, and the collisions are perfectly elastic.
I've already written collision detection code, but I'm about to make some major changes to the project, so there's an opportunity to replace it all with the Chipmunk physics library. Is this a good idea?
On the one hand, Chipmunk will be more heavily tested and optimized than my own code, and I won't have to do the work of maintaining it.
On the other, maybe Chipmunk will be less performant in my case, since it was designed to support a lot of features I won't be using.
I'm hoping someone more familiar with Chipmunk will spare me the effort of profiling it or reading the code myself to make this determination.
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（3）
Chipmunk 在这里唯一真正的优势是，如果您将该球（或许多球）与许多墙壁碰撞，因为它使用空间索引仅检查彼此靠近的物体的碰撞。这意味着您可以扩展到数百或数千个对象，而不会减慢速度，但如果场景中只有十几个对象，则不会提供真正的优势。
听起来您到目前为止所实现的功能可以很好地满足您的需求。 “如果它没有坏，就不要修理它”是一个很好的经验法则。另一方面，在 Chipmunk 中实现同样的事情确实很容易。如果您想要经验和可扩展性的可能性来换取依赖的麻烦，我想就去吧。
The only real advantage Chipmunk would have here is if you are colliding that ball (or many balls) against many walls as it uses a spatial index to only check the collisions of objects that are near each other. This means that you can scale up to hundreds or thousands of objects without slowing to a crawl, but offers no real advantage if you only have a dozen objects in the scene.
It sounds like what you've implemented so far works just fine for your needs. "If it's not broke don't fix it" is a good rule of thumb here. On the other hand, it would be really easy to implement the same thing in Chipmunk. If you want the experience and the possibility of scalability in return for the hassle of a dependency, go for it I guess.
我发现 Chipmunk 非常容易使用，我会向任何开始 2D 项目的人推荐它。如果不知道您的代码，我无法回答性能问题。我知道它使用空间哈希来确定碰撞，它最终可能比您的代码执行更少的碰撞测试。 （另一方面，如果球和墙的数量非常少，这可能不是问题）。
它是开源的，所以另一种可能性是使用 Chipmunk，但删除所有不需要的功能 - 重力、摩擦力、惯性矩等。同样，如果不确切知道它是什么，很难说这是一个好的选择你已经实施了。
I've found Chipmunk to be incrediblly easy to use, I would recommend it to anyone starting a 2D project. I can't answer the performance question without knowing your code. I know it uses a spatial hash for collision determination, it may end up doing less collision tests than your code. (On the other hand if there are a very small number of balls and walls, this may not be an issue).
It is open source, so another possibility would be to use Chipmunk, but remove all the features you don't need - gravity, friction, moments of inertia, etc. Again, it's hard to say this is a good option without knowing exactly what you have already implemented.
这实际上取决于你想要它做什么。我没有使用过花栗鼠本身，但从听起来我想说你并不真正需要一个完整的物理库。
现在，如果您计划将其扩展到球和墙之外，以便您能够使用扩展的物理原理，那么现在就一个简单的问题学习它可能是一个好主意。总的来说，除非您想学习物理库或计划提高物理计算的复杂性/类型数量，否则我建议您自己做。
It really comes down to what you want it to do. I have not used chipmunk itself, but from what it sounds like I'd say you aren't really in need of a full physics library.
Now, if you have plans to expand it beyond a ball and a wall such that you would have use for the expanded physics, then learning it now on a simple problem now may be a good idea. Overall though, unless you either want to learn the physics library or plan on raising the complexity/number of types of physics calculations, I'd say just do it yourself.