Replies: 1 comment
-
|
This is a great question. There are two parts to the continuity of the distance functions. Sub-Element ContinuityThe first possible source of discontinuity is when a collision pair changes the closest sub-element. For example, when a point is closest to a triangle's interior, but then goes off the edge, and the closest point is on the edge. Similarly, the closest point can be a vertex of the triangle. In these instances, the function is Global ContinuityYou are right that if we did a global minimum of distance to all elements, this would be discontinuous at the transition. Instead, we simply sum up the barrier energies for all elements within the The obvious problem with this approach is that it introduces duplicate contact forces at transition points. This problem has been explored by several follow-up works. For instance, in Convergent IPC, we subtract away certain sub-element terms to remove the duplication. Here is a short list of papers that address this issue:
Of these, 1 is already implemented in the toolkit, and 3 and 4 are current PRs. [1] The only instance where the transition is only |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Hello,
I'm looking into the details of the Incremental Potential Contact (IPC) method and have a question regarding the continuity of the distance function's derivatives. I would appreciate any clarification you could provide.
My understanding is that IPC relies on the exact distance$d$ between pairs of codimensional primitives (e.g., point-triangle, edge-edge).$\nabla d$ ) and Hessian ($\nabla^2 d$ ).
However, the global distance function is defined as the minimum over all possible pairs. This piecewise definition makes its gradient discontinuous. For instance, as a vertex moves, its closest point on the opposing mesh might transition from the interior of a triangle to one of its edges. At this transition boundary, the analytical form of the distance function changes, leading to a jump in its gradient (
My question is: How does the IPC algorithm maintain robustness and convergence for its Newton-based solver despite these discontinuities in the distance function's derivatives?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions