Extended collision shape support

[jcornaz]

Extended collision shape support

[jcornaz]

Thanks @faassen for this overview.

Heron doesn't have to mirror rapieri's shapes one-to-one. Where rapiers focuses on physics simulation, heron focuses on games. So only the shapes that are the most useful for gamedev should be added. And I would like to "wait for the need" rather than eagerly adding as many shapes as possible.

I think that if heron has sphere, cuboid, capsule and convex-hull (#59) as well as the ability to create multiple colliders for a single body (#11) then the most important missing building blocks would be:

• HeightField (#62)
• Cylinder (#63)
• Cone (#64)

For the other shapes, I'd rather wait until the need actually arise. Of course any good PR is still welcome.

About the "rounded" variants, I think I would appreciate to have a round: Option<...> field in the shape itself, rather than having another variant. And again, I would wait until the need arise (or until someone opens a PR ^^)

About the shapes that exist only in 2d or 3d: I would probably have these variant behind a #[cfg(feature = ...)] so the variant is available only if the user has activated the appropriate feature. But I might change my mind about that in the future....

[faassen]

Agreed with your analysis, although I still don't know what a HeightField does in a physics context. :)

[jcornaz]

HeightField does in a physics context

This is usually how (3d) terrain is represented.

[jcornaz]

With all recently added shapes and added support for custom collision shapes (#160), I consider this "epic" done.

More shapes may (and will) still be added. One can create a dedicated issue/pr for shapes that are still missing (and needed)