Talk:Hit-testing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer graphics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer graphics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer graphicsWikipedia:WikiProject Computer graphicsTemplate:WikiProject Computer graphicscomputer graphics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article direction.

How much do we want to describe Hit-testing? Do we replicate books on the subject? Hit testing is a wide field, but it can also be organized into a hierarchy, from quick and simple geometry, to complex and varied geometry. However, the Axis Aligned Bounding Box code presented was incorrect, so I fixed it. But now I wonder why it is in Hit-testing at all, when there is sphere testing, quad/oct trees, spacial division algorithms, and more. The AABB article does not mention the simplicity of collision testing; it may be the most efficient way of detecting if a 2 or 3d volume intersects, and thus the first line of defense in an ever strict collision pipeline.

This paper claims that collision detection happens in two phases: the broad phase and the narrow phase. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2205.09663 As cited in the GJK article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert%E2%80%93Johnson%E2%80%93Keerthi_distance_algorithm

I want to discuss how to handle the architecture of collision detection, what can be cited, what it state of the art. But I don't know how useful it will be. Code is not verified by people who know code. Presumably book citations, published papers, and industry publications should describe rough concepts, but defer implementations to the sources. Thanks for reading my blog. 75.61.99.105 (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]