Skip to main content
Post Closed as "Not suitable for this site" by Vaillancourt
Condensed. Clarified title. Removed unnecessary tags.
Source Link
Anko
  • 13.5k
  • 10
  • 56
  • 82

Why use Runge Kutta Integration over Improvedis RK4 better than Euler Integrationintegration?

I was readingAt the end of these great slides slides (very good by the way!), and if you skip all the way to the end the author compares all the different integrators presented.

In one One way or another, they all fall short except for Improved Euler IntegrationImproved Euler Integration and Runge Kutta IntegrationRunge Kutta 4 Integration, which both pass all tests.

I suppose I should mention that I am working on a 2D game that isn'tisn't very physics intensive. I wasI'm just curious as to where Improved Euler Integration would fall short and Runge KuttaRK4 would have to be used instead.

My game mostly just consists mostly of simple gravity (jumping and falling), movement along the X and Y axisaxes, and bounding box collision. Would it be worthIs it worthwhile to use Runge Kutta in that caseimplement RK4 or would Improved Euler integration be sufficient? I see in many discussions where users of Euler IntegrationIntegration's users are chastised, but from what I can see it seems equivalent, Improved Euler is quivalent in simple 2D matters (the improved one, that is). Also, I'dI imagine it'd also be quite faster than Runge Kutta.

Thanks!

Edit: So apparently Euler Integration and Improved Euler Integration are a part of the family of Runge Kutta integration. That may have been confusing. When I am referring to Runge Kutta in this post I mean RK4.

Why use Runge Kutta Integration over Improved Euler Integration?

I was reading these slides (very good by the way!), and if you skip all the way to the end the author compares all the different integrators presented.

In one way or another, they all fall short except for Improved Euler Integration and Runge Kutta Integration, which both pass all tests.

I suppose I should mention that I am working on a 2D game that isn't very physics intensive. I was just curious as to where Improved Euler Integration would fall short and Runge Kutta would have to be used instead.

My game mostly just consists of simple gravity (jumping and falling), movement along the X and Y axis, and bounding box collision. Would it be worth it to use Runge Kutta in that case or would Improved Euler integration be sufficient? I see in many discussions where users of Euler Integration are chastised but from what I can see it seems equivalent in simple 2D matters (the improved one, that is). Also, I'd imagine it'd be quite faster than Runge Kutta.

Thanks!

Edit: So apparently Euler Integration and Improved Euler Integration are a part of the family of Runge Kutta integration. That may have been confusing. When I am referring to Runge Kutta in this post I mean RK4.

Why is RK4 better than Euler integration?

At the end of these great slides, the author compares all the different integrators presented. One way or another, they all fall short except for Improved Euler Integration and Runge Kutta 4 Integration, which both pass all tests.

I suppose I should mention that I am working on a 2D game that isn't very physics intensive. I'm just curious as to where Improved Euler Integration would fall short and RK4 would have to be used instead.

My game consists mostly of simple gravity (jumping and falling), movement along the X and Y axes, and bounding box collision. Is it worthwhile to implement RK4 or would Improved Euler be sufficient? I see many discussions where Euler Integration's users are chastised, but from what I can see, Improved Euler is quivalent in simple 2D matters. I imagine it'd also be faster.

Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackGameDev/status/178399328426139648
added 213 characters in body
Source Link
John Tyler
  • 201
  • 2
  • 4

I was reading these slides (very good by the way!), and if you skip all the way to the end the author compares all the different integrators presented.

In one way or another, they all fall short except for Improved Euler Integration and Runge Kutta Integration, which both pass all tests.

I suppose I should mention that I am working on a 2D game that isn't very physics intensive. I was just curious as to where Improved Euler Integration would fall short and Runge Kutta would have to be used instead.

My game mostly just consists of simple gravity (jumping and falling), movement along the X and Y axis, and bounding box collision. Would it be worth it to use Runge Kutta in that case or would Improved Euler integration be sufficient? I see in many discussions where users of Euler Integration are chastised but from what I can see it seems equivalent in simple 2D matters (the improved one, that is). Also, I'd imagine it'd be quite faster than Runge Kutta.

Thanks!

Edit: So apparently Euler Integration and Improved Euler Integration are a part of the family of Runge Kutta integration. That may have been confusing. When I am referring to Runge Kutta in this post I mean RK4.

I was reading these slides (very good by the way!), and if you skip all the way to the end the author compares all the different integrators presented.

In one way or another, they all fall short except for Improved Euler Integration and Runge Kutta Integration, which both pass all tests.

I suppose I should mention that I am working on a 2D game that isn't very physics intensive. I was just curious as to where Improved Euler Integration would fall short and Runge Kutta would have to be used instead.

My game mostly just consists of simple gravity (jumping and falling), movement along the X and Y axis, and bounding box collision. Would it be worth it to use Runge Kutta in that case or would Improved Euler integration be sufficient? I see in many discussions where users of Euler Integration are chastised but from what I can see it seems equivalent in simple 2D matters (the improved one, that is). Also, I'd imagine it'd be quite faster than Runge Kutta.

Thanks!

I was reading these slides (very good by the way!), and if you skip all the way to the end the author compares all the different integrators presented.

In one way or another, they all fall short except for Improved Euler Integration and Runge Kutta Integration, which both pass all tests.

I suppose I should mention that I am working on a 2D game that isn't very physics intensive. I was just curious as to where Improved Euler Integration would fall short and Runge Kutta would have to be used instead.

My game mostly just consists of simple gravity (jumping and falling), movement along the X and Y axis, and bounding box collision. Would it be worth it to use Runge Kutta in that case or would Improved Euler integration be sufficient? I see in many discussions where users of Euler Integration are chastised but from what I can see it seems equivalent in simple 2D matters (the improved one, that is). Also, I'd imagine it'd be quite faster than Runge Kutta.

Thanks!

Edit: So apparently Euler Integration and Improved Euler Integration are a part of the family of Runge Kutta integration. That may have been confusing. When I am referring to Runge Kutta in this post I mean RK4.

Source Link
John Tyler
  • 201
  • 2
  • 4

Why use Runge Kutta Integration over Improved Euler Integration?

I was reading these slides (very good by the way!), and if you skip all the way to the end the author compares all the different integrators presented.

In one way or another, they all fall short except for Improved Euler Integration and Runge Kutta Integration, which both pass all tests.

I suppose I should mention that I am working on a 2D game that isn't very physics intensive. I was just curious as to where Improved Euler Integration would fall short and Runge Kutta would have to be used instead.

My game mostly just consists of simple gravity (jumping and falling), movement along the X and Y axis, and bounding box collision. Would it be worth it to use Runge Kutta in that case or would Improved Euler integration be sufficient? I see in many discussions where users of Euler Integration are chastised but from what I can see it seems equivalent in simple 2D matters (the improved one, that is). Also, I'd imagine it'd be quite faster than Runge Kutta.

Thanks!