Broccoli is a 2D broad-phase collision detection library.
The base data structure is a hybrid between a KD Tree and Sweep and Prune.
Checkout it out on github and on crates.io. Documentation at docs.rs.
Screen capture from the inner analysis/demo-web project.
use broccoli::rect;
fn main() {
let mut inner1 = 0;
let mut inner2 = 0;
let mut inner3 = 0;
// Rect is stored directly in tree,
// but inner is not.
let mut aabbs = [
(rect(00, 10, 00, 10), &mut inner1),
(rect(15, 20, 15, 20), &mut inner2),
(rect(05, 15, 05, 15), &mut inner3),
];
// Construct tree by doing many swapping of elements
let mut tree = broccoli::Tree::new(&mut aabbs);
// Find all colliding aabbs.
tree.find_colliding_pairs(|a, b| {
// We aren't given &mut T reference, but instead of AabbPin<&mut T>.
// We call unpack_inner() to extract the portion that we are allowed to mutate.
// (We are not allowed to change the bounding box while in the tree)
**a.unpack_inner() += 1;
**b.unpack_inner() += 1;
});
assert_eq!(inner1, 1);
assert_eq!(inner2, 1);
assert_eq!(inner3, 2);
}For more convinience you can use the cached_key interface:
fn main() {
let mut inner = [0, 4, 8];
broccoli::from_cached_key!(tree, &mut inner, |&a| broccoli::rect(a, a + 5, 0, 10));
tree.find_colliding_pairs(|a, b| {
broccoli::unpack!(a, b);
*a += 1;
*b += 1;
});
// bboxes 1st and 2nd intersect, as well as 2nd and 3rd.
assert_eq!(inner, [0 + 1, 4 + 2, 8 + 1]);
}During construction, the elements of a tree are swapped around a lot. Therefore if the size of T is too big, the performance can regress a lot! To combat this, consider using the semi-direct or even indirect layouts listed below. The Indirect layout achieves the smallest element size (just one pointer), however it can suffer from a lot of cache misses of large problem sizes. The Semi-direct layout is more cache-friendly but can use more memory. See more in the optimizations section below. In almost all cases you want to use the Semi-direct layout.
(Rect<N>,&mut T)Semi-direct(Rect<N>,T)Direct&mut (Rect<N>,T)Indirect
I made the ManySwap marker trait to help bring awareness to this performance regression trap.
It is implemented on a lot of types that are guaranteed to be small.
If you know what you are doing you can use the ManySwappable wrapper struct that automatically
implements that trait, or implement it yourself on your own type.
You can also construct a Tree using Semi-direct or indirect, and then convert it to direct. (See
the Tree::from_tree_data() function.) However, I'm not sure if there are performance benefits to this.
WARNING: Heterogenous cpus are becoming popular where you might have some high power cores and some low power cores. To get consistent performance on a system, you will have to set the thread affinity to make rayon's threadpools only run on one group type. This makes writing system independent code very hard. Consider sticking to single threaded unless you are able to tweak the parallel performance. The gains from simply using the broccoli algorithm dominate over the gains for making it parallel, so just using broccoli but sticking to sequential might be enough for your usecase.
Parallel versions of construction and colliding pair finding functions are provided in the broccoli-rayon crate.
Broccoli only requires PartialOrd for its number type. Instead of panicking on comparisons
it doesn't understand, it will just arbitrary pick a result. So if you use regular float primitive types
and there is even just one NaN, tree construction and querying will not panic,
but would have unspecified results.
If using floats, it's the users responsibility to not pass NaN values into the tree.
There is no static protection against this, though if this is desired you can use
the ordered-float crate. The Ord trait was not
enforced to give users the option to use primitive floats directly which can be easier to
work with.
A lot is done to forbid the user from violating the invariants of the tree once constructed
while still allowing them to mutate parts of each element of the tree. The user can mutably traverse
the tree but the mutable references returns are hidden behind the AabbPin<T> type that forbids
mutating the aabbs. That said the broccoli tree has functions to access/replace its inner data.
So the user can certainly create incorrect trees.
Yes. I optimized for fast querying over fast building. I noticed that building times are consistent while querying times can vary wildly depending on how many are overlapping, and that querying times dominate over rebuilding times after a certain number of collisions. I think a lot of collisions systems have mechanisms to not have to rebuild the entire tree, but do so at the cost of slower querying times. i.e. they may insert loose bounding boxes which would increase the number of false positives during querying. These systems are great if you know up front that you will never have that many collisions. However in other systems you might not have a bound on that so, broccoli was optimized for situations where the number of collisions could dominate. To reduce tree build times, consider making a tree for just groups of objects at a time i.e. you might have some dynamic objects and some static objects. (You can find colliding pairs between a tree and a list, or a tree and another tree).
The tree is composed of nodes that each point to a slice of all the aabbs. The nodes are arranged in pre-order. The aabbs slices are also arranged in pre-order.
Functions to cache colliding pairs are provieded by the broccoli-ext crate.
Not supported, but you can use broccoli to partition 2 dimensions and use something else for the 3rd. You could just check if the elements intersect on the z axis inside of the callback function. Alternatively, you could split the z axis into planes and use broccoli on each plane. I think in a lot of cases, the problem is "mostly 2D" in that the distribution lies mostly on a 2d plane, so it might actually be faster to use a more 2d centric collision system.
I've focused mainly on making finding colliding pairs as fast as possible primarily in distributions where there are a lot of overlapping aabbs.
Quick rundown of what i've spent effort on and a rough estimate of performance cost of each algorithm in general.
| Algorithm | Cost | Effort spent |
|---|---|---|
| Construction | 7 | 10 |
| Colliding Pairs | 8 | 10 |
| Collide With | 3 | 2 |
| knearest | 1 | 2 |
| raycast | 1 | 2 |
| rect | 1 | 2 |
| nbody | 10 | 1 |
Numbers are out of 10 and are just rough made up numbers. For more in-depth analysis, see the
output of the inner analysis/report-web/plot-gen at:
https://tiby312.github.io/broccoli-project/
See legacy report (I havent updated it in a while) from analysis/report-legacy at:
broccoli book.
If you shorten "broad-phase collision" to "broad colli" and say it fast, it sounds like broccoli. Broccoli are also basically small trees and broccoli uses a tree data structure.