Need good book on 2D game physics...

I'm wondering if anyone can recomend a good book on 2D game physics. Preferably with lots of code examples, as I'm not very good at reading complex math formulas. Doesn't matter if it's for Basic, C++, Pascal whatever....I'm sure I can make sense of it somehow.

Something that covers, particles, springs, ping constraints, wheels, collision etc. etc. The basics you need for a "simple" physics engine.

Preferably 2D only, as I don't really need the 3D stuff for what I'm doing, and it just adds complexity.

Cheers,

Ragnar

I just recently bought "Essential mathematics for Games & Interactive applications"
It's pretty technical, especially for me who's native language is Norwegian.
Its very comprehensive though, as it contains all you'll ever need to know about vectors, matrices, physics, rendering and so on.

Im currently awaiting another book to arrive, "Game Coding: Complete, Second Ed".
I'll give you a shout if it covers more of the stuff you're looking for.

I'd pay for a good 2d physics module.

I don't think it's possible to learn 2D physics without getting into some math.

I dont think its possible to centre a window without getting into some maths ;)

2d physics is no easyer than 3d physics. (Sounds stupid, but true), its all done with Type Vector (Well often), and it makes no difference to the vector if its a 2d (field) class, or a 3d one

(That is to say the maths is the same mahts, but just done again) So normaly when you "Program" your whatever, the basic principles are the same no matter if 2 or 3d

Its easier to wrap your head around 2D math for some reason though.

3D vector (x,y,z)
3D vector for 2D calculation (x,y,0)
so you can actually use 3D physics for 2D games if you want to :D

Check out Amazon for quite a few - I'd read the reviews before I went to my local Borders to browse, then I'd probably purchase if the book was good enough.

I bought a good one for Flash, which helped me make the world cup keepy ups game, but some of it was well over my head.

IPete2.

@Retro,
Pur Supesto, but you still should always be thinking "The 2d is an example, and you do it the same for 3d"

@Bobtail
http://chortle.ccsu.edu/VectorLessons/vectorIndex.html

This is an online course about Vector Math for computing. I dont demand that you learn it all, but you would be well advised to try and brush up on this asspect of your maths. I know its geared towards graphics, but its still useful for you

Physics For Game Developers

Review of above at Gamedev.net

Results of search on Gamedev.net book section on 'physics'

How's that?

Thanks for the feedback. The vector lessons H&K linked to have been one of my bookmarks for a while. Have gone through most of them, short of the matrix stuff....hmmm....maybe I should go through those too. :-)

I found this http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1584503300/sr=1-7/qid=1154644403/ref=sr_1_7/102-8401593-1068914?ie=UTF8&s=books book at Amazon, which looks promising. I know I'm going to have to learn lots of maths to do the physics, I just find it easier when the math is explained with code, rather than with math formulas. Preferably both.

As for 2D vs 3D, I thought (and I may be wrong) the big difference in complexity was when it comes to rotation. Rotation in 2D is very simple as you only have one axis to deal with. While in 3D you have three, and all the mess with Euler interpolation and gimbal locks, which means you have to use quaternions. It's also easier for me to get my head around 2D stuff, I can always learn the 3D stuff later if I need to.

Anyways, over in this thread http://www.blitzbasic.com/Community/posts.php?topic=61916 in the second post is the code I've got so far. It's a little demo with some springs and bodies/particles. I want to try to make the springs more stable, probably by using RK4 integration which I've been messing with. Then I want to add more stuff, like collision detection, rigid bodies, wheels, pin constraints, wind forces and so on. It will probably take me a good while to finish, as it's just a hobby project....and a rather complex one (for me) at that.

Cheers,

Ragnar