I'm also not a mathematician, but one possible, although a rude decision is to run a mini-simulation.
We call a moving polygon M and a stationary polygon S (although for S it is not required that it is actually stationary, the approach should work equally independently). Let us also name two frames that have F1 for the previous one, and F2 for the later one, according to your diagram.
If you were to move the polygon M back to its position in F1 with very small increments until they no longer intersect, then you will have a place for M in which it “just” intersects, that is, the previous location before they will cease to overlap in this simulation. The intersection in this “just” intersecting place should be very small - small enough so that you can see it as a point. Call this intersection polygon I.
To treat me as a point, you can select its vertex closest to the center point M in F1: this vertex has the best chance of being outside S during a collision. (There are many other possibilities for interpreting I as a point from which you could experiment, which might have better results.)
Obviously, this approach has some disadvantages:
- The simulation will be slower for high speeds M, since the distance between its locations in F1 and F2 will be greater, additional modeling steps will be required. (You could solve this by having a fixed number of simulation cycles regardless of the speed M, but this would mean that the accuracy of the result will differ for faster and slower moving bodies.)
- The “step” size in the simulation should be small enough to get the required accuracy, but smaller step sizes will obviously have higher calculated costs.
Personally, without the necessary mathematical intuition, I would first go with this simple approach and try to find a mathematical solution as an optimization later.
source share