I am making a graphing program in C++ using the SFML library. So far I have been able to draw a function to the screen. I have run into two problems along the way.
The first is a line which seems to return to the origin of my the plane, starting from the end of my function.
You can see it in this image:
As you can see this "rogue" line seems to change colour as it nears the origin. My first question is what is this line and how may I eradicate it from my window?
The second problem which is slightly unrelated and more mathematical can be seen in this image:
As you can see the asymptotes which are points where the graph is undefined or non continuous are being drawn. This leads me to my second question: is there a way ( in code ) to identify an asymptote and not draw it to the window.
My code for anything drawn to the window is:
VertexArray axis(Lines, 4);
VertexArray curve(PrimitiveType::LinesStrip, 1000);
axis[0].position = Vector2f(100000, 0);
axis[1].position = Vector2f(-100000, 0);
axis[2].position = Vector2f(0, -100000);
axis[3].position = Vector2f(0, 100000);
float x;
for (x = -pi; x < pi; x += .0005f)
{
curve.append(Vertex(Vector2f(x, -tan(x)), Color::Green));
}
I would very much appreciate any input : )
Update:
Thanks to the input of numerous people this code seems to work fine in fixing the asymptote problem:
for (x = -30*pi; x < 30*pi; x += .0005f)
{
x0 = x1; y0 = y1;
x1 = x; y1 = -1/sin(x);
a = 0;
a = fabs(atan2(y1 - y0, x1 - x0));
if (a > .499f*pi)
{
curve.append(Vertex(Vector2f(x1, y1), Color::Transparent));
}
else
{
curve.append(Vertex(Vector2f(x1, y1), Color::Green));
}
}
Update 2:
The following code gets rid of the rogue line:
VertexArray curve(Lines, 1000);
float x,y;
for (x = -30 * pi; x < 30 * pi; x += .0005f)
{
y = -asin(x);
curve.append(Vertex(Vector2f(x, y)));
}
for (x = -30 * pi + .0005f; x < 30 * pi; x += .0005f)
{
y = -asin(x);
curve.append(Vertex(Vector2f(x, y)));
}
The first problem looks like a wrong polyline/curve handling. Don't know what API are you using for rendering but some like GDI need to start the pen position properly. For example if you draw like this:
Canvas->LineTo(x[0],y[0]);
Canvas->LineTo(x[1],y[1]);
Canvas->LineTo(x[2],y[2]);
Canvas->LineTo(x[3],y[3]);
...
Then you should do this instead:
Canvas->MoveTo(x[0],y[0]);
Canvas->LineTo(x[1],y[1]);
Canvas->LineTo(x[2],y[2]);
Canvas->LineTo(x[3],y[3]);
...
In case your API needs MoveTo command and you are not setting it then last position is used (or default (0,0)) which will connect start of your curve with straight line from last draw or default pen position.
Second problem
In continuous data you can threshold the asymptotes or discontinuities by checking the consequent y values. If your curve render looks like this:
Canvas->MoveTo(x[0],y[0]);
for (i=1;i<n;i++) Canvas->LineTo(x[i],y[i]);
Then you can change it to something like this:
y0=y[0]+2*threshold;
for (i=0;i<n;i++)
{
if (y[1]-y0>=threshold) Canvas->MoveTo(x[i],y[i]);
else Canvas->LineTo(x[i],y[i]);
y0=y[i];
}
The problem is selection of the threshold because it is dependent on x density of sampled points and on the first derivation of your y data by x (slope angles)
If you are stacking up more functions the curve append will create your unwanted line ... instead handle each data as separate draw or put MoveTo command in between them
[Edit1]
I see it like this (fake split):
double x0,y0,x1,y1,a;
for (e=1,x = -pi; x < pi; x += .0005f)
{
// last point
x0=x1; y0=y1;
// your actual point
x1=x; y1=-tan(x);
// test discontinuity
if (e) { a=0; e=0; } else a=fabs(atan2(y1-y0,x1-x0));
if (a>0.499*M_PI) curve.append(Vertex(Vector2f(x1,y1), Color::Black));
else curve.append(Vertex(Vector2f(x1,y1), Color::Green));
}
the 0.499*M_PI is you threshold the more closer is to 0.5*M_PIthe bigger jumps it detects... I faked the curve split by black color (background) it will create gaps on axis intersections (unless transparency is used) ... but no need for list of curves ...
Those artifacts are due to the way sf::PrimitiveType::LinesStrip works (or more specific lines strips in general).
In your second example, visualizing y = -tan(x), you're jumping from positive infinity to negative infinity, which is the line you're seeing. You can't get rid of this, unless you're using a different primitive type or splitting your rendering into multiple draw calls.
Imagine a line strip as one long thread you're pinning with pushpins (representing your vertices). There's no (safe) way to go from positive infinity to negative infinity without those artifacts. Of course you could move outside the visible area, but then again that's really specific to this one function.
Related
My project uses an isometric perspective for the time being I am showing the co-ordinates in grid-format above them for debugging. However, when it comes to collision/grid-locking of the player, I have an issue.
Due to the nature of sprite drawing, my maths is creating some issues with the 'triangular' corner empty areas of the textures. I think that the issue is something like below (blue is what I think is the way my tiles are being detected, whereas the red is how they ideally should be detected for accurate roaming movement on the tiles:
As you can see, the boolean that checks the tile I am stood on (which takes the pixel central to the player's feet, the player will later be a car and take a pixel based on the direction of movement) is returning false and denying movement in several scenarios, as well as letting the player move in some places that shouldn't be allowed.
I think that it's because the cutoff areas of each texture are (I think) being considered part of the grid area, so when the player is in one of these corner areas it is not truly checking the correct tile, and so returning the wrong results.
The code I'm using for creating the grid is this:
int VisualComponent::TileConversion(Tile* tileToConvert, bool xOrY)
{
int X = (tileToConvert->x - tileToConvert->y) * 64; //change 64 to TILE_WIDTH_HALF
int Y = (tileToConvert->x + tileToConvert->y) * 25;
/*int X = (tileToConvert->x * 128 / 2) + (tileToConvert->y * 128 / 2) + 100;
int Y = (tileToConvert->y * 50 / 2) - (tileToConvert->x * 50 / 2) + 100;*/
if (xOrY)
{
return X;
}
else
{
return Y;
}
}
and the code for checking the player's movement is:
bool Clsentity::CheckMovementTile(int xpos, int ypos, ClsMapData* mapData) //check if the movement will end on a legitimate road tile UNOPTIMISED AS RUNS EVERY FRAME FOR EVERY TILE
{
int x = xpos + 7; //get the center bottom pixel as this is more suitable than the first on an iso grid (more realistic 'foot' placement)
int y = ypos + 45;
int mapX = (x / 64 + y / 25) / 2; //64 is TILE-WIDTH HALF and 25 is TILE HEIGHT
int mapY = (y / 25 - (x / 64)) / 2;
for (int i = 0; i < mapData->tilesList.size(); i++) //for each tile of the map
{
if (mapData->tilesList[i]->x == mapX && mapData->tilesList[i]->y == mapY) //if there is an existing tile that will be entered
{
if (mapData->tilesList[i]->movementTile)
{
HAPI->DebugText(std::to_string(mapX) + " is the x and the y is " + std::to_string(mapY));
return true;
}
}
}
return false;
}
I'm a little stuck on progression until having this fixed in the game loop aspect of things. If anyone thinks they either know the issue from this or might be able to help it'd be great and I would appreciate it. For reference also, my tile textures are 128x64 pixels and the math behind drawing them to screen treats them as 128x50 (to cleanly link together).
Rather than writing specific routines for rendering and click mapping, seriously consider thinking of these as two views on the data, which can be transformed in terms of matrix transformations of a coordinate space. You can have two coordinate spaces - one is a nice rectangular grid that you use for positioning and logic. The other is the isometric view that you use for display and input.
If you're not familiar with linear algebra, it'll take a little bit to wrap your head around it, but once you do, it makes everything trivial.
So, how does that work? Your isometric view is merely a rotation of a bog standard grid view, right? Well, close. Isometric view also changes the dimensions if you're starting with a square grid. Anyhow: can we just do a simple coordinate transformation?
Logical coordinate system -> display system (e.g. for rendering)
Texture point => Rotate 45 degrees => Scale by sqrt(2) because a 45 degree rotation changes the dimension of the block by sqrt(1 * 1 + 1 * 1)
Display system -> logical coordinate system (e.g. for mapping clicks into logical space)
Click point => descale by sqrt(2) to unsquish => unrotate by 45 degrees
Why?
If you can do coordinate transformations, then you'd be dealing with a pretty bog-standard rectangular grid for everything else you write, which will make your any other logic MUCH simpler. Your calculations there won't involve computing angles or slopes. E.g. now your "can I move 'down'" logic is much simpler.
Let's say you have 64 x 64 tiles, for simplicity. Now transforming a screen space click to a logical tile is simply:
(int, int) whichTile(clickX, clickY) {
logicalX, logicalY = transform(clickX, clickY)
return (logicalX / 64, logicalY / 64)
}
You can do checks like see if x0,y0 and x1,y1 are on the same tile, in the logical space by someting as simple as:
bool isSameTile(x0, y0, x1, y1) {
return floor(x0/64) == floor(x1/64) && floor(y0/64) == floor(y1/64)
}
Everything gets much simpler once you define the transforms and work in the logical space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_matrix
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaling_%28geometry%29#Matrix_representation
http://www.alcove-games.com/advanced-tutorials/isometric-tile-picking/
If you don't want to deal with some matrix library, you can do the equivalent math pretty straightforwardly, but if you separate concerns of logic management from display / input through these transformations, I suspect you'll have a much easier time of it.
EDIT: I CHANGED THE QUESTION WHEN I REALIZED THAT I ACTUALLY NEEDED TO MOVE THE CAMERA AND NOT THE POLYGON. MY BAD, EVERYONE.
So I'm taking a class on OpenGL and need to define a path that the camera can automatically traverse.
How can I make my camera move around my world by hitting the F1 key?
Just to clarify,
I know how to use keyboard functions that use constants such as GLUT_KEY_F1.
I'm trying something new and am clueless.
Is this as simple as incrementing (with a loop) the values in the parameters of gluLookAt() ?
Here is the code that I have now:
if(key == GLUT_KEY_F1)
{
float x;
collisionKey = GLUT_KEY_F1;
for(x = 0.0; x < 3600.0;)
{
x += .01;
gluLookAt(200 + x, cameraY, 400 + cameraZ, 200 + studentX, 250 + studentY, studentZ, 0, 1, 0);
}
}
glutPostRedisplay();
Let me know if you have any questions!
what i am doing is scanning an area with a sprite of a straight line that i rotate 20 degrees back and forth
when i tap my action button i want to shoot a bullet in the direction of rotation of the sprite
i get the angle by doing a
sprite->getRotation();
and i have the point of my unit available, lets say it is (0,0)
i'm guessing i need to find a point on the line, but i don't know the math behind it.
is this even possible?
Given that you know the velocity of your bullet (pixels/second), let me assume you will call it v. That it takes s seconds to transverse your screen. And that x represents the position of your bullet at axis x (same to y variable), you can actualize both variables using this simple trigonometry:
x = 0; // initial position. You say that it start at (0,0)
y = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < s; i++) {
sleep(1); // look in unistd.h
x += v*cos(angle); // include math.h
y += v*sin(angle); // angle in radian, of course
// draw your sprite here, at (x, y)
}
I'm in the process of creating a 2P Connect 4 game, but I can't seem to get the circular areas to place tokens spaced evenly.
Here's the code that initializes the positions of each circle:
POINT tilePos;
for (int i = 0; i < Board::Dims::MAXX; ++i)
{
tileXY.push_back (std::vector<POINT> (Board::Dims::MAXY)); //add column
for (int j = 0; j < Board::Dims::MAXY; ++j)
{
tilePos.x = boardPixelDims.left + (i + 1./2) * (boardPixelDims.width / Board::Dims::MAXX);
tilePos.y = boardPixelDims.top + (j + 1./2) * (boardPixelDims.height / Board::Dims::MAXY);
tileXY.at (i).push_back (tilePos); //add circle in column
}
}
I use a 2D vector of POINTs, tileXY, to store the positions. Recall the board is 7 circles wide by 6 circles high.
My logic is such that the first circle starts (for X) at:
left + width / #circles * 0 + width / #circles / 2
and increases by width / #circles each time, which is easy to picture for smaller numbers of circles.
Later, I draw the circles like this:
for (const std::vector<POINT> &col : _tileXY)
{
for (const POINT pos : col)
{
if (g.FillEllipse (&red, (int)(pos.x - CIRCLE_RADIUS), pos.y - CIRCLE_RADIUS, CIRCLE_RADIUS, CIRCLE_RADIUS) != Gdiplus::Status::Ok)
MessageBox (_windows.gameWindow, "FillEllipse failed.", 0, MB_SYSTEMMODAL);
}
}
Those loops iterate through each element of the vector and draws each circle in red (to stand out at the moment). The int conversion is to disambiguate the function call. The first two arguments after the brush are the top-left corner, and CIRCLE_RADIUS is 50.
The problem is that my board looks like this (sorry if it hurts your eyes a bit):
As you can see, the circles are too far up and left. They're also too small, but that's easily fixed. I tried changing some ints to doubles, but ultimately ended up with this being the closest I ever got to the real pattern. The expanded formula (expanding (i + 1./2)) for the positions looks the same as well.
Have I missed a small detail, or is my whole logic behind it off?
Edit:
As requested, types:
tilePos.x: POINT (the windows API one, type used is LONG)
boardPixelDims.*: double
Board::Dims::MAXX/MAXY: enum values (integral, contain 7 and 6 respectively)
Depending on whether CIRCLE_SIZE is intended as radius or diameter, two of your parameters seem to be wrong in the FillEllipse call. If it's a diameter, then you should be setting location to pos.x - CIRCLE_SIZE/2 and pos.y - CIRCLE_SIZE/2. If it's a radius, then the height and width paramters should each be 2*CIRCLE_SIZE rather than CIRCLE_SIZE.
Update - since you changed the variable name to CIRCLE_RADIUS, the latter solution is now obviously the correct one.
The easiest way I remember what arguments the shape related functions take is to always think in rectangles. FillEllipse will just draw an ellipse to fill the rectangle you give it. x, y, width and height.
A simple experiment to practice with is if you change your calls to FillRect, get everything positioned okay, and then change them to FillEllipse.
I'm writing a little physics simulation in C++ that basically moves circles across the screen and when two circles collide, they should ricochet in the same manner as billiard balls would. When the circles do collide with each other, most of the time they will practically slow down infinitely/they appear to stick to each other and become static. Sometimes only one ball will rebound in the collision and the other will retain it's trajectory. This is just a simple 2D simulation.
So here's what I have for the detection/ricochet logic:
bool Ball::BallCollision(Ball &b2)
{
if (sqrt(pow(b2.x - x, 2) + pow(b2.y - y, 2)) <= b2.radius + radius) // Test for collision
{
normal[0] = (x - (x + b2.x) / 2) / radius; // Finds normal vector from point of collision to radius
normal[1] = (y - (y + b2.y) / 2) / radius;
xvel = xvel - 2 * (xvel * normal[0]) * normal[0]; // Sets the velocity vector to the reflection vector
yvel = yvel - 2 * (yvel * normal[1]) * normal[1];
////x = xprev; // These just move the circle back a 'frame' so the collision
////y = yprev; // detection doesn't detect collision more than once.
// Not sure if working?
}
}
I can't figure out what is wrong with my function. Thanks for any help in advance!
Edit:
Every variable is declared as a float
The functions:
void Ball::Move()
{
xprev = x;
yprev = y;
x += xvel;
y += yvel;
}
void Ball::DrawCircle()
{
glColor3ub(100, 230, 150);
glBegin(GL_POLYGON);
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
angle = i * (2*3.1415/10);
newx = x + r*cos(angle);
newy = y + r*sin(angle);
glVertex2f(newx, newy);
}
glEnd();
}
The loop:
run_prev.clear(); // A vector, cleared every loop, that holds the Ball objects that collided
for (int i = 0; i < num_balls; i++)
{
b[i].Move();
}
for (int i = 0; i < num_balls; i++)
{
b[i].WallCollision(); // Just wall collision detecting, that is working just fine
}
//The loop that checks for collisions... Am I executing this properly?
for (int i = 0; i < num_balls; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < num_balls; j++)
{
if (i == j) continue;
if (b[i].BallCollision(b[j]) == true)
{
run_prev.push_back(b[i]);
}
}
}
for (int i = 0; i < num_balls; i++)
{
b[i].DrawCircle();
}
//xprev and yprev are the x and y values of the frame before for each circle
for (int i = 0; i < run_prev.size(); i++)
{
run_prev[i].x = run_prev[i].xprev;
run_prev[i].y = run_prev[i].yprev;
}
Makes balls collide (reflect movement vector) only if they're moving towards each other. Do not process collision if they're moving away from each other. Break this rule, and they'll be glued together.
When processing collision, update both balls at once. Do not update one ball at a time.
Your move vector adjustment is incorrect. Balls don't reflect against each other, because they can be moving at different speeds.
Correct movement adjustment (assuming balls have equal mass) should look something like that:
pos1 and pos2 = positions;
v1 and v2 are movement vector (speed);
n is collision normal == normalize(pos1 - pos2);
collisionSpeed = dot((v2-v1), n);
collisionSpeed *= elasticy; (0.0..1.0);
v1 = v1 - dot(v1, n);
v2 = v2 - dot(v2, n);
v1 -= scale(n, collisionSpeed * 0.5);
v2 += scale(n, collisionSpeed * 0.5);
To understand the formula, check newtons law (impulses in particular). Or check Chris Hecker's papers on game physics.
It's not clear how you're calling this function, but I think I see the problem.
Say you have Ball ballA and Ball ballB, which are colliding in the current frame, and then you run ballA.BallCollision(ballB).
This will update the member variables of ballA, and move it back a frame. But it doesn't update the position or trajectory of ballB.
Even if you call the converse as well (ballB.BallCollision(ballA)), it won't detect the collision because when you called ballA.BallCollision(ballB), it moved ballA back a frame.
I haven't looked at your code in detail, but it doesn't take into consideration that this type of collision can only work in center of momentum frames. Now, I assume your balls are of equal masses. What you do is take the average of the two momentums (or velocities since they have the same masses) and subtract that average from the velocities. Perform your calculations, and add the average back. Here is the question I asked that may relate to this.
I know this question is quite old, but it's still relevant, especially to students. Something that wasn't mentioned in the answers made me want to contribute.
One thing that I ran into when solving a similar problem was overlap. That is, if the moving balls overlap by any amount at all, the collision detection will trigger continuously, giving the sticking behavior the OP referred to.
There was an attempt here to prevent this by moving the balls to the previous frame, but that can occasionally fail if the movement was enough that the balls enmeshed more than a single frame can account for, or if the movement velocity is just right so that the frame before doesn't trigger collision but the frame after is too far overlapped.
Since the original check was for center distance less than or equal to the sum of the radii, the detection triggers on both collision AND overlap.
One way to fix this is to separate the test into checking for collision (equals only) or overlap (less than only). For the collision, proceed as normal. But for the overlap condition, you can physically move one ball or the other (or both by half) the amount of overlap. This positions them at correct "collision" position, which allows for the correct behavior of the bounce function.
An overlap function that only moves one ball at a time might look something like this(not real code):
if (distanceBetweenBallCenters < sumOfRadii){
currentPosition = oldPosition - (distanceBetweenBallCenters - sumOfRadii) * (unitVectorFromSecondBallToFirstBall);
}
One could easily move both balls by half, but I found that moving one at a time gave satisfactory results for my uses, and allowed me to keep the parameter as a const.
I hope this helps future students! (I am also a student, and new to this, so take my advice with the proverbial grain of salt)
Your way of calculating the normal is wrong. (x + b2.x)/2 doesn't have to be the point of collision, if the radii of the balls aren't equal.