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.
Related
UPDATE:
I couldn't figure out the exact problem, however I made a fix that's good enough for me: Whenever the player's X value is less then half the screen's width, I just snap the view back to the center (up left corner) using sf::View::setCenter().
So I'm working on a recreating of Zelda II to help learn SFML good enough so I can make my own game based off of Zelda II. The issue is the screen scrolling, for some reason, if link walks away from the wall and initiated the camera to follow him, and then move back toward the wall, the camera won't go all the way back to the end of the wall, which occurs on the other wall at the end of the scene/room. This can be done multiple times to keep making the said camera block get further away from the wall. This happens on both sides of the scene, and I have reason to believe it has something to do with me trying to make the game frame independent, here's an included GIF of my issue to help understand:
My camera function:
void Game::camera() {
if (this->player.getVar('x') >= this->WIDTH / 2 and this->player.getVar('x') < this->sceneWidth - this->WIDTH / 2) {
this->view.move(int(this->player.getVar('v') * this->player.dt * this->player.dtM), 0);
}
}
player.getVar() is a temporary function I'm using to get the players x position and x velocity, using the argument 'x' returns the players x position, and 'v' returns the x velocity. WIDTH is equal to 256, and sceneWidth equals 767, which is the image I'm using for the background's width. dt and dtM are variables for the frame independence I mentioned earlier, this is the deceleration:
sf::Clock sclock;
float dt = 0;
float dtM = 60;
int frame = 0;
void updateTime() {
dt = sclock.restart().asSeconds();
frame += 1 * dt * dtM;
}
updateTime() is called every frame, so dt is updated every frame as well. frame is just a frame counter for Link's animations, and isn't relevant to the question. Everything that moves and is rendered on the screen is multiplied by dt and dtM respectively.
There's a clear mismatch between the movement of the player and the one of the camera... You don't show the code to move the player, but if I guess you don't cast to int the movement there, as you are doing on the view.move call. That wouldn't be a problem if you were setting the absolute position of the camera, but as you are constantly moving it, the little offset accumulates each frame, causing your problem.
One possible solution on is to skip the cast, which is unnecessary because sf::View::move accepts float as arguments.
void Game::camera() {
if (this->player.getVar('x') >= this->WIDTH / 2 and this->player.getVar('x') < this->sceneWidth - this->WIDTH / 2) {
this->view.move(this->player.getVar('v') * this->player.dt * this->player.dtM, 0);
}
}
Or even better, not to use view.move but to directly set the position of the camera each frame. Something like:
void Game::camera() {
if (this->player.getVar('x') >= this->WIDTH / 2 and this->player.getVar('x') < this->sceneWidth - this->WIDTH / 2) {
this->view.setCenter(this->player.getVar('x'), this->view.getCenter().y);
}
}
I hope someone out there can answer my question. Currently I am doing some collision detection using D3DXVectors.
I have the collision down, but what I need is what to do AFTER the collision has been made.
I have a player object and the object the player is being collided with and pass these into my function.
Basically, I have this so far (variables names have been changed for clarity):
D3DXVECTOR3 Collision::wallCol(D3DXVECTOR3 player, D3DXVECTOR3 object, float playerWidth, float playerDepth, float objectWidth, float objectDepth)
{
//store the values of the objects into temps
//left hand side of a box
float minX = object.x - (objectWidth / 2);
//right hand side of a box
float maxX = object.x + (objectWidth / 2);
//front of a box
float minZ = object.z - (objectDepth / 2);
//back of a box
float maxZ = object.z + (objectDepth / 2);
//store the players positions into temps
float pminX = player.x - (playerWidth / 2);
float pmaxX = player.x + (playerWidth / 2);
float pminZ = player.z - (playerDepth / 2);
float pmaxZ = player.z + (playerDepth / 2);
//check to see if we are in the box at all
if (pminX <= maxX && pmaxX >= minX &&
pminZ <= maxZ && pmaxZ >= minZ)
{
//x collision for the left side of the block
if (pmaxX >= minX && pmaxX <= maxX)
{
pmaxX = minX - 50;
player.x = pmaxX;
return player;
}
//x collision for the right side of the block
if (pminX <= maxX && pminX >= minX)
{
pminX = maxX + 50;
player.x = pminX;
return player;
}
//z collision for the front
if (pmaxZ >= minZ && pmaxZ <= maxZ)
{
pmaxZ = minZ - 20;
player.z = pmaxZ;
return player;
}
//z collision for the back
if (pminZ <= maxZ && pminZ >= minZ)
{
pminZ = maxZ + 20;
player.z = pminZ;
return player;
}
}
return player;
}
As you can see, I would like to move my player object away from whatever it is that it is bumping into. The problem I am having is that no matter what, my player will always move either to the left or the right on the X axis because it accounts for the X first, it never has the chance to even get to the Z if statements.
I've considered making 2 Booleans to tell if the player makes contact with the X or the Z first, but since the first if statement is to even see if we are in the box, I believe it would trigger them both at the same time and there would be no way to tell which came first.
If anyone could offer some advice on this problem, it would be greatly appreciated! Thank you.
In order to implement more or less realistic bouncing it is not enough to have only positions and bounding boxes of colliding objects. You need to have some kind of kinematic history: to be able to tell how objects move after collision you should also know how they were moving before the collision.
In simplest case, you want to have at least a velocity (speed) vector (direction and magnitude) and, probably, a mass for every object. When collision is detected you may simply invert the direction of the velocity vector of one of the objects (for example, smaller and lighter one).
The pseudocode will be something like:
if have_collided(object1, object2):
if object1.mass > object2.mass:
object2.velocity = -object2.velocity
else:
object1.velocity = -object1.velocity
This would not look very realistic, but is very simple to implement.
For more realism you could use momentum conservation principle or elastic collisions. For even more realistic bouncing, implement acceleration vector and re-calculate both, velocity and acceleration after collision is detected. Having acceleration you may now add arbitrary forces influencing your objects (gravity, friction, maybe even electromagnetic forces etc.). Adding more attributes make it more interesting: for example adding elasticity and viscosity may be used to calculate deformations.
As you see there is more in object interactions involved than just positions.
Additionally, collision detection and bouncing code could (and should) be decoupled. That means that you would want to implement them in different parts of code (different set of functions and classes): collision subsystem will detect the collision event, providing information like: whether collision happened or not and if yes, by how far objects currently intersect with each other. After that, bouncing code, based on this information, will decide how to change objects traveling, while deformation code will decide how to change objects shapes etc. Thus, there will be no silly problems like which "if" statement in collision code came first decides the direction of bouncing.
Overall I would suggest you:
To look up some physics. For example:
Wiki: Inelastic collision
Wiki: Elastic collision
To get this excellent book: Real-Time Collision Detection
To read through some popular questions on gamedev.stackexchange.com, for example on collision (sort by votes)
Finally, you should know that DirectX 9 API is wildly obsolete, not supported and should not be used for new projects. It is notoriously hard to port D3DX* stuff to modern APIs. You may want to take a look at DirectX 11 and OpenGL 4, along with their support library ecosystems, or maybe even a good rendering or game engine. Specifically you may want to use some good math library (with vectors, matrices, linear algebra, geometry).
Just to preface this question please note I am not asking 'fix my code', rather what techniques would I employ to fix this problem. I also apologise if my spelling is not very good.
Okay so I have a 2D platformer game which compares the players position with all of the tiles (in a loop), the resolves the collision accordingly. This is pretty much the structure of the main game loop:
Check all collisions (And enable jumping if a collision bellow the
player occurred)
Get input and change player velocity accordingly
Add gravity to the Y velocity
Apply velocity and friction to the players position
Draw the game
repeat
But despite this system working there are two minor, but noticeable problems with the collision system (I have provided images to make it easier). There are two problems, the first is not that bad, but the second renderers the game almost unplayable!
Problem 1. When just moving left and right across the floor in the game, occasionally the player looses all the velocity it has gained and then has to re-accumulate that velocity. I think this is because every now and then my collision detection function does not return properly. here is a image:
I hope that was clear, the problem only really becomes apparent when moving across lots of flat land.
Problem 2 (This one is way worse) The problem is that player can essentially jump up walls, because if you say for example hold down left arrow and hold jump, the player will jump up the wall. I am assuming this is because My collision detection function is returning true if the collision is coming from the side (although it should not). Here is another picture (the text is small, sorry):
So here is my collision detection function, which should take in two 'Objects' then return the direction from the first object at which the collision occurred, I think the problem arouses when It comes to determining the direction as this is causing problems, as shown above:
//Find the collision vectors
float vectorX = (a.Position.x + (a.Scale.x / 2)) - (b.Position.x + (b.Scale.x / 2));
float vectorY = (a.Position.y + (a.Scale.y / 2)) - (b.Position.y + (b.Scale.y / 2));
//Find the distance between the two objects
float deltaWidth = (a.Scale.x / 2) + (b.Scale.x / 2);
float deltaHeight = (a.Scale.y / 2) + (b.Scale.y / 2);
//Stores the direction of collision
Direction collisionDir = Direction::None;
//Check if the two objects are intersecting on the x and y axis
if (fabs(vectorX) < deltaWidth && fabs(vectorY) < deltaHeight)
{
//The direction of collision
float directionX = deltaWidth - fabs(vectorX);
float directionY = deltaHeight - fabs(vectorY);
//Check for vertical collision
if (directionX >= directionY)
{
//Check for collisions from the top
if (vectorY > 0)
{
a.Velocity.y = 0;
a.Position.y += directionY;
collisionDir = Direction::Up;
}
//Collisions form the botttom
else
{
a.Velocity.y = 0;
a.Position.y -= directionY;
collisionDir = Direction::Down;
}
}
else if (directionX < directionY / 2)
{
//Check for collisions from the left
if (vectorX > 0 )
{
a.Velocity.x = 0;
a.Position.x += directionX;
collisionDir = Direction::Left;
}
//Collisions form the right side
else
{
a.Velocity.x = 0;
a.Position.x -= directionX;
collisionDir = Direction::Right;
}
}
}
//Return the direction.
return collisionDir;
This will return a direction, My other code also checks if that direction == Bottom, then it will allow jumping.
Thank-you for any help. I am practising for Ludum Dare, because I plan on (probably) making a platformer and If I cant figure out collision detection I don't know how good my game will be.
First thing I would recommend is make yourself a Vector2D class which holds your x and y coordinates and a few overload some operators to allow for addition and subtraction of two Vector2Ds and multiplication and division by ints, floats and doubles. Trust me it will make your life a lot easier as they can hold all your forces and collision points.
Next when I have used the style of collision you are currently using I have always found that it's:
A)Harder to debug.
B)Harder for other people to follow your code.
So I would recommend creating a Rectangle2D class which handles collisions with other Rectangles and other needed functionality.
As a recommendation have the top left corner and the bottom right corner as a vector from the center of the rectangle which makes scaling and collision detection much easier this also means you can derive the other corners without directly needing to store them.
Here's a code example that will probably help what I'm trying to explain:
bool Intersects(Rectangle2D other)
{
//Checks the right, left, bottom then top of the rectangle
//against the other.
if(other.topLeftCorner.x >= bottomRightCorner.x //Checks the right
|| other.bottomRightCorner.x <= topLeftCorner.x //Checks the left
|| other.topLeftCorner.y >= bottomRightCorner.y //Checks the bottom
|| other.bottomRightCorner.y <= topLeftCorner.y) //Checks the top
return false;
else
return true;
}
You can easily manipulate this code to give you the direction of the collision. Hope this helps.
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 drawing an object (say, a cube) in OpenGL that a user can rotate by clicking / dragging the mouse across the window. The cube is drawn like so:
void CubeDrawingArea::redraw()
{
Glib::RefPtr gl_drawable = get_gl_drawable();
gl_drawable->gl_begin(get_gl_context());
glClear(GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT | GL_DEPTH_BUFFER_BIT);
glPushMatrix();
{
glRotated(m_angle, m_rotAxis.x, m_rotAxis.y, m_rotAxis.z);
glCallList(m_cubeID);
}
glPopMatrix();
gl_drawable->swap_buffers();
gl_drawable->gl_end();
}
and rotated with this function:
bool CubeDrawingArea::on_motion_notify_event(GdkEventMotion* motion)
{
if (!m_leftButtonDown)
return true;
_3V cur_pos;
get_trackball_point((int) motion->x, (int) motion->y, cur_pos);
const double dx = cur_pos.x - m_lastTrackPoint.x;
const double dy = cur_pos.y - m_lastTrackPoint.y;
const double dz = cur_pos.z - m_lastTrackPoint.z;
if (dx || dy || dz)
{
// Update angle, axis of rotation, and redraw
m_angle = 90.0 * sqrt((dx * dx) + (dy * dy) + (dz * dz));
// Axis of rotation comes from cross product of last / cur vectors
m_rotAxis.x = (m_lastTrackPoint.y * cur_pos.z) - (m_lastTrackPoint.z * cur_pos.y);
m_rotAxis.y = (m_lastTrackPoint.z * cur_pos.x) - (m_lastTrackPoint.x * cur_pos.z);
m_rotAxis.z = (m_lastTrackPoint.x * cur_pos.y) - (m_lastTrackPoint.y * cur_pos.x);
redraw();
}
return true;
}
There is some GTK+ stuff in there, but it should be pretty obvious what it's for. The get_trackball_point() function projects the window coordinates X Y onto a hemisphere (the virtual "trackball") that is used as a reference point for rotating the object. Anyway, this more or less works, but after I'm done rotating, and I go to rotate again, the cube snaps back to the original position, obviously, since m_angle will be reset back to near 0 the next time I rotate. Is there anyway to avoid this and preserve the rotation?
Yeah, I ran into this problem too.
What you need to do is keep a rotation matrix around that "accumulates" the current state of rotation, and use it in addition to the rotation matrix that comes from the current dragging operation.
Say you have two matrices, lastRotMx and currRotMx. Make them members of CubeDrawingArea if you like.
You haven't shown us this, but I assume that m_lastTrackPoint is initialized whenever the mouse button goes down for dragging. When that happens, copy currRotMx into lastRotMx.
Then in on_motion_notify_event(), after you calculate m_rotAxis and m_angle, create a new rotation matrix draggingRotMx based on m_rotAxis and m_angle; then multiply lastRotMx by draggingRotMx and put the result in currRotMx.
Finally, in redraw(), instead of
glRotated(m_angle, m_rotAxis.x, m_rotAxis.y, m_rotAxis.z);
rotate by currRotMx.
Update: Or instead of all that... I haven't tested this, but I think it would work:
Make cur_pos a class member so it stays around, but it's initialized to zero, as is m_lastTrackPoint.
Then, whenever a new drag motion is started, before you initialize m_lastTrackPoint, let _3V dpos = cur_pos - m_lastTrackPoint (pseudocode).
Finally, when you do initialize m_lastTrackPoint based on the mouse event coords, subtract dpos from it.
That way, your cur_pos will already be offset from m_lastTrackPoint by an amount based on the accumulation of offsets from past arcball drags.
Probably error would accumulate as well, but it should be gradual enough so as not to be noticeable. But I'd want to test it to be sure... composed rotations are tricky enough that I don't trust them without seeing them.
P.S. your username is demotivating. Suggest picking another one.
P.P.S. For those who come later searching for answers to this question, the keywords to search on are "arcball rotation". An definitive article is Ken Shoemake's section in Graphical Gems IV. See also this arcball tutorial for JOGL.