I need to simulate the movement of a row(oar). The oar object is loaded into eclipse with the min3D library which works with openGL.
At this moment, I make the oar move in the 3 axis x, y and z, but I'm not able to control this movement and to make the oar move in the desired way.
(Don't take care of the values, aren't real values)
This is the class which loads the oar, places it in the screen and moves it:
public class Obj3DView extends RendererFragment {
private Object3dContainer rowObject3D;
/** Called when the activity is first created. */
#Override
public void initScene() {
scene.lights().add(new Light());
scene.lights().add(new Light());
Light myLight = new Light();
myLight.position.setZ(150);
scene.lights().add(myLight);
IParser myParser = Parser.createParser(Parser.Type.OBJ, getResources(), "com.masermic.rowingsoft:raw/row_obj",true);
myParser.parse();
rowObject3D = myParser.getParsedObject();
rowObject3D.position().x = rowObject3D.position().y = rowObject3D.position().z = 0;
rowObject3D.scale().x = rowObject3D.scale().y = rowObject3D.scale().z = 0.28f;
scene.addChild(rowObject3D);
}
//THIS MAKES THE OAR MOVE
#Override
public void updateScene() {
rowObject3D.rotation().x += 1; //pitch
rowObject3D.rotation().z += 1; //roll
rowObject3D.rotation().y += 0.5; //yaw
}
roation() method definition: X/Y/Z euler rotation of object, using Euler angles. Units should be in degrees, to match OpenGL usage.
So the question is about how could I define the values that make the oar simulate a real movement?
This looks more like a mathematics question.
I'll present some general tips;
On positioning:
The fixed point of the oar is where the oar is held on the boat, so the oar's rotation is relative to that point, not the center of the oar.
And on top of that, the boat is moving, so is the oar's "fixed" point.
The order for positioning should be:
Translate to the boat position.
Translate the oar so it's center is relative to the correct spot of the boat.
Apply the oar rotation.
Draw it.
On animation:
It will be easier to animate if you alter your model so the origin is at the point where the oar is fixed, but it may complicate other animations/calculae if you later pretend to do more complex manipulations on the oar.
Interpolation of Euler rotation is a mess, I suggest quartenions. You can grab the angles from that nice picture and interpolate. (if you need Euler, still, you can convert the end result to Euler)
For simple animations, (say you just want the oar to repeatedly rotate in some pattern), hardly you will find a better method then key-frames, that is, create a list of coordinates/angles along the path you want the oar to do, and iterate through them, interpolating.
With enough points, a simple linear interpolation will do just fine.
Related
I'm building a game with Cocos2d-x version 3.13.1 and I've decided to go with the built-in physics engine (Chipmunk 2D) to accomplish animations and collision detection. I have a simple projectile called BulletUnit that inherits from cocos2d::Node. It has a child sprite that displays artwork, and a rectangular physics body with the same dimensions as the artwork.
The BulletUnit has a method called fireAtPoint, which determines the angle between itself and the point specified, then sets the initial velocity based on the angle. On each update cycle, acceleration is applied to the projectile. This is done by applying impulses to the body based on an acceleration variable and the angle calculated in fireAtPoint. Here's the code:
bool BulletUnit::init() {
if (!Unit::init()) return false;
displaySprite_ = Sprite::createWithSpriteFrameName(frameName_);
this->addChild(displaySprite_);
auto physicsBody = PhysicsBody::createBox(displaySprite_->getContentSize());
physicsBody->setCollisionBitmask(0);
this->setPhysicsBody(physicsBody);
return true;
}
void BulletUnit::update(float dt) {
auto mass = this->getPhysicsBody()->getMass();
this->getPhysicsBody()->applyImpulse({
acceleration_ * mass * cosf(angle_),
acceleration_ * mass * sinf(angle_)
});
}
void BulletUnit::fireAtPoint(const Point &point) {
angle_ = Trig::angleBetweenPoints(this->getPosition(), point);
auto physicsBody = this->getPhysicsBody();
physicsBody->setVelocityLimit(maxSpeed_);
physicsBody->setVelocity({
startingSpeed_ * cosf(angle_),
startingSpeed_ * sinf(angle_)
});
}
This works exactly as I want it to. You can see in the image below, my bullets are accelerating as planned and traveling directly towards my mouse clicks.
But, there's one obvious flaw: the bullet is remaining flat instead of rotating to "point" towards the target. So, I adjust fireAtPoint to apply a rotation to the node. Here's the updated method:
void BulletUnit::fireAtPoint(const Point &point) {
angle_ = Trig::angleBetweenPoints(this->getPosition(), point);
// This rotates the node to make it point towards the target
this->setRotation(angle_ * -180.0f/M_PI);
auto physicsBody = this->getPhysicsBody();
physicsBody->setVelocityLimit(maxSpeed_);
physicsBody->setVelocity({
startingSpeed_ * cosf(angle_),
startingSpeed_ * sinf(angle_)
});
}
This almost works. The bullet is pointing in the right direction, but the trajectory is now way off and seems to be arcing away from the target as a result of the rotation: the more drastic the rotation, the more drastic the arcing. The following image illustrates what's happening:
So, it seems that setting the rotation is causing the physics engine to behave in a way I hadn't originally expected. I've been racking my brain on ways to correct the flight path, but so far, no luck! Any suggestions would be greatly apprecitated. Thanks!
I'm just wondering if there was any way which one can perform mouse picking detection onto any object. Whether it would be generated object or imported object.
[Idea] -
The idea I have in mind is that, there would be iterations with every object in the scene. Checking if the mouse ray has intersected with an object. For checking the intersection, it would check the mouse picking ray with the triangles that make up the object.
[Pros] -
I believe the benefit of this approach is that, every object can be detected with mouse picking since they all inherit from the detection method.
[Cons] -
I believe this drawbacks are mainly the speed and the method being very expensive. So would need fine tuning of optimization.
[Situation] -
In the past I have read about mouse picking and I too have implemented some basic form of mouse picking. But all those were crappy work which I am not proud of. So again today, I have re-read some of the stuff from online. Nowadays I see alot of mouse picking using color ids and shaders. I'm not too keen for this method. I'm more into a mathematical side.
So here is my mouse picking ray thingamajig.
maths::Vector3 Camera::Raycast(s32 mouse_x, s32 mouse_y)
{
// Normalized Device Coordinates
maths::Vector2 window_size = Application::GetApplication().GetWindowSize();
float x = (2.0f * mouse_x) / window_size.x - 1.0f;
float y = 1.0f;
float z = 1.0f;
maths::Vector3 normalized_device_coordinates_ray = maths::Vector3(x, y, z);
// Homogeneous Clip Coordinates
maths::Vector4 homogeneous_clip_coordinates_ray = maths::Vector4(normalized_device_coordinates_ray.x, normalized_device_coordinates_ray.y, -1.0f, 1.0f);
// 4D Eye (Camera) Coordinates
maths::Vector4 camera_ray = maths::Matrix4x4::Invert(projection_matrix_) * homogeneous_clip_coordinates_ray;
camera_ray = maths::Vector4(camera_ray.x, camera_ray.y, -1.0f, 0.0f);
// 4D World Coordinates
maths::Vector3 world_coordinates_ray = maths::Matrix4x4::Invert(view_matrix_) * camera_ray;
world_coordinates_ray = world_coordinates_ray.Normalize();
return world_coordinates_ray;
}
I have this ray plane intersection function which calculates if a certain ray as intersected with a certain plane. DUH!
Here is the code for that.
bool Camera::RayPlaneIntersection(const maths::Vector3& ray_origin, const maths::Vector3& ray_direction, const maths::Vector3& plane_origin, const maths::Vector3& plane_normal, float& distance)
{
float denominator = plane_normal.Dot(ray_direction);
if (denominator >= 1e-6) // 1e-6 = 0.000001
{
maths::Vector3 vector_subtraction = plane_origin - ray_origin;
distance = vector_subtraction.Dot(plane_normal);
return (distance >= 0);
}
return false;
}
There are many more out there. E.g. Plane Sphere Intersection, Plane Disk Intersection. These things are like very specific. So it feel that is very hard to do mouse picking intersections on a global scale. I feel this way because, for this very RayPlaneIntersection function. What I expect to do with it is, retrieve the objects in the scene and retrieve all the normals for that object (which is a pain in the ass). So now to re-emphasize my question.
Is there already a method out there which I don't know, that does mouse picking in one way for all objects? Or am I just being stupid and not knowing what to do when I have everything?
Thank you. Thank you.
Yes, it is possible to do mouse-picking with OpenGL: you render all the geometry into a special buffer that stores a unique id of the object instead of its shaded color, then you just look at what value you got at the pixel below the mouse and know the object by its id that is written there. However, although it might be simpler, it is not a particularly efficient solution if your camera or geometry constantly moves.
Instead, doing an analytical ray-object intersection is the way to go. However, you don't need to check the intersection of every triangle of every object against the ray. That would be inefficient indeed. You should cull entire objects by their bounding boxes, or even portions of the whole scene. Game engines have their own spacial index data structure to speed-up ray-object intersections. They need it not only for mouse picking, but also for collision-detection, physics simulations, AI, and what-not.
Also note that the geometry used for the picking might be different from the one used for rendering. One example that comes to mind is that of semi-transparent objects.
I have this little spaceship I want to follow and be smoothly about it. So I calculcate my mouse-coordinates and the offset from the last frame, add a yaw (x-coordinate) and a pitch (y-coordinate), then I do a little geometry et voilá I have my new front-vector for the followedObject.
Currently I follow my object like this:
void Camera::update()
{
glm::vec3 objPosition = followedObject->GetPosition();
this->position = objPosition;
this->position.z += 15;
this->camFront = followedObject->getFront();
this->viewMatrix = glm::lookAt(position, position + camFront, camUp);
}
The z-Offset is used so the object is actually before the camera. Now this whole stuff is rather suboptimal. It worked great as long as I only moved the camera around, but now I really need a better solution.
I'd like to always center the followedObject on my screen and when I perform a curve or any direction change I want the camera to follow smoothly (like with a little transition)
Do you have any ideas how I could improve this?
I'm a student new to opengl. Currently, I'm doing a project that creates a scene.
Right now, my team is using gluLookAt() for my camera. What I want to accomplish is to try and rotate the LookAt vector around a certain point, namely where the camera is looking at.
This accomplishes a sort of "swaying in a circle". I need this because I am making a dart game for the scene, and my camera stay still, but I need it to move in a circle, but still allow the user's mouse to influence it. I also need it to create a drunken movement. That is why I am not considering rotating the Up or Eye vectors.
Currently, my look at code is like this.
int deltax = x - mouse.mX;
int deltay = y - mouse.mY;
cameradart.mYaw -= ((deltax/360.0) * 3.142) * 0.5;
cameradart.mPitch -= deltay * 0.02;
mouse.mX = x;
mouse.mY = y;
cameradart.lookAt.x = sin (cameradart.mYaw);
cameradart.lookAt.y = cameradart.mPitch ;
cameradart.lookAt.z = cos (cameradart.mYaw);
gluLookAt (cameradart.eye.x, cameradart.eye.y, cameradart.eye.z,
cameradart.eye.x + cameradart.lookAt.x, cameradart.eye.y + cameradart.lookAt.y,
cameradart.eye.z + cameradart.lookAt.z,
cameradart.up.x, cameradart.up.y, cameradart.up.z);
I know that it could be done easier using a different camera, but I really don't want to mess with my team's code by not using gluLookAt().
There's a couple of solutions in my mind, I'll tell you the easiest to understand/implement as a new graphics student
Assuming at first you're looking at (0,0,1) -store that vector-:
Think of a point that's drawing a circle and you're looking at it,
-Do it first to turn right and left (2D on X & Z)
-Let HDiff be the horizontal difference between old mouse position and the new one
-Update the x = cos(HDiff)
-Update the z = sin(HDiff)
*I didn't try it but it should work :)
If you want to be able to manipulate the camera, using a camera matrix is a much more effective mechanism than working with gluLookat. GLM is a good library for matrix and vector math and includes a lookat mechanism you can use to initialize the matrix, or you can just initialize it with a series of operations. However, remember that lookat produces a view matrix, and the view matrix is the inverse of the camera matrix.
This piece of code has a demonstration of what I'm talking about. Specifically look at the player member variable and how it's manipulated
glm::mat4 player;
...
glm::vec3 playerPosition(0, eyeHeight, ipd * 4.0f);
player = glm::inverse(glm::lookAt(playerPosition, glm::vec3(0, eyeHeight, 0), GlUtils::Y_AXIS));
This approach lets you apply changes like rotation and translation directly to the player matrix
// Rotate on the Y axis
player = glm::rotate(player, angle, glm::vec3(0, 1, 0));
This is much more intuitive than manipulating the view matrix, since changes to the view matrix always have to be the inverse of what you'd do to the player matrix.
When you're ready to render you need to convert the player matrix to a view matrix by taking it's inverse. In my example it's done like this:
gl::Stacks::modelview().top() = riftOrientation * glm::inverse(player);
This is because I'm using an application based modelview matrix stack that gets applied to the Shader programs I'm running.
For an OpenGL 1.x program, you'd instead use LoadMatrix
glMatrixMode(GL_MODELVIEW);
glm::mat4 modelview = glm::inverse(player);
glLoadMatrixf(&modelview);
I'm having a lot of trouble detecting collisions in a zero-G space game. Hopefully this image will help me explain:
http://i.stack.imgur.com/f7AHO.png
The white rectangle is a static body with a b2PolygonShape fixture attached, as such:
// Create the line physics body definition
b2BodyDef wallBodyDef;
wallBodyDef.position.Set(0.0f, 0.0f);
// Create the line physics body in the physics world
wallBodyDef.type = b2_staticBody; // Set as a static body
m_Body = world->CreateBody(&wallBodyDef);
// Create the vertex array which will be used to make the physics shape
b2Vec2 vertices[4];
vertices[0].Set(m_Point1.x, m_Point1.y); // Point 1
vertices[1].Set(m_Point1.x + (sin(angle - 90*(float)DEG_TO_RAD)*m_Thickness), m_Point1.y - (cos(angle - 90*(float)DEG_TO_RAD)*m_Thickness)); // Point 2
vertices[2].Set(m_Point2.x + (sin(angle - 90*(float)DEG_TO_RAD)*m_Thickness), m_Point2.y - (cos(angle - 90*(float)DEG_TO_RAD)*m_Thickness)); // Point 3
vertices[3].Set(m_Point2.x, m_Point2.y); // Point 3
int32 count = 4; // Vertex count
b2PolygonShape wallShape; // Create the line physics shape
wallShape.Set(vertices, count); // Set the physics shape using the vertex array above
// Define the dynamic body fixture
b2FixtureDef fixtureDef;
fixtureDef.shape = &wallShape; // Set the line shape
fixtureDef.density = 0.0f; // Set the density
fixtureDef.friction = 0.0f; // Set the friction
fixtureDef.restitution = 0.5f; // Set the restitution
// Add the shape to the body
m_Fixture = m_Body->CreateFixture(&fixtureDef);
m_Fixture->SetUserData("Wall");[/code]
You'll have to trust me that that makes the shape in the image. The physics simulation works perfectly, the player (small triangle) collides with the body with pixel perfect precision. However, I come to a problem when I try to determine when a collision takes place so I can remove health and what-not. The code I am using for this is as follows:
/*------ Check for collisions ------*/
if (m_Physics->GetWorld()->GetContactCount() > 0)
{
if (m_Physics->GetWorld()->GetContactList()->GetFixtureA()->GetUserData() == "Player" &&
m_Physics->GetWorld()->GetContactList()->GetFixtureB()->GetUserData() == "Wall")
{
m_Player->CollideWall();
}
}
I'm aware there are probably better ways to do collisions, but I'm just a beginner and haven't found anywhere that explains how to do listeners and callbacks well enough for me to understand. The problem I have is that GetContactCount() shows a contact whenever the player body enters the purple box above. Obviously there is a rectangular bounding box being created that encompasses the white rectangle.
I've tried making the fixture an EdgeShape, and the same thing happens. Does anyone have any idea what is going on here? I'd really like to get collision nailed so I can move on to other things. Thank you very much for any help.
The bounding box is an AABB (axis aligned bounding box) which means it will always be aligned with the the Cartesian axes. AABBs are normally used for broadphase collision detection because it's a relatively simple (and inexpensive) computation.
You need to make sure that you're testing against the OBB (oriented bounding box) for the objects if you want more accurate (but not pixel perfect, as Micah pointed out) results.
Also, I agree with Micah's answer that you will most likely need a more general system for handling collisions. Even if you only ever have just walls and the player, there's no guarantee that which object will be A and which will be B. And as you add other object types, this will quickly unravel.
Creating the contact listener isn't terribly difficult, from the docs (added to attempt to handle your situation):
class MyContactListener:public b2ContactListener
{
private:
PlayerClass *m_Player;
public:
MyContactListener(PlayerClass *player) : m_Player(player)
{ }
void BeginContact(b2Contact* contact)
{ /* handle begin event */ }
void EndContact(b2Contact* contact)
{
if (contact->GetFixtureA()->GetUserData() == m_Player
|| contact->GetFixtureB()->GetUserData() == m_Player)
{
m_Player->CollideWall();
}
}
/* we're not interested in these for the time being */
void PreSolve(b2Contact* contact, const b2Manifold* oldManifold)
{ /* handle pre-solve event */ }
void PostSolve(b2Contact* contact, const b2ContactImpulse* impulse)
{ /* handle post-solve event */ }
};
This requires you to assign m_Player to the player's fixture's user data field. Then you can use the contact listener like so:
m_Physics->GetWorld()->SetContactListener(new MyContactListener(m_Player));
How do you know GetFixtureA is the player and B is the wall? Could it be reversed? Could there be an FixtureC? I would think you would need a more generic solution.
I've used a similar graphics framework (Qt) and it had something so you could grab any two objects and call something like 'hasCollided' which would return a bool. You could get away with not using a callback and just call it in the drawScene() or check it periodically.
In Box2D the existence of a contact just means that the AABBs of two fixtures overlaps. It does not necessarily mean that the shapes of the fixtures themselves are touching.
You can use the IsTouching() function of a contact to check if the shapes are actually touching, but the preferred way to deal with collisions is to use the callback feature to have the engine tell you whenever two fixtures start/stop touching. Using callbacks is much more efficient and easier to manage in the long run, though it may be a little more effort to set up initially and there are a few things to be careful about - see here for an example: http://www.iforce2d.net/b2dtut/collision-callbacks