C++ DirectX11 2d Game: Stopping enemy sprites moving over each other? - c++

I am using IntersectsWith(this->boundingBox)) method to detect collisions between sprites and player. I want to somehow be able to use this method in detecting my enemy sprites that collide with each other, and when they do to make sure they don't move over one another.
All of the enemy sprites follow the player.
MainGame.cpp
Loops over each enemy in the vector and does the update loop:
for (auto &enemyMobsObj : this->enemyMobs)
{
enemyMobsObj->Update(tickTotal, tickDelta, timeTotal, timeDelta, windowBounds, this->ship, this->firstBoss,
this->enemyMobs, this->bullets, this->missiles, NULL, "NULL", "NULL");
}
Here is what I tried before to stop each sprite moving over each other:
EnemyMobOne::Update:
int nextEnemy;
for (int i = 0; i < enemyMobOne.size(); i++)
{
nextEnemy = i + 1;
if (nextEnemy < enemyMobOne.size())
{
//Deal with mobs collision
if (enemyMobOne[i].boundingBox.IntersectsWith(enemyMobOne[nextEnemy].boundingBox))
{
enemyMobOne[i].position.x = enemyMobOne[nextEnemy].position.x - enemyMobOne[i].boundingBox.Width;
}
}
}
However this makes each enemy sprite obviously stick to each other, which doesn't look right, it also makes them teleport.
Anyone know the correct code to stop them moving over each other? Thanks.

When you detect an intersection between two collision objects, you need to make a decision about how you're going to counteract the overlap (as I'm sure you figured out). However, how one does this is a bit trickier than simply "pushing" them to one side (as you've done in your code). What you likely want to do is to have a counter-force to the applied force, so to speak. Basically, you want to calculate the minimum translation, or the direction by which the least amount of movement would be required, to get at least ONE of the boxes to move OUT of the other one.
This is a bit more complicated than simply "put me on the right (or left, depending on how you set up your coordinates, I suppose) side of the other guy," which is more or less what your code does, now.
For a simple solution, just check if one of the colliders is closer to the left, right, top, or bottom of the other. To do this, you can simply take the collision intersection position and check the relative distance between that point and the minimum and maximum x and y coordinates relative to one of the colliders, then move the one or both of the sprites, accordingly.
Ex:
[Edit] After reviewing my previous answer for this, I realized you would need to calculate the overlap of the boxes, which would make it much easier to accomplish this all like so:
float minX = min(sprite0.boundingBox.maxX, sprite1.boundingBox.maxX);// Minimum of the boxes' right-side points (top right and bottom right) x coordinates
float minY = min(sprite0.boundingBox.maxY, sprite1.boundingBox.maxY);// Minimum of the boxes' top-side points (top left and top right) y coordinates
float maxX = max(sprite0.boundingBox.minX, sprite1.boundingBox.minX);// Maximum of the boxes' left-side points (top left and bottom left) x coordinates
float maxY = max(sprite0.boundingBox.minY, sprite1.boundingBox.minY);// Maximum of the boxes' bottom-side points (bottom left and bottom right) y coordinates
float distHoriz = minX - maxX;// The horizontal intersection distance
float distVert = minY - maxY;// The vertical instersection distance
// If the boxes are overlapping less on the horizontal axis than the vertical axis,
// move one of the sprites (in this case, sprite0) in the opposite direction of the
// x-axis overlap
if(abs(distHoriz) < abs(distVert))
{
sprite0.x -= distHoriz;
}
// Else, move one of the sprites (again, I just decided to use sprite0 here,
// arbitrarily) in the opposite direction of the y-axis overlap
else
{
sprite0.y -= distVert;
}
To further clarify (beyond the comments), what we're basically doing here is checking the distance between the overlapping lines. For example:
Box 0 x-axis xmin0|------------------|xmax0
Box 1 x-axis xmin1|----------------------|xmax1
|----|<-- Overlap (xmax0 - xmin1)
Notice that the minimum from the two bounding boxes that is used for the overlap is the maximum among the two minima (xmin0 and xmin1), and the maximum that is used for the overlap is the minimum among the two maxima (xmax0 and xmax1).
The y-axis calculation works exactly the same way. Once we have both axes, we simply check to see which one has a lower absolute value (which distance is shorter) and move along that distance to counteract the intersection.

Related

How can I maintain points inside a rectangle that keeps its aspect ratio inside and changing outer container?

So my problem involves trying to keep points drawn into a rectangle at the same position of the rectangle while an outer container box is scaled to any size.
The rectangle containing the points will keep its aspect ratio while it grows and shrinks in the center of the outer box.
I'm able to keep the inner box's aspect ratio constant but am having problems drawing the points in the correct place when scaling the outer box. Here's an example of my problem.
I'd like the point to stay on the same spot the picture is no matter how the outer box is scaled. The coordinate system has 0,0 as the topleft of the outer box and the inner box is centered using offsets allowing the inner box to be big as possible while maintaining its aspect ratio, however I'm stuck on getting points I add to maintain their position in the box. Here's a look at what I think I should be doing:
void PointsHandler::updatePoints()
{
double imgRatio = boxSize.width() / boxSize.height();
double oldXOffset = (oldContainerSize.width() - oldBoxSize.width()) / 2;
double oldYOffset = (oldContainerSize.height() - oldBoxSize.height()) / 2;
double newXOffset = (containerSize.width() - boxSize.width()) / 2;
double newYOffset = (containerSize.height() - boxSize.height()) / 2;
for(int i = 0; i < points.size(); i++){
double newX = ((points[i].x() - oldXOffset) + newXOffset) * boxRatio;
double newY = ((points[i].y() - oldYOffset) + newYOffset) * boxRatio;
points.replace(i, Point(newX, newY));
}
}
The requested transformations are only translations and scale.
To preserve the original aspect ratio of the inner box, the scale factor must be the same for the x and the y axes. To choose which one to apply, the user should compare the ratio between the width and the height of the new outer box with the aspect ratio of the old inner box. If it's lower, the scale should be the ratio between the new width and the old one, otherwise the ratio between the heights.
To respect the correct order of the transformations, you need to first apply a translation of the points so that the old center of inner box coincides with the origin of the axes (the top left corner of the outer box, apparently), then scale the points and finally translate back to the new center of the outer box. That's not what the posted code attempts to do, because it seems that the scale is applied last.

Find the distance between a 3D point and an Orientated Ellipse in 3D space (C++)

To give some background to this question, I'm creating a game that needs to know whether the 'Orbit' of an object is within tolerance to another Orbit. To show this, I plot a Torus-shape with a given radius (the tolerance) using the Target Orbit, and now I need to check if the ellipse is within that torus.
I'm getting lost in the equations on Math/Stack exchange so asking for a more specific solution. For clarification, here's an image of the game with the Torus and an Orbit (the red line). Quite simply, I want to check if that red orbit is within that Torus shape.
What I believe I need to do, is plot four points in World-Space on one of those orbits (easy enough to do). I then need to calculate the shortest distance between that point, and the other orbits' ellipse. This is the difficult part. There are several examples out there of finding the shortest distance of a point to an ellipse, but all are 2D and quite difficult to follow.
If that distance is then less than the tolerance for all four points, then in think that equates to the orbit being inside the target torus.
For simplicity, the origin of all of these orbits is always at the world Origin (0, 0, 0) - and my coordinate system is Z-Up. Each orbit has a series of parameters that defines it (Orbital Elements).
Here simple approach:
Sample each orbit to set of N points.
Let points from first orbit be A and from second orbit B.
const int N=36;
float A[N][3],B[N][3];
find 2 closest points
so d=|A[i]-B[i]| is minimal. If d is less or equal to your margin/treshold then orbits are too close to each other.
speed vs. accuracy
Unless you are using some advanced method for #2 then its computation will be O(N^2) which is a bit scary. The bigger the N the better accuracy of result but a lot more time to compute. There are ways how to remedy both. For example:
first sample with small N
when found the closest points sample both orbits again
but only near those points in question (with higher N).
you can recursively increase accuracy by looping #2 until you have desired precision
test d if ellipses are too close to each other
I think I may have a new solution.
Plot the four points on the current orbit (the ellipse).
Project those points onto the plane of the target orbit (the torus).
Using the Target Orbit inclination as the normal of a plane, calculate the angle between each (normalized) point and the argument of periapse
on the target orbit.
Use this angle as the mean anomaly, and compute the equivalent eccentric anomaly.
Use those eccentric anomalies to plot the four points on the target orbit - which should be the nearest points to the other orbit.
Check the distance between those points.
The difficulty here comes from computing the angle and converting it to the anomaly on the other orbit. This should be more accurate and faster than a recursive function though. Will update when I've tried this.
EDIT:
Yep, this works!
// The Four Locations we will use for the checks
TArray<FVector> CurrentOrbit_CheckPositions;
TArray<FVector> TargetOrbit_ProjectedPositions;
CurrentOrbit_CheckPositions.SetNum(4);
TargetOrbit_ProjectedPositions.SetNum(4);
// We first work out the plane of the target orbit.
const FVector Target_LANVector = FVector::ForwardVector.RotateAngleAxis(TargetOrbit.LongitudeAscendingNode, FVector::UpVector); // Vector pointing to Longitude of Ascending Node
const FVector Target_INCVector = FVector::UpVector.RotateAngleAxis(TargetOrbit.Inclination, Target_LANVector); // Vector pointing up the inclination axis (orbit normal)
const FVector Target_AOPVector = Target_LANVector.RotateAngleAxis(TargetOrbit.ArgumentOfPeriapsis, Target_INCVector); // Vector pointing towards the periapse (closest approach)
// Geometric plane of the orbit, using the inclination vector as the normal.
const FPlane ProjectionPlane = FPlane(Target_INCVector, 0.f); // Plane of the orbit. We only need the 'normal', and the plane origin is the Earths core (periapse focal point)
// Plot four points on the current orbit, using an equally-divided eccentric anomaly.
const float ECCAngle = PI / 2.f;
for (int32 i = 0; i < 4; i++)
{
// Plot the point, then project it onto the plane
CurrentOrbit_CheckPositions[i] = PosFromEccAnomaly(i * ECCAngle, CurrentOrbit);
CurrentOrbit_CheckPositions[i] = FVector::PointPlaneProject(CurrentOrbit_CheckPositions[i], ProjectionPlane);
// TODO: Distance from the plane is the 'Depth'. If the Depth is > Acceptance Radius, we are outside the torus and can early-out here
// Normalize the point to find it's direction in world-space (origin in our case is always 0,0,0)
const FVector PositionDirectionWS = CurrentOrbit_CheckPositions[i].GetSafeNormal();
// Using the Inclination as the comparison plane - find the angle between the direction of this vector, and the Argument of Periapse vector of the Target orbit
// TODO: we can probably compute this angle once, using the Periapse vectors from each orbit, and just multiply it by the Index 'I'
float Angle = FMath::Acos(FVector::DotProduct(PositionDirectionWS, Target_AOPVector));
// Compute the 'Sign' of the Angle (-180.f - 180.f), using the Cross Product
const FVector Cross = FVector::CrossProduct(PositionDirectionWS, Target_AOPVector);
if (FVector::DotProduct(Cross, Target_INCVector) > 0)
{
Angle = -Angle;
}
// Using the angle directly will give us the position at th eccentric anomaly. We want to take advantage of the Mean Anomaly, and use it as the ecc anomaly
// We can use this to plot a point on the target orbit, as if it was the eccentric anomaly.
Angle = Angle - TargetOrbit.Eccentricity * FMathD::Sin(Angle);
TargetOrbit_ProjectedPositions[i] = PosFromEccAnomaly(Angle, TargetOrbit);}
I hope the comments describe how this works. Finally solved after several months of head-scratching. Thanks all!

c++ Collision Detection for a turning rectangle

I have some collision detection working when my player hits an object. But this only works when my players x & y co-ordinates hit my marker (which is the centre of my character).
Would making a method returning a vector of all of the coordinates that the players texture cover work and what is the best way to implement this?
This is being done in c++ creating a top down game
There are many ways to do it, most simply is probably(depending on you use of classes etc).
This is the simplest, but no where near the best, or infact very good at all. This way means changing your "marker" to the bottom left of the rectangle.
void collisions()
{
//check if the x-coord is between the furthest left and furthest right x coords
if(rect.Getx() > someObject.Getx() && rect.Getx() < someObject.Getx() + someObject.GetWidth())
{
rect.SetMoveSpeed(0);
}
if(rect.Gety() > someObject.Gety() && rect.Gety() < someObject.Gety() + someObject.GetHeight())
{
rect.setMoveSpeed(0);
}
}
You would then have to set the move speed to normal when it is not colliding. That could be done with an else after each if, setting the move speed again. This is a quick fix and is not recommended for use in a game you plan to distribute anywhere.

Best way to get the nearest intersection point in a grid

I'm using Cocos2D for iPhone to build up a game.I have a grid on the screen drawn by horizontal and vertical lines.(I did it with CCDrawNode) As you might guess there're lots of intersection points in there, I mean the points where horizontal and vertical lines intersect. With every touchBegan-Moved-Ended routine I draw a line, a bolder and different color line. In touchesMoved method I need to find the intersection point nearest to the current end point of the line and stick the line end to that point. How can I do that? I have one idea in my mind which is to add all the intersection points to an array when drawing the grid, iterate through that array and find the closest one. But I think this is not the best approach. You have any better ideas?
Assuming it is a normal grid with evenly spaced lines (e.g. every 10 pixels apart), you are much better off using a formula to tell you where an intersection should be.
E.g. given end point X/Y of 17,23, then x(17)/x-spacing(10) = 1.7, rounds to 2. 2*x-spacing = 20. y/y-spacing=2.3 -> 2*20 = 20. Thus your intersection is 20,20.
EDIT: more detailed example, in C# as that's what I use, if I get time I'll write an Objective-C sample
// defined somewhere and used to draw the grid
private int _spacingX = 10;
private int _spacingY = 10;
public Point GetNearestIntersection(int x, int y)
{
// round off to the nearest vertical/horizontal line number
double tempX = Math.Round((double)x / _spacingX);
double tempY = Math.Round((double)y / _spacingY);
// convert back to pixels
int nearestX = (int)tempX * _spacingX;
int nearestY = (int)tempY * _spacingY;
return new Point(nearestX, nearestY);
}
NOTE: the code above is left quite verbose to help you understand, you could easily re-write it to be cleaner

Collision Detection Between Rectangles - Resulting Angles

Basically I have a bunch of rectangles floating around at 8 different angles (45 degrees, 90 degrees etc). I have collision detection going on between all of them, but one thing still doesn't work as it should. I don't know if I'm just not thinking or what, but I can't seem to get the resulting angles right. I've also tried searching multiple places, but haven't really gained anything from what I've found.
NOTE: the angle system here starts at 0 at the top and increases clockwise.
NOTE: all rectangles have the same mass
Say one rectangle going straight right (90 degrees) hits another going straight left (270 degrees). They will hit off of each other just fine.
Now say one going left gets hit by one going up. Here I can't simply reverse the angles or anything.
If you have more than one way, consider the following: unless I rearrange the CD so it spreads into the other code, I have the positions of all of the rectangles. The CD checks by seeing if two are overlapping, not by comparing where they are going.
As I've been working on pretty much everything except for the collision detection until now, I only have tonight left to get it working and add a few other small things before I'm done.
If you know of a way to make the angles come out right without hardcoding, great. At this point I'm ready to hardcode it (not too much really) if all I have is which rectangle hits the other (ex 2), or if they both do (ex 1). Either one is really helpful.
I think you mean something like this...
Each Rectangle has this functionality, testing against, say an array of other objects.
Obstacle* obstacle = new Obstacle;
Obstacle** obstacles = obstacle*[];
For(int i = 0; i <3; i++)
{
obstacles[0] = New Obstacle(x,y, etc...);
etc...
}
Or something similar... this is a little rusty
void collision(obstacles)
{
for(int i = 0; i < obstacles.sizeOf();i++)
{
//bottom y
if((this.ypos + this.height) > (obstacles[i].ypos - obstacles[i].height))
obstacles[i].doYCollision(this);
//top y
if((this.ypos - this.height) < (obstacles[i].ypos + obstacles[i].height))
obstacles[i].doYCollision(this);
//right x
if((this.xpos + this.width) > (obstacles[i].xpos - obstacles[i].width))
obstacles[i].doXCollision(this);
//left x
if((this.xpos - this.width) < (obstacles[i].xpos + obstacles[i].width))
obstacles[i].doXCollision(this);
}
}
again im a little rusty but if you follow it you should be able to relaise what im doing.
then all you need is the resulting function calls.
void doYCollision(Obstacle obstacle)
{
// Whatever y direction they are going do the opposite
obstacle.yDir = obstacle.yDir * -1;
}
void doXCollision(Obstacle obstacle)
{
// Whatever x direction they are going do the opposite
obstacle.xDir = obstacle.xDir * -1;
}
where yDir, xDir is the x and y velocity of the current object.
i should point out again this is very rusty and without having some code from you this is the best ive got. but either way this should start you off into collision detection, the code above shoudl allow for all collisions with all obstacles/objects/pink flamingos/ whatever youve got. Im hoping also that itll do what you want when it comes to multiple collisions at the same time.
You shouldnt need to worry too much about the exact angle (unless you need it for something else), as velocity is a vector mass so has both speed and direction and you can get direction by treating x and y as two different elements. You can do this using the dot product method aswell => http://www.topcoder.com/tc?d1=tutorials&d2=geometry1&module=Static, but if they are just rectangles this should be fine.
Hopes this helps