I have a vector holding 10 items (all of the same class for simplicity call it 'a'). What I want to do is to check that 'A' isn't either a) hiding the walls or b) hiding another 'A'. I have a collisions function that does this.
The idea is simply to have this looping class go though and move 'A' to the next position, if that potion is causing a collision then it needs to give itself a new random position on the screen. Because the screen is small, there is a good chance that the element will be put onto of another one (or on top of the wall etc). The logic of the code works well in my head - but debugging the code the object just gets stuck in the loop, and stay in the same position. 'A' is supposed to move about the screen, but it stays still!
When I comment out the Do while loop, and move the 'MoveObject()' Function up the code works perfectly the 'A's are moving about the screen. It is just when I try and add the extra functionality to it is when it doesn't work.
void Board::Loop(void){
//Display the postion of that Element.
for (unsigned int i = 0; i <= 10; ++i){
do {
if (checkCollisions(i)==true){
moveObject(i);
}
else{
objects[i]->ResetPostion();
}
}
while (checkCollisions(i) == false);
objects[i]->SetPosition(objects[i]->getXDir(),objects[i]->getYDir());
}
}
The class below is the collision detection. This I will expand later.
bool Board::checkCollisions(int index){
char boundry = map[objects[index]->getXDir()][objects[index]->getYDir()];
//There has been no collisions - therefore don't change anything
if(boundry == SYMBOL_EMPTY){
return false;
}
else{
return true;
}
}
Any help would be much appreciated. I will buy you a virtual beer :-)
Thanks
Edit:
ResetPostion -> this will give the element A a random position on the screen
moveObject -> this will look at the direction of the object and adjust the x and Y cord's appropriately.
I guess you need: do { ...
... } while (checkCollisions(i));
Also, if you have 10 elements, then i = 0; i < 10; i++
And btw. don't write if (something == true), simply if (something) or if (!something)
for (unsigned int i = 0; i <= 10; ++i){
is wrong because that's a loop for eleven items, use
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < 10; ++i){
instead.
You don't define what 'doesn't work' means, so that's all the help I can give for now.
There seems to be a lot of confusion here over basic language structure and logic flow. Writing a few very simple test apps that exercise different language features will probably help you a lot. (So will a step-thru debugger, if you have one)
do/while() is a fairly advanced feature that some people spend whole careers never using, see: do...while vs while
I recommend getting a solid foundation with while and if/else before even using for. Your first look at do should be when you've just finished a while or for loop and realize you could save a mountain of duplicate initialization code if you just changed the order of execution a bit. (Personally I don't even use do for that any more, I just use an iterator with while(true)/break since it lets me pre and post code all within a single loop)
I think this simplifies what you're trying to accomplish:
void Board::Loop(void) {
//Display the postion of that Element.
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
while(IsGoingToCollide(i)) //check is first, do while doesn't make sense
objects[i]->ResetPosition();
moveObject(i); //same as ->SetPosition(XDir, YDir)?
//either explain difference or remove one or the other
}
}
This function name seems ambiguous to me:
bool Board::checkCollisions(int index) {
I'd recommend changing it to:
// returns true if moving to next position (based on inertia) will
// cause overlap with any other object's or structure's current location
bool Board::IsGoingToCollide(int index) {
In contrast checkCollisions() could also mean:
// returns true if there is no overlap between this object's
// current location and any other object's or structure's current location
bool Board::DidntCollide(int index) {
Final note: Double check that ->ResetPosition() puts things inside the boundaries.
Related
I am doing a homework problem that I have a question about. If you don't feel comfortable assisting with a homework problem, I should say that my instructor has encouraged us to ask for help on this site when we are completely stumped. Also, I have completed the basic portion of the assignment on my own, and am now doing an optional challenge problem. Anyway, on to the problem!
Being new to OOP and C++ in general, I am having trouble understanding the "this->" operator. We haven't covered it in class, but I have seen it elsewhere and I am sort-of guessing how it is meant to be used.
For the assignment, I have to create a console based Tic-Tac-Toe game. Only the challenge portion of the assignment wants us to create an AI opponent, and we don't get any extra credit for doing the challenge, I just want to know how to do it. I am studying things like minimax and game trees, but for now I just wanted to create a "pick a random, open spot" function.
I have a class called TicTacToe which is basically the entire program. I will post it below with the parts that are relevant to the question, but part that is giving me an error is this subroutine:
void TicTacToe::makeAutoMove(){
srand(time(NULL));
int row = rand() % 3 + 1;
int col = rand() % 3 + 1;
if(this->isValidMove(row, col)){
this->makeMove(row, col);
}else{
this->makeAutoMove();
}
}
The only thing that this function is meant to do is make a move on the board, assuming that it is open. The board is set up like:
char board[4][4];
and when I print it, it looks like:
1 2 3
1 - - -
2 - - -
3 - - -
The problem, is that on occasion a move is made by the computer that gives me an error that is difficult to track down because of the random nature of the function. I believe it is a segfault error, but I can't tell because I can't replicate it in my debugger.
I think that the "this->" operator functions as a pointer, and if a pointer is NULL and it is accessed it could give me this problem. Is this correct? Is there a way to fix this?
I understand that this may be a very low-level question to many of the members of the community, but I would appreciate your help as long as it doesn't come with snide remarks about how trivial this is, or how stupid I must be. I'm LEARNING, which means that I am going to have some silly questions sometimes.
Here is more of my .cpp file if it helps:
TicTacToe::TicTacToe()
{
for(int row = 0; row < kNumRows; row++){
for(int col = 0; col < kNumCols; col++){
if(col == 0 && row == 0){
board[row][col] = ' ';
}else if(col == 0){
board[row][col] = static_cast<char>('0' + row);
}else if(row == 0){
board[row][col] = static_cast<char>('0' + col);
}else{
board[row][col] = '-';
}
}
}
currentPlayer = 'X';
}
char TicTacToe::getCurrentPlayer(){
return currentPlayer;
}
char TicTacToe::getWinner(){
//Check for diagonals (Only the middle square can do this)
char middle = board[2][2];
if(board[1][1] == middle && board[3][3] == middle && middle != '-'){
return middle;
}else if(middle == board[3][1] && middle == board[1][3] && middle != '-'){
return middle;
}
//Check for horizontal wins
for(int row = 1; row < kNumRows; row++){
if(board[row][1] == board[row][2] && board[row][2] == board[row][3] && board[row][1] != '-'){
return board[row][1];
}
}
//Check for vertical wins
for(int col = 1; col < kNumCols; col++){
if(board[1][col] == board[2][col] && board[2][col] == board[3][col] && board[1][col] != '-'){
return board[1][col];
}
}
//Otherwise, in the case of a tie game, return a dash.
return '-';
}
void TicTacToe::makeMove(int row, int col){
board[row][col] = currentPlayer;
if(currentPlayer == 'X'){
currentPlayer = 'O';
}else if(currentPlayer == 'O'){
currentPlayer = 'X';
}
}
//TODO: Make sure this works after you make the make-move function
bool TicTacToe::isDone(){
bool fullBoard = true;
//First check to see if the board is full
for(int col = 1; col < kNumCols; col++){
for(int row = 1; row < kNumRows; row++){
if(board[row][col] == '-'){
fullBoard = false;
}
}
}
//If the board is full, the game is done. Otherwise check for consecutives.
if(fullBoard){
return true;
}else{
//Check for diagonals (Only the middle square can do this)
char middle = board[2][2];
if(board[1][1] == middle && board[3][3] == middle && middle != '-'){
return true;
}else if(middle == board[3][1] && middle == board[1][3] && middle != '-'){
return true;
}
//Check for horizontal wins
for(int row = 1; row < kNumRows; row++){
if(board[row][1] == board[row][2] && board[row][2] == board[row][3] && board[row][1] != '-'){
return true;
}
}
//Check for vertical wins
for(int col = 1; col < kNumCols; col++){
if(board[1][col] == board[2][col] && board[2][col] == board[3][col] && board[1][col] != '-'){
return true;
}
}
}
//If all other tests fail, then the game is not done
return false;
}
bool TicTacToe::isValidMove(int row, int col){
if(board[row][col] == '-' && row <= 3 && col <= 3){
return true;
}else{
//cout << "That is an invalid move" << endl;
return false;
}
}
void TicTacToe::print(){
for(int row = 0; row < kNumRows; row++){
for(int col = 0; col < kNumCols; col++){
cout << setw(3) << board[row][col];
}
cout << endl;
}
}
A general preface: you almost never need to use this explicitly. In a member function, in order to refer to member variables or member methods, you simply name the variable or method. As with:
class Foo
{
int mN;
public:
int getIt()
{
return mN; // this->mN legal but not needed
}
};
I think that the "this->" operator functions as a pointer, and if a
pointer is NULL and it is accessed it could give me this problem. Is
this correct? Is there a way to fix this?
this is a pointer, yes. (Actually, it's a keyword.) If you call a non-static member function of a class, this points to the object. For instance, if we were to call getIt() above:
int main()
{
Foo f;
int a = f.getIt();
}
then this would point to f from main().
Static member functions do not have a this pointer. this cannot be NULL, and you cannot change the value of this.
There are several cases in C++ where using this is one way to solve a problem, and other cases where this must be used. See this post for a list of these situations.
I could reproduce the bug on coliru's g++4.8.1 when not compiling with optimizations. As I said in a comment, the problem is the srand combined with time and the recursion:
The return value of time is often the Unix time, in seconds. That is, if you call time within the same second, you'll get the same return value. When using this return value to seed srand (via srand(time(NULL))), you'll therefore set the same seed within this second.
void TicTacToe::makeAutoMove(){
srand(time(NULL));
int row = rand() % 3 + 1;
int col = rand() % 3 + 1;
if(this->isValidMove(row, col)){
this->makeMove(row, col);
}else{
this->makeAutoMove();
}
}
If you don't compile with optimizations, or the compiler otherwise needs to use stack space to do an iteration of makeAutoMove, each call will occupy a bit of the stack. Therefore, when called often enough, this will produce a Stack Overflow (luckily, you went to the right site).
As the seed doesn't change within the same second, the calls to rand will also produce the same values within that second - for each iteration, the first rand will always produce some value X and the second always some value Y within that second.
If X and Y lead to an invalid move, you'll get infinite recursion until the seeding changes. If your computer is fast enough, it might call makeAutoMove often enough to occupy enough stack space within that second to cause a Stack Overflow.
Note that it's not required to seed the Pseudo-Random Number Generator used by rand more than once. Typically, you do only seed once, to initialize the PRNG. Subsequent calls to rand then produce pseudo-random numbers.
From cppreference:
Each time rand() is seeded with srand(), it must produce the same sequence of values.
cppreference: rand, srand
Here is the first pass:
Arrays start counting from zero. So you do not need the +1 in lines like rand() % 3 + 1;
Indeed this is a point to the current object. Usually you do not need to use it. i.e. this->makeMove(row, col); and makeMove(row, col); work the same
char board[4][4];1 should bechar board[3][3];` as you want a 3x3 board. See 1) above
board[row][col] = static_cast<char>('0' + row); - You do not need the static cast '0' + row will suffice
You need to take account of (1) in the rest of your code
If you get segmentation problems it is best to use the debugger. A very skill to learn
Anyway - Good luck with your studies. It is refreshing to get a new poster on this web site that is keen to learn
Just a side note about recursion, efficiency, robust coding and how being paranoid can help.
Here is a "cleaned up" version of your problematic function.
See other answers for explanations about what went wrong with the original.
void TicTacToe::makeAutoMove() {
// pick a random position
int row = rand() % 3;
int col = rand() % 3;
// if it corresponds to a valid move
if (isValidMove(row, col)){
// play it
makeMove(row, col);
}else{
// try again
makeAutoMove(); // <-- makeAutoMove is calling itself
}
}
Recursion
In plain English you could describe what the code does as:
pick a random (row, col) couple.
if this couple represents a valid move position, play that move
else try again
Calling makeAutoMove() is indeed a very logical way of trying again, but a not so efficient one programming-wise.
Each new call will cause some memory allocation on the stack:
4 bytes for each local variable (8 bytes in total)
4 bytes for the return address
So the stack consumption will look like:
makeAutoMove <-- 12 bytes
makeAutoMove <-- 24
makeAutoMove <-- 36
makeAutoMove <-- 48
<-- etc.
Imagine for a second that you inadvertently call this function in a situation where it cannot succeed (when a game has ended and no more valid moves are available).
The function will then call itself endlessly. It will be only a matter of time before stack memory gets exhausted and the program crashes. And, given the computing power of your average PC, the crash will occur in the blink of an eye.
This extreme case illustrates the (hidden) cost of using recursive calls. But even if the function eventually succeeds, the cost of each retry is still there.
The things we can learn from there:
recursive calls have a cost
they can lead to crashes when the termination conditions are not met
a lot of them (but not all of them) can easily be replaced by loops, as we will see
As a side note within the side note, as dyp duly noted, modern compilers are so smart they can, for various reasons, detect some patterns within the code that allow them to eliminate such kind of recursive calls.
Nevertheless, you never know if your particular compiler will be smart enough to remove banana peels from under your sloppy feets, so better avoid slopiness altogether, if you ask me.
Avoiding recursion
To get rid of that naughty recursion, we could implement the try again like so:
void TicTacToe::makeAutoMove() {
try_again:
int row = rand() % 3;
int col = rand() % 3;
if (isValidMove(row, col)){
makeMove(row, col);
}else{
goto try_again; // <-- try again by jumping to function start
}
}
After all, we don't really need to call our function again. Jumping back to the start of it will be enough. That's what the goto does.
Good news is, we got rid of the recursion without changing much of the code.
Not so good news is, we used an ugly construct to do so.
Preserving regular program flow
We don't want to keep that ungainly goto since it breaks the usual control flow and makes the code very difficult to understand, maintain and debug *.
We can, however, replace it easily with a conditional loop:
void TicTacToe::makeAutoMove() {
// while a valid move has not been found
bool move_found = false;
while (! move_found) {
// pick a random position
int row = rand() % 3;
int col = rand() % 3;
// if it corresponds to a valid move
if (isValidMove(row, col)){
// play it
makeMove(row, col);
move_found = true; // <-- stop trying
}
}
}
The good: bye bye Mr goto
The bad : hello Mrs move_found
Keeping the code sleek
We swapped the goto for a flag.
It's already better (the program flow is not broken anymore), but we have added some complexity to the code.
We can relatively easily get rid of the flag:
while (true) { // no way out ?!?
// pick a random position
int row = rand() % 3;
int col = rand() % 3;
// if it corresponds to a valid move
if (isValidMove(row, col)){
// play it
makeMove(row, col);
break; // <-- found the door!
}
}
}
The good: bye bye Mrs move_found
The bad : we use a break, that is little more than a tamed goto (something like "goto the end of the loop").
We could end the improvements there, but there is still something annoying with this version: the exit condition of the loop is hidden within the code, which makes it more difficult to understand at first glance.
Using explicit exit conditions
Exit conditions are especially important to figure whether a piece of code will work or not (the reason why our function gets stuck forever is precisely that there are some cases where the exit condition is never met).
So it's always a good idea to make exit conditions stand out as clearly as possible.
Here is a way to make the exit condition more apparent:
void TicTacToe::makeAutoMove() {
// pick a random valid move
int row, col;
do {
row = rand() % 3;
col = rand() % 3;
} while (!isValidMove (row, col)); // <-- if something goes wrong, it's here
// play it
makeMove(row, col);
}
You could probably do it a bit differently. It does not matter as long as we achieve all of these goals:
no recursion
no extraneous variables
meaningful exit condition
sleek code
When you compare the latest refinement with the original version, you can see that it has mutated to something significantly different.
Code robustness
As we have seen, this function can never succeed in case no more legal moves are available (i.e. the game has ended).
This design can work, but it requires the rest of your algorithm to make sure end game conditions are properly checked before this function is called.
This makes your function dependent on external conditions, with nasty consequences if these conditions are not met (a program hangup and/or crash).
This makes this solution a fragile design choice.
Paranoia to the rescue
You might want to keep this fragile design for various reasons. For instance, you might prefer to wine & dine your g/f rather than dedicating your evening to software robustness improvements.
Even if your g/f eventually learns how to cope with geeks, there will be cases when the best solution you can think of will have inherent potential inconsistencies.
This is perfectly OK, as long as these inconsistencies are spotted and guarded against.
A first step toward code robustness is to make sure a potentially dangerous design choice will be detected, if not corrected altogether.
A way of doing so is to enter a paranoid state of mind, imagining that every system call will fail, the caller of any of your function will do its best to make it crash, every user input will come from a rabid Russian hacker, etc.
In our case, we don't need to hire a rabid Russian hacker and there is no system call in sight. Still, we know how an evil programmer could get us in trouble, so we will try to guard against that:
void TicTacToe::makeAutoMove() {
// pick a random valid move
int row, col;
int watchdog = 0; // <-- let's get paranoid
do {
row = rand() % 3;
col = rand() % 3;
assert (watchdog++ < 1000); // <-- inconsistency detection
} while (!isValidMove (row, col));
// play it
makeMove(row, col);
}
assert is a macro that will force a program exit if the condition passed as parameter is not met, with a console message and/or popup window saying something like assertion "watchdog++ < 1000" failed in tictactoe.cpp line 238.
You can see it as a way to bail out of a program if a fatal algorithmic flaw (i.e. the kind of flaw that will require a source code overhaul, so there is little point in keeping this inconsistent version of the program running) has been detected.
By adding the watchdog, we make sure the program will explicitely exit if it detects an abnormal condition, indicating gracefully the location of the potential problem (tictactoe.cpp line 238 in our case).
While refactoring your code to eliminate inconsistencies can be difficult or even impossible, detecting inconsistencies is most often very easy and cheap.
The condition have not to be very precise, the only point is to make sure your code is executing in a "reasonably" consistent context.
In this example, the actual number of trials to get a legit move is not easy to estimate (it's based on cumulative probabilities to hit a cell where a move is forbidden), but we can easily figure that failing to find a legit move after 1000 tries means something went seriously wrong with the algorithm.
Since this code is just there to increase robustness, it does not have to be efficient. It's just a means to go from the "why the hell does my program hang?!?" situation to the "dang, I must have called makeAutoMove after end game" (near) immediate realization.
Once you've tested and proved your program, and if you have really good reasons for that (namely, if your paranoid checks cause serious performance issues) you can take the decision to cleanup that paranoid code, leaving very explicit comments in your source about the way this particular piece of code shall be used.
Actually there are means to keep the paranoid code live without sacrificing efficiency, but that's another story.
What it boils down to is:
get used to notice potential inconsistencies in your code, especially when these inconsistencies can have serious consequences
try to make sure as many pieces of your code as possible can detect inconsistencies
sprinkle your code with paranoid checks to increase your chances of detecting wrong moves early
Code refactoring
In an ideal world, each function should give a consistent result and leave the system in a consistent state. That rarely happens in real life, unless you accept some limitations to your creativity.
However, it could be interesting to see what you could achieve if you designed a tic-tac-toe 2.0 with these guidelines in mind. I'm sure you would find a lot of helpful reviewers here on StackOverflow.
Feel free to ask if you found some points of interest in all these rants, and welcome to the wonderful world of geeks :)
(kuroi dot neko at wanadoo dot fr)
* goto might look harmless enough in such a small example, but you can trust me on this: abusing goto will lead you to a world of pain. Just don't do it unless you have a very, very good reason.
I know that in order to kill invaders in C++, I need to make a collider.
However, nothing will ever kill the invaders in that game.
Here's the code in the header:
bool DoCollision(float Xbpos, float Ybpos, int BulWidth, int BulHeight, float Xipos, float Yipos, int InvWidth, int InvHeight);
This is the function I'm initializing:
bool Game::DoCollision(float Xbpos, float Ybpos, int BulWidth, int BulHeight, float Xipos, float Yipos, int InvWidth, int InvHeight) {
if (Xbpos+BulWidth < Xipos || Xbpos > Xipos+InvWidth) return false;
if (Ybpos+BulHeight < Yipos || Ybpos > Yipos+InvHeight) return false;
return true;
}
And this is what happens if somebody presses the space key:
if (code == 57) { //Space
myKeyInvader.MeBullet.Active = true;
myKeyInvader.MeBullet.Xpos = myKeyInvader.Xpos + 10;
myKeyInvader.MeBullet.Ypos = myKeyInvader.Ypos - 10;
myKeyInvader.MeBullet.yvuel = 0.2;
myKeyInvader.MeBullet.BulletP->CopyTo(m_Screen,myKeyInvader.Xpos,myKeyInvader.Ypos);
if (DoCollision(Invaders[counter].MyBullet.Xbpos,Invaders[counter].MyBullet.Ybpos,Invaders[counter].MyBullet.BulWidth,
Invaders[counter].MyBullet.BulHeight,Invaders[counter].Xipos,Invaders[counter].Yipos,Invaders[counter].InvWidth,Invaders[counter].InvHeight)) {
//myKeyInvader.Ypos = 100;
Invaders[counter].Active = false;
printf("Collide!\n");
}
}
Does anybody know what's going wrong?
The problem isn't C++. The problem is how you are using it. The only way you'll get a kill with your code as written is if the invader is right on top of you. But that's too late. The alien invader has already killed you.
What you need to do is make those bullets into objects that you propagate over time, just like your invaders are objects that you propagate over time. The response to the user pressing a space key should be to add a new instance of a bullet to the set of active bullets. Each of those active bullets has a position that changes with time. On each time step, you should advance the states of the active invaders per the rules that dictate how invaders move and advance the states of the active bullets per the rules that dictate how bullets move. Remove bullets when they reach the top of the screen, and if an alien invader reaches the bottom of the screen, game over.
After propagating, removing off-screen bullets, and checking for game over, you want to check for collisions between each of the N bullets with each of the M invaders. When a collision is detected, remove the bullet from the set of active bullets and delete the alien invader from the set of active invaders. And of course you'll want some nifty graphics to show the user that another alien bit the dust.
Aside: Being an NxM problem, this check might be the biggest drain on CPU usage. You can speed this up with some simple heuristics.
You could manage the collections of alien invaders and bullets yourself, carefully using new and delete so as to prevent your invaders and bullets from killing your program with a memory leak. You don't have to do this. C++ gives you some nifty tools to manage these collections. Use one of the C++ standard library collections instead of rolling your own collection. For example, std::vector<AlienInvader> invaders; or std::list<AlienInvader> invaders, and the same for bullets. You'll be deleting from the middle a lot, which suggests that std::list or std::deque might be more appropriate than std::vector here.
You test the collision for the fired item just when they are created
Shouldn't be the test collision done in the main loop for each existing item at each frame ?
Don't worry, C++ has got all you need to kill invaders :)))
It's not easy to give advice based on so little code, but here the only logical error seems to be you test for collision only when space is pressed; you should test for it in an outside loop probably:
if (code == 57) { //Space
myKeyInvader.MeBullet.Active = true;
myKeyInvader.MeBullet.Xpos = myKeyInvader.Xpos + 10;
myKeyInvader.MeBullet.Ypos = myKeyInvader.Ypos - 10;
myKeyInvader.MeBullet.yvuel = 0.2;
myKeyInvader.MeBullet.BulletP->CopyTo(m_Screen,myKeyInvader.Xpos,myKeyInvader.Ypos);
}
From a logical point of view, pressing Space should fire a bullet: the starting position for the bullet is set, and so is its speed on the Y axis (so that it goes up).
The code that check for collision should go outside of this if block. In fact, this block of code is executed only if you're still pressing space -that is: still firing-. Should collision be checked only if you're "still firing"? Do the fact that you fired a bullet and started waiting for it to destroy the invader interfere in some way with the fact that this bullet can reach the invader and, indeed, destroy it? Of course not!
if (DoCollision(Invaders[counter].MyBullet.Xbpos,Invaders[counter].MyBullet.Ybpos,Invaders[counter].MyBullet.BulWidth,
Invaders[counter].MyBullet.BulHeight,Invaders[counter].Xipos,Invaders[counter].Yipos,Invaders[counter].InvWidth,Invaders[counter].InvHeight)) {
//myKeyInvader.Ypos = 100;
Invaders[counter].Active = false;
printf("Collide!\n");
}
You want collision to be checked in an outside loop, the same that probably also contains the checks for key presses. In this way, even if you're just looking at the screen and waiting, the program keeps testing the condition and, when it's fulfilled, code associated with the event of collision is executed (that is: an invader is "inactivated").
You say //Space , is that what it is or should it be 32 (if ASCII) instead of 57? Does the program flow into the if==57 block?
Your code looks fine, but you need two loops around the collision checker: one for checking all invaders (not just one of them) and another one to check at every bullet position along its trajectory, not just the moment when it leaves the gun.
I will assume we have an auxiliary function that moves the bullet and returns whether it is still inside the screen:
bool BulletIsInScreen();
Then we can write the loops:
if (code == 57) { // Space
while (BulletIsInScreen()) {
for (size_t i = 0; i < counter; ++i) { // counter is the number of invaders,
// according to your comment to your own answer
myKeyInvader.MeBullet.Active = true;
myKeyInvader.MeBullet.Xpos = myKeyInvader.Xpos + 10;
myKeyInvader.MeBullet.Ypos = myKeyInvader.Ypos - 10;
myKeyInvader.MeBullet.yvuel = 0.2;
myKeyInvader.MeBullet.BulletP->CopyTo(m_Screen,myKeyInvader.Xpos,myKeyInvader.Ypos);
if (DoCollision(Invaders[i].MyBullet.Xbpos, Invaders[i].MyBullet.Ybpos,
Invaders[i].MyBullet.BulWidth, Invaders[i].MyBullet.BulHeight,
Invaders[i].Xipos, Invaders[i].Yipos,
Invaders[i].InvWidth, Invaders[i].InvHeight)) {
//myKeyInvader.Ypos = 100;
Invaders[i].Active = false;
printf("Collide!\n");
}
}
}
}
Now this should work as expected.
Here is my code for checking if future move is legal, I have assumed its legal and copied move into mySquares array. I then call this method in the game cycle set in the form and in the timer handler which is:
canvas->drawGrid();
testBlock->drawBlock();
testBlock->moveDown();//this method has checkBounds for when hit sides, top & bottom
if(newBlock->canMoveDown()==false)
{
newBlock->addMySelfToGameBoard();
mainGameBoard->updateGrid();
}
//timer1 handler finish
bool TTetrisBlock::canMoveDown()
{
array<Point>^ temporaryCopy = gcnew array<Point>(4);
bool canGoDown = true;
for(int i=0;i<mySquares->Length;i++)
{
//Set future move
temporaryCopy[i].X = mySquares[i].X;
temporaryCopy[i].Y = mySquares[i].Y+1;
}
//Check if future move cells are full, if not assign values to mySquares
//Check if future move is legal
for(int j=0;j<temporaryCopy->Length;j++)
{
if(gameBoard->isCellOccupied(temporaryCopy[j].X,temporaryCopy[j].Y) == true)
{
mySquares[j].X = temporaryCopy[j].X;
mySquares[j].Y = temporaryCopy[j].Y;
}
}
return canGoDown;
}
//end of moveDown
in my gameboard class i have the method which checks if TCell is occupied or not. TGameBoar holds an array of TCells which has a color and bool isOccupied = false;
bool TGameBoard::isCellOccupied(int c,int r)
{
//Checks if TCell is occupied
return myGrid[c,r]->getIsOccupied();
}
It Crashes and indicates here was the problem, Im currently learning C++ at school. I would appreciate some help. I am also struggling with the Keydown for moving left and right using e->KeyData == Keys::Left) etc. and creating a newblock when gone through loop.
I have my project rar if you want to check it out. I have all the classes done, its just putting it together is the hard bit.
Project Tetris
I see three problems.
First you should only move mySquares when isCellOccupied returns false (not true as you currently have it). I suspect this is the cause of your crash as it looks like you will be moving a block into a cell that is already occupied.
Second, when isCellOccupied returns true you should set canGoDown to false and break out of your for loop (or better yet, make canGoDown (==true) an additional condition of your for loop i.e. j < temporaryCopy->Length && canGoDown). As it is, your function always return true because it is never set to false and that can't be right.
Just making an assumption here, but don't all mySquares consist of 4 elements? You are initializing temporaryCopy with 4 elements but it isn't clear whether mySquares has 4 elements. If not, this could be dangerous as in your first loop you are looping on mySquares->Length and addressing temporaryCopy with that index value, which could be out of range. And then later doing the opposite. It might be better to use a constant (4) in all all loops or better yet, always use mySquares->Length (especially when creating the temporaryCopy array) to ensure that both arrays contain the same number of elements.
Okay, I have been set with the task of comparing this list of Photons using one method (IU) and comparing it with another (TSP). I need to take the first IU photon and compare distances with all of the TSP photons, find the smallest distance, and "pair" them (i.e. set them both in arrays with the same index). Then, I need to take the next photon in the IU list, and compare it to all of the TSP photons, minus the one that was chosen already.
I know I need to use a Boolean array of sorts, with keeping a counter. I can't seem to logic it out entirely.
The code below is NOT standard C++ syntax, as it is written to interact with ROOT (CERN data analysis software).
If you have any questions with the syntax to better understand the code, please ask. I'll happily answer.
I have the arrays and variables declared already. The types that you see are called EEmcParticleCandidate and that's a type that reads from a tree of information, and I have a whole set of classes and headers that tell that how to behave.
Thanks.
Bool_t used[2];
if (num[0]==2 && num[1]==2) {
TIter photonIterIU(mPhotonArray[0]);
while(IU_photon=(EEmcParticleCandidate_t*)photonIterIU.Next()){
if (IU_photon->E > thresh2) {
distMin=1000.0;
index = 0;
IU_PhotonArray[index] = IU_photon;
TIter photonIterTSP(mPhotonArray[1]);
while(TSP_photon=(EEmcParticleCandidate_t*)photonIterTSP.Next()) {
if (TSP_photon->E > thresh2) {
Float_t Xpos_IU = IU_photon->position.fX;
Float_t Ypos_IU = IU_photon->position.fY;
Float_t Xpos_TSP = TSP_photon->position.fX;
Float_t Ypos_TSP = TSP_photon->position.fY;
distance_1 = find distance //formula didnt fit here //
if (distance_1 < distMin){
distMin = distance_1;;
for (Int_t i=0;i<2;i++){
used[i] = false;
} //for
used[index] = true;
TSP_PhotonArray[index] = TSP_photon;
index++;
} //if
} //if thresh
} // while TSP
} //if thresh
} // while IU
Thats all I have at the moment... work in progress, I realize all of the braces aren't closed. This is just a simple logic question.
This may take a few iterations.
As a particle physicist, you should understand the importance of breaking things down into their component parts. Let's start with iterating over all TSP photons. It looks as if the relevant code is here:
TIter photonIterTSP(mPhotonArray[1]);
while(TSP_photon=(EEmcParticleCandidate_t*)photonIterTSP.Next()) {
...
if(a certain condition is met)
TSP_PhotonArray[index] = TSP_photon;
}
So TSP_photon is a pointer, you will be copying it into the array TSP_PhotonArray (if the energy of the photon exceeds a fixed threshold), and you go to a lot of trouble keeping track of which pointers have already been so copied. There is a better way, but for now let's just consider the problem of finding the best match:
distMin=1000.0;
while(TSP_photon= ... ) {
distance_1 = compute_distance_somehow();
if (distance_1 < distMin) {
distMin = distance_1;
TSP_PhotonArray[index] = TSP_photon; // <-- BAD
index++; // <-- VERY BAD
}
}
This is wrong. Suppose you find a TSP_photon with the smallest distance yet seen. You haven't yet checked all TSP photons, so this might not be the best, but you store the pointer anyway, and increment the index. Then if you find another match that's even better, you'll store that one too. Conceptually, it should be something like this:
distMin=1000.0;
best_photon_yet = NULL;
while(TSP_photon= ... ) {
distance_1 = compute_distance_somehow();
if (distance_1 < distMin) {
distMin = distance_1;
best_pointer_yet = TSP_photon;
}
}
// We've now finished searching the whole list of TSP photons.
TSP_PhotonArray[index] = best_photon_yet;
index++;
Post a comment to this answer, telling me if this makes sense; if so, we can proceed, if not, I'll try to clarify.
I'm writing the code for a GUI (in C++), and right now I'm concerned with the organisation of text in lines. One of the problems I'm having is that the code is getting very long and confusing, and I'm starting to get into a n^2 scenario where for every option I add in for the texts presentation, the number of functions I have to write is the square of that. In trying to deal with this, A particular design choice has come up, and I don't know the better method, or the extent of the advantages or disadvantages between them:
I have two methods which are very similar in flow, i.e, iterate through the same objects, taking into account the same constraints, but ultimately perform different operations between this flow. For anyones interest, the methods render the text, and determine if any text overflows the line due to wrapping the text around other objects or simply the end of the line respectively.
These functions need to be copied and rewritten for left, right or centred text, which have different flow, so whatever design choice I make would be repeated three times.
Basically, I could continue what I have now, which is two separate methods to handle these different actions, or I could merge them into one function, which has if statements within it to determine whether or not to render the text or figure out if any text overflows.
Is there a generally accepted right way to going about this? Otherwise, what are the tradeoffs concerned, what are the signs that might indicate one way should be used over the other? Is there some other way of doing things I've missed?
I've edited through this a few times to try and make it more understandable, but if it isn't please ask me some questions so I can edit and explain. I can also post the source code of the two different methods, but they use a lot of functions and objects that would take too long to explain.
// EDIT: Source Code //
Function 1:
void GUITextLine::renderLeftShifted(const GUIRenderInfo& renderInfo) {
if(m_renderLines.empty())
return;
Uint iL = 0;
Array2t<float> renderCoords;
renderCoords.s_x = renderInfo.s_offset.s_x + m_renderLines[0].s_x;
renderCoords.s_y = renderInfo.s_offset.s_y + m_y;
float remainingPixelsInLine = m_renderLines[0].s_y;
for (Uint iTO= 0;iTO != m_text.size();++iTO)
{
if(m_text[iTO].s_pixelWidth <= remainingPixelsInLine)
{
string preview = m_text[iTO].s_string;
m_text[iTO].render(&renderCoords);
remainingPixelsInLine -= m_text[iTO].s_pixelWidth;
}
else
{
FSInternalGlyphData intData = m_text[iTO].stealFSFastFontInternalData();
float characterWidth = 0;
Uint iFirstCharacterOfRenderLine = 0;
for(Uint iC = 0;;++iC)
{
if(iC == m_text[iTO].s_string.size())
{
// wrap up
string renderPart = m_text[iTO].s_string;
renderPart.erase(iC, renderPart.size());
renderPart.erase(0, iFirstCharacterOfRenderLine);
m_text[iTO].s_font->renderString(renderPart.c_str(), intData,
&renderCoords);
break;
}
characterWidth += m_text[iTO].s_font->getWidthOfGlyph(intData,
m_text[iTO].s_string[iC]);
if(characterWidth > remainingPixelsInLine)
{
// Can't push in the last character
// No more space in this line
// First though, render what we already have:
string renderPart = m_text[iTO].s_string;
renderPart.erase(iC, renderPart.size());
renderPart.erase(0, iFirstCharacterOfRenderLine);
m_text[iTO].s_font->renderString(renderPart.c_str(), intData,
&renderCoords);
if(++iL != m_renderLines.size())
{
remainingPixelsInLine = m_renderLines[iL].s_y;
renderCoords.s_x = renderInfo.s_offset.s_x + m_renderLines[iL].s_x;
// Cool, so now try rendering this character again
--iC;
iFirstCharacterOfRenderLine = iC;
characterWidth = 0;
}
else
{
// Quit
break;
}
}
}
}
}
// Done! }
Function 2:
vector GUITextLine::recalculateWrappingContraints_LeftShift()
{
m_pixelsOfCharacters = 0;
float pixelsRemaining = m_renderLines[0].s_y;
Uint iRL = 0;
// Go through every text object, fiting them into render lines
for(Uint iTO = 0;iTO != m_text.size();++iTO)
{
// If an entire text object fits in a single line
if(pixelsRemaining >= m_text[iTO].s_pixelWidth)
{
pixelsRemaining -= m_text[iTO].s_pixelWidth;
m_pixelsOfCharacters += m_text[iTO].s_pixelWidth;
}
// Otherwise, character by character
else
{
// Get some data now we don't get it every function call
FSInternalGlyphData intData = m_text[iTO].stealFSFastFontInternalData();
for(Uint iC = 0; iC != m_text[iTO].s_string.size();++iC)
{
float characterWidth = m_text[iTO].s_font->getWidthOfGlyph(intData, '-');
if(characterWidth < pixelsRemaining)
{
pixelsRemaining -= characterWidth;
m_pixelsOfCharacters += characterWidth;
}
else // End of render line!
{
m_pixelsOfWrapperCharacters += pixelsRemaining; // we might track how much wrapping px we use
// If this is true, then we ran out of render lines before we ran out of text. Means we have some overflow to return
if(++iRL == m_renderLines.size())
{
return harvestOverflowFrom(iTO, iC);
}
else
{
pixelsRemaining = m_renderLines[iRL].s_y;
}
}
}
}
}
vector<GUIText> emptyOverflow;
return emptyOverflow; }
So basically, render() takes renderCoordinates as a parameter and gets from it the global position of where it needs to render from. calcWrappingConstraints figures out how much text in the object goes over the allocated space, and returns that text as a function.
m_renderLines is an std::vector of a two float structure, where .s_x = where rendering can start and .s_y = how large the space for rendering is - not, its essentially width of the 'renderLine', not where it ends.
m_text is an std::vector of GUIText objects, which contain a string of text, and some data, like style, colour, size ect. It also contains under s_font, a reference to a font object, which performs rendering, calculating the width of a glyph, ect.
Hopefully this clears things up.
There is no generally accepted way in this case.
However, common practice in any programming scenario is to remove duplicated code.
I think you're getting stuck on how to divide code by direction, when direction changes the outcome too much to make this division. In these cases, focus on the common portions of the three algorithms and divide them into tasks.
I did something similar when I duplicated WinForms flow layout control for MFC. I dealt with two types of objects: fixed positional (your pictures etc.) and auto positional (your words).
In the example you provided I can list out common portions of your example.
Write Line (direction)
bool TestPlaceWord (direction) // returns false if it cannot place word next to previous word
bool WrapPastObject (direction) // returns false if it runs out of line
bool WrapLine (direction) // returns false if it runs out of space for new line.
Each of these would be performed no matter what direction you are faced with.
Ultimately, the algorithm for each direction is just too different to simplify anymore than that.
How about an implementation of the Visitor Pattern? It sounds like it might be the kind of thing you are after.