2D Box Collision - Is this right? - c++

Well I've got a 2D box collision code that basically loops through every block in a list called "Blocks" and it checks if I'm near the sides and whatnot.
It works very well except for the bottom of the block. When I'm jumping up towards the bottom I want my player to simply "bounce" off. It does this, but it is very glitchy.
It's hard to explain so I was hoping you guys could possibly spot out what's wrong with my bottom collision code.
Here's the entire thing:
for(unsigned int i = 0; i<blocks.size(); i++){
Block &b = blocks.at(i);
if(!b.passable==true){
//Check if we are on the sides
if(y + height + vspeed >= b.worldY+2 && y + vspeed <= b.worldY+b.height)
{
//Right side
if(x + hspeed <= b.worldX+b.width-1 && x + hspeed > b.worldX+b.width + hspeed-2)
{
x = b.worldX + b.width; hspeed = 0;
}
//Left side
if(x + width + hspeed >= b.worldX +1 && x + width + hspeed <= b.worldX + hspeed + 2)
{
x = b.worldX - width; hspeed = 0;
}
}
//Check if we are on the top or the bottom
if(x + width + hspeed >= b.worldX+2 && x + hspeed <= b.worldX+b.width-2)
{
if(y + height + vspeed >= b.worldY && y + height + vspeed <= b.worldY + vspeed + 1 && jumpstate=="falling")
{
y = b.worldY - height; jumpstate.assign("ground"); vspeed = 0;
}
if(y + vspeed <= b.worldY + b.height && y + vspeed >= b.worldY + b.height + vspeed - 1 && jumpstate=="jumping")
{
y = b.worldY + b.height; jumpstate.assign("falling"); vspeed = 0;
}
}
}
}

My guess is that you should set vspeed = -vspeed; instead of vspeed = 0. Fully elastic bouncing means that the velocity gets mirrored in the box's side.
If you set it to zero, depending on the order in which you perform your updates, you might not move during a frame. And since you use <= and >= for bounds checking, you'll still be inside the box on the next frame, invoke the bouncing behaviour again, and get stuck with your head glued to the block.

My guess at your problem would be negative numbers in your inequality checks. For example, when going down, I guess vspeed will be negative. Depending on where you have set the origin of your box, this could mean that the condition
y + vspeed <= b.worldY + b.height
is always true.
As an aside, by adding a distance to a speed, you have assumed a magic dimension for the unit time. This makes your code brittle because if you change this magic number, then your equations will be wrong.
Try,
y + vspeed*unit_time <= b.worldY + b.height
If you want to handle the units at compile-time (and not pay for that multiplication), then use boost.units.
Additionally,
x + hspeed > b.worldX+b.width + hspeed-2
can be simplified to
x > b.worldX+b.width-2
And the significance of this magic number 2 is anyones guess. (why for instance do you have
//Check if we are on the sides
if(y + vspeed <= b.worldY+b.height)
but have a -2 in
//Check if we are on the top or the bottom
if( x + hspeed <= b.worldX+b.width-2)
)

Related

2D obstacle collision

Hi I am trying to make 2d collision but I dont get it to work
i am doing :
if (collider.posX + collider.sizeX >= obstacle.posX && obstacle.posX + obstacle.sizeX >= collider.posX && collider.posY + collider.sizeY >= obstacle.posY)
the obstacle cannot move on the y axis so this is why i only check for
collider.posY + 50 >= obstacle.posY
the collision works but they are only start when the obstacle is half in the collider
What about:
if( obstacle.posX >= collider.posX &&
obstacle.posX <= collider.posX + collider.sizeX &&
obstacle.posY >= collider.posY &&
obstacle.posY <= collider.posY + collider.sizeY
)
This code should check if obstacle point intersects collider rectangle.
This is better solution because it detects overlapping between 2 rectangles:
if ( obstacle.posX <= collider.posX + collider.sizeX &&
obstacle.posX + obstacle.sizeX >= collider.posX &&
obstacle.posY <= collider.posY + collider.sizeY &&
obstacle.posY + obstacle.sizeY >= collider.posY )
You're running into logical errors, seen by the following code:
collider.posX + collider.sizeX >= obstacle.posX
Suppose the two colliding objects are circles with their positions being their center points. The first object is moving in the positive X direction while the second is static (stationary). You need to check if the first object's X position plus its radius (not diameter) touches the second object's X position minus its radius.
Example code:
collider.posX + (collider.sizeX / 2) >= obstacle.posX - (obstacle.sizeX / 2)
Note: The above inequality assumes that collider.sizeX represents the diameter of collider.
Presumably later on you'll also need to check if the first object is passed the second object. Since the above inequality only accounts for the first object having an increasing X position and its X position being less than the second object's X position.

Rectangle collision (C++)

I'm currently using this collision code:
( // tx = other x, tex = other end x etc.
( // horizontal collision
(xpos >= tx && xpos <= tex)
||
((xpos + w) <= tex && (xpos + w) >= tx)
)
&&
( // vertical collision
(ypos >= ty && ypos <= tey)
||
((ypos + h) <= tey && (ypos + h) >= ty)
)
)
However, it only detects if the top left pixel, the top right pixel, the bottom left pixel, or the bottom right pixel is within the rectangle to test. I don't know what to do, it already took forever to get to the current collision testing method I'm using, what can I change to fix this problem?
Do I understand correctly that one rectangle extends horizontally from xpos to xpos + w and vertically from ypos to ypos + h, and the other extends horizontally from tx to tex and vertically from ty to tey? With w, h, tex − tx, and tey − ty all being positive?
If so, then you can write:
xpos <= tex && xpos + w >= tx // horizontal collision
&& ypos <= tey && ypos + h >= ty // vertical collision
Alternatively, you may find it easier to reason about if you calculate the conditions whereby they don't collide, and just add a !:
!(
xpos > tex // first rectangle entirely to right of second
|| xpos + w < tx // first rectangle entirely to left of second
|| ypos > tey // first rectangle entirely above second
|| ypos + h < ty // first rectangle entirely below second
)
(The two versions are equivalent, due to one of De Morgan's laws.)

C++ 2D Box-Collision, is this right?

Well I've got a 2D box collision code that basically loops through every block in a list called "Blocks" and it checks if I'm near the sides and whatnot.
It works very well except for the bottom of the block. When I'm jumping up towards the bottom I want my player to simply "bounce" off. It does this, but it is very glitchy. It's hard to explain so I was hoping you guys could possibly spot out what's wrong with my bottom collision code.
Here's the entire thing (this is ran in a loop):
for(unsigned int i = 0; i<blocks.size(); i++){
Block &b = blocks.at(i);
if(!b.passable==true){
//Check if we are on the sides
if(y + height + vspeed >= b.worldY+2 && y + vspeed <= b.worldY+b.height)
{
//Right side
if(x + hspeed <= b.worldX+b.width-1 && x + hspeed > b.worldX+b.width + hspeed-2)
{
x = b.worldX + b.width; hspeed = 0;
}
//Left side
if(x + width + hspeed >= b.worldX +1 && x + width + hspeed <= b.worldX + hspeed + 2)
{
x = b.worldX - width; hspeed = 0;
}
}
//Check if we are on the top or the bottom
if(x + width + hspeed >= b.worldX+2 && x + hspeed <= b.worldX+b.width-2)
{
if(y + height + vspeed >= b.worldY && y + height + vspeed <= b.worldY + vspeed + 1 && jumpstate=="falling")
{
y = b.worldY - height; jumpstate.assign("ground"); vspeed = 0;
}
if(y + vspeed <= b.worldY + b.height && y + vspeed >= b.worldY + b.height + vspeed - 1 && jumpstate=="jumping")
{
y = b.worldY + b.height; jumpstate.assign("falling"); vspeed = 0;
}
}
}
}
I'm not sure you'll get it to work like this. I'll explain a solution that I thought of for some collision detection and bouncing that works smoothly. Record the time interval from when you last checked collisions and adjusted position. If Xplayer+Vplayer*deltaT>Xtarget (if the player would overlap the target) then compute the actual time when it would be touching the target deltaTtouch=(Xtarget-Xplayer)/Vplayer. Now bounce the player back Xplayer=Xtarget-Vplayer*(deltaT-deltaTtouch). You'll have to figure out all the cases when moving forward, backward, up, down.
LE: You can also implement gravity, this involves solving a quadratic equation for finding out the deltaTtouch.
Well I can see a few little details:
1) In this line the hspeed when checking the old position is quite redundant, best to remove it for clarity.
if(x + hspeed <= b.worldX+b.width-1 && x + hspeed > b.worldX+b.width + hspeed-2)
Becomes:
if(x + hspeed <= b.worldX + b.width - 1 && x > b.worldX + b.width - 2)
Same goes for the other similar lines.
2) The small offsets of -2 and -1 are a bit confusing I presume you are trying to achieve a small buffer such that a slight amount of overlap is required. Especially this line where you have used a < instead of the <= you have used every else:
if(x + hspeed <= b.worldX+b.width-1 && x + hspeed > b.worldX+b.width + hspeed-2)
To keep consistancy with the rest of the program I would probably write:
if(x + hspeed <= b.worldX + b.width - 1 && x >= b.worldX + b.width - 1)
3) You seem to be missing a few of your small offsets in the vert checks:
So this check first:
if(y + height + vspeed >= b.worldY && y + height + vspeed <= b.worldY + vspeed + 1 && jumpstate=="falling")
You seem to have forgotten your small offset:
if(y + height + vspeed >= b.worldY + 1 && y + height <= b.worldY + 1 && jumpstate=="falling")
Then the second check:
if(y + vspeed <= b.worldY + b.height && y + vspeed >= b.worldY + b.height + vspeed - 1 && jumpstate=="jumping")
Offset again:
if(y + vspeed <= b.worldY + b.height - 1 && y >= b.worldY + b.height - 1 && jumpstate=="jumping")
4) You will need to be very careful that vspeed and jumpstate always remain in sync as the sign of vspeed needs to always match jumpstate or you will miss collisions. I imagine this might be where your problem is coming from.
5) In both directions if speed exceeds the block size you will skip collision detection and fire through the block.
if(y + height + vspeed >= b.worldY+2 && y + vspeed <= b.worldY+b.height)
The second check in these lines will be false if speed is higher than b.height and the y coords are similar.
Hope that helps some.

2D Box-Collisions, Platformer, my player "hovers" over blocks

If I set my player's "hspeed" variable (horizontal speed) to a slow enough speed,
then when he goes over a gap of 16x16 blocks, he will fall through as planned.
However if I set the "hspeed" variable high enough, he will go so fast that he hovers over it.
All though it works when I set it to a slow speed, it's too slow.
Here's an example:
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/2685/demondj.png
Here's my collision code (loops through a list of blocks):
for(unsigned int i = 0; i<blocks.size(); i++){
Block &b = blocks.at(i);
if(!b.passable){
//Check if we are on the sides
if(y + height + vspeed >= b.worldY+2 && y + vspeed <= b.worldY+b.height)
{
//Right side
if(x + hspeed <= b.worldX+b.width+1 && x + hspeed > b.worldX+b.width + hspeed-1)
{
x = b.worldX + b.width; hspeed = 0;
}
//Left side
if(x + width + hspeed >= b.worldX +1 && x + width + hspeed <= b.worldX + hspeed + 1)
{
x = b.worldX - width; hspeed = 0;
}
}
//Check if we are on the top or the bottom
if(x + width + hspeed >= b.worldX+1 && x + hspeed <= b.worldX+b.width-1)
{
if(y + height + vspeed >= b.worldY && y + height + vspeed <= b.worldY + vspeed + 1 && jumpstate=="falling")
{
y = b.worldY - height; jumpstate.assign("ground"); vspeed = 0;
}
if(y + vspeed <= b.worldY + b.height && y + vspeed >= b.worldY + b.height + vspeed + 1 && jumpstate=="jumping")
{
y = b.worldY + b.height; jumpstate.assign("falling"); vspeed = 0;
}
}
}
}
Do I have a problem in my collision code?
Another problem is when I hit the bottom of a block, it's a bit glitchy.
He's supposed to bounce right off it, and he does, but he jitters if he's moving and he hits the bottom of a block.
Ok, a number of things here:
1) Too many magic numbers. Not sure exactly what the +2, +1, etc. truely mean. I'd like to see those as constants. Also, I'm paranoid about order of operations so I would surround everything in parenthesis, just in case :)
2) Unsure of what types your vars are. Assuming floats, but they feel like ints.
3) The bigger problem, your code as designed will not properly handle "large" velocity well. Something traveling faster than the width/height of your collidable area won't be reliably detected. Nor can you easily with this type of collision code. This is one side effect you are already seeing and my guess is the fudge factor adds you have contribute to the rest.
Consider using a vector based collision system instead. Treat each edge of the box as a line vector. You can then do very simple math to determine if a point starts one one side of the line and ends on the other (sign of cross product) and sign of dot will tell whether the point was within the line segment. Also, it allows your collision objects to be any shape and even makes the math extendable to 3D rather easily. This sort of system also is parallel processing friendlier as well.

Determine if two rectangles overlap each other?

I am trying to write a C++ program that takes the following inputs from the user to construct rectangles (between 2 and 5): height, width, x-pos, y-pos. All of these rectangles will exist parallel to the x and the y axis, that is all of their edges will have slopes of 0 or infinity.
I've tried to implement what is mentioned in this question but I am not having very much luck.
My current implementation does the following:
// Gets all the vertices for Rectangle 1 and stores them in an array -> arrRect1
// point 1 x: arrRect1[0], point 1 y: arrRect1[1] and so on...
// Gets all the vertices for Rectangle 2 and stores them in an array -> arrRect2
// rotated edge of point a, rect 1
int rot_x, rot_y;
rot_x = -arrRect1[3];
rot_y = arrRect1[2];
// point on rotated edge
int pnt_x, pnt_y;
pnt_x = arrRect1[2];
pnt_y = arrRect1[3];
// test point, a from rect 2
int tst_x, tst_y;
tst_x = arrRect2[0];
tst_y = arrRect2[1];
int value;
value = (rot_x * (tst_x - pnt_x)) + (rot_y * (tst_y - pnt_y));
cout << "Value: " << value;
However I'm not quite sure if (a) I've implemented the algorithm I linked to correctly, or if I did exactly how to interpret this?
Any suggestions?
if (RectA.Left < RectB.Right && RectA.Right > RectB.Left &&
RectA.Top > RectB.Bottom && RectA.Bottom < RectB.Top )
or, using Cartesian coordinates
(With X1 being left coord, X2 being right coord, increasing from left to right and Y1 being Top coord, and Y2 being Bottom coord, increasing from bottom to top -- if this is not how your coordinate system [e.g. most computers have the Y direction reversed], swap the comparisons below) ...
if (RectA.X1 < RectB.X2 && RectA.X2 > RectB.X1 &&
RectA.Y1 > RectB.Y2 && RectA.Y2 < RectB.Y1)
Say you have Rect A, and Rect B.
Proof is by contradiction. Any one of four conditions guarantees that no overlap can exist:
Cond1. If A's left edge is to the right of the B's right edge,
- then A is Totally to right Of B
Cond2. If A's right edge is to the left of the B's left edge,
- then A is Totally to left Of B
Cond3. If A's top edge is below B's bottom edge,
- then A is Totally below B
Cond4. If A's bottom edge is above B's top edge,
- then A is Totally above B
So condition for Non-Overlap is
NON-Overlap => Cond1 Or Cond2 Or Cond3 Or Cond4
Therefore, a sufficient condition for Overlap is the opposite.
Overlap => NOT (Cond1 Or Cond2 Or Cond3 Or Cond4)
De Morgan's law says
Not (A or B or C or D) is the same as Not A And Not B And Not C And Not D
so using De Morgan, we have
Not Cond1 And Not Cond2 And Not Cond3 And Not Cond4
This is equivalent to:
A's Left Edge to left of B's right edge, [RectA.Left < RectB.Right], and
A's right edge to right of B's left edge, [RectA.Right > RectB.Left], and
A's top above B's bottom, [RectA.Top > RectB.Bottom], and
A's bottom below B's Top [RectA.Bottom < RectB.Top]
Note 1: It is fairly obvious this same principle can be extended to any number of dimensions.
Note 2: It should also be fairly obvious to count overlaps of just one pixel, change the < and/or the > on that boundary to a <= or a >=.
Note 3: This answer, when utilizing Cartesian coordinates (X, Y) is based on standard algebraic Cartesian coordinates (x increases left to right, and Y increases bottom to top). Obviously, where a computer system might mechanize screen coordinates differently, (e.g., increasing Y from top to bottom, or X From right to left), the syntax will need to be adjusted accordingly/
struct rect
{
int x;
int y;
int width;
int height;
};
bool valueInRange(int value, int min, int max)
{ return (value >= min) && (value <= max); }
bool rectOverlap(rect A, rect B)
{
bool xOverlap = valueInRange(A.x, B.x, B.x + B.width) ||
valueInRange(B.x, A.x, A.x + A.width);
bool yOverlap = valueInRange(A.y, B.y, B.y + B.height) ||
valueInRange(B.y, A.y, A.y + A.height);
return xOverlap && yOverlap;
}
struct Rect
{
Rect(int x1, int x2, int y1, int y2)
: x1(x1), x2(x2), y1(y1), y2(y2)
{
assert(x1 < x2);
assert(y1 < y2);
}
int x1, x2, y1, y2;
};
bool
overlap(const Rect &r1, const Rect &r2)
{
// The rectangles don't overlap if
// one rectangle's minimum in some dimension
// is greater than the other's maximum in
// that dimension.
bool noOverlap = r1.x1 > r2.x2 ||
r2.x1 > r1.x2 ||
r1.y1 > r2.y2 ||
r2.y1 > r1.y2;
return !noOverlap;
}
It is easier to check if a rectangle is completly outside the other, so if it is either
on the left...
(r1.x + r1.width < r2.x)
or on the right...
(r1.x > r2.x + r2.width)
or on top...
(r1.y + r1.height < r2.y)
or on the bottom...
(r1.y > r2.y + r2.height)
of the second rectangle, it cannot possibly collide with it. So to have a function that returns a Boolean saying weather the rectangles collide, we simply combine the conditions by logical ORs and negate the result:
function checkOverlap(r1, r2) : Boolean
{
return !(r1.x + r1.width < r2.x || r1.y + r1.height < r2.y || r1.x > r2.x + r2.width || r1.y > r2.y + r2.height);
}
To already receive a positive result when touching only, we can change the "<" and ">" by "<=" and ">=".
This is a very fast way to check with C++ if two rectangles overlap:
return std::max(rectA.left, rectB.left) < std::min(rectA.right, rectB.right)
&& std::max(rectA.top, rectB.top) < std::min(rectA.bottom, rectB.bottom);
It works by calculating the left and right borders of the intersecting rectangle, and then comparing them: if the right border is equal to or less than the left border, it means that the intersection is empty and therefore the rectangles do not overlap; otherwise, it tries again with the top and bottom borders.
What is the advantage of this method over the conventional alternative of 4 comparisons? It's about how modern processors are designed. They have something called branch prediction, which works well when the result of a comparison is always the same, but have a huge performance penalty otherwise. However, in the absence of branch instructions, the CPU performs quite well. By calculating the borders of the intersection instead of having two separate checks for each axis, we're saving two branches, one per pair.
It is possible that the four comparisons method outperforms this one, if the first comparison has a high chance of being false. That is very rare, though, because it means that the second rectangle is most often on the left side of the first rectangle, and not on the right side or overlapping it; and most often, you need to check rectangles on both sides of the first one, which normally voids the advantages of branch prediction.
This method can be improved even more, depending on the expected distribution of rectangles:
If you expect the checked rectangles to be predominantly to the left or right of each other, then the method above works best. This is probably the case, for example, when you're using the rectangle intersection to check collisions for a game, where the game objects are predominantly distributed horizontally (e.g. a SuperMarioBros-like game).
If you expect the checked rectangles to be predominantly to the top or bottom of each other, e.g. in an Icy Tower type of game, then checking top/bottom first and left/right last will probably be faster:
return std::max(rectA.top, rectB.top) < std::min(rectA.bottom, rectB.bottom)
&& std::max(rectA.left, rectB.left) < std::min(rectA.right, rectB.right);
If the probability of intersecting is close to the probability of not intersecting, however, it's better to have a completely branchless alternative:
return std::max(rectA.left, rectB.left) < std::min(rectA.right, rectB.right)
& std::max(rectA.top, rectB.top) < std::min(rectA.bottom, rectB.bottom);
(Note the change of && to a single &)
Suppose that you have defined the positions and sizes of the rectangles like this:
My C++ implementation is like this:
class Vector2D
{
public:
Vector2D(int x, int y) : x(x), y(y) {}
~Vector2D(){}
int x, y;
};
bool DoRectanglesOverlap( const Vector2D & Pos1,
const Vector2D & Size1,
const Vector2D & Pos2,
const Vector2D & Size2)
{
if ((Pos1.x < Pos2.x + Size2.x) &&
(Pos1.y < Pos2.y + Size2.y) &&
(Pos2.x < Pos1.x + Size1.x) &&
(Pos2.y < Pos1.y + Size1.y))
{
return true;
}
return false;
}
An example function call according to the given figure above:
DoRectanglesOverlap(Vector2D(3, 7),
Vector2D(8, 5),
Vector2D(6, 4),
Vector2D(9, 4));
The comparisons inside the if block will look like below:
if ((Pos1.x < Pos2.x + Size2.x) &&
(Pos1.y < Pos2.y + Size2.y) &&
(Pos2.x < Pos1.x + Size1.x) &&
(Pos2.y < Pos1.y + Size1.y))
↓
if (( 3 < 6 + 9 ) &&
( 7 < 4 + 4 ) &&
( 6 < 3 + 8 ) &&
( 4 < 7 + 5 ))
Ask yourself the opposite question: How can I determine if two rectangles do not intersect at all? Obviously, a rectangle A completely to the left of rectangle B does not intersect. Also if A is completely to the right. And similarly if A is completely above B or completely below B. In any other case A and B intersect.
What follows may have bugs, but I am pretty confident about the algorithm:
struct Rectangle { int x; int y; int width; int height; };
bool is_left_of(Rectangle const & a, Rectangle const & b) {
if (a.x + a.width <= b.x) return true;
return false;
}
bool is_right_of(Rectangle const & a, Rectangle const & b) {
return is_left_of(b, a);
}
bool not_intersect( Rectangle const & a, Rectangle const & b) {
if (is_left_of(a, b)) return true;
if (is_right_of(a, b)) return true;
// Do the same for top/bottom...
}
bool intersect(Rectangle const & a, Rectangle const & b) {
return !not_intersect(a, b);
}
In the question, you link to the maths for when rectangles are at arbitrary angles of rotation. If I understand the bit about angles in the question however, I interpret that all rectangles are perpendicular to one another.
A general knowing the area of overlap formula is:
Using the example:
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 +---+---+
| |
2 + A +---+---+
| | B |
3 + + +---+---+
| | | | |
4 +---+---+---+---+ +
| |
5 + C +
| |
6 +---+---+
1) collect all the x coordinates (both left and right) into a list, then sort it and remove duplicates
1 3 4 5 6
2) collect all the y coordinates (both top and bottom) into a list, then sort it and remove duplicates
1 2 3 4 6
3) create a 2D array by number of gaps between the unique x coordinates * number of gaps between the unique y coordinates.
4 * 4
4) paint all the rectangles into this grid, incrementing the count of each cell it occurs over:
1 3 4 5 6
1 +---+
| 1 | 0 0 0
2 +---+---+---+
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0
3 +---+---+---+---+
| 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
4 +---+---+---+---+
0 0 | 1 | 1 |
6 +---+---+
5) As you paint the rectangles, its easy to intercept the overlaps.
Here's how it's done in the Java API:
public boolean intersects(Rectangle r) {
int tw = this.width;
int th = this.height;
int rw = r.width;
int rh = r.height;
if (rw <= 0 || rh <= 0 || tw <= 0 || th <= 0) {
return false;
}
int tx = this.x;
int ty = this.y;
int rx = r.x;
int ry = r.y;
rw += rx;
rh += ry;
tw += tx;
th += ty;
// overflow || intersect
return ((rw < rx || rw > tx) &&
(rh < ry || rh > ty) &&
(tw < tx || tw > rx) &&
(th < ty || th > ry));
}
struct Rect
{
Rect(int x1, int x2, int y1, int y2)
: x1(x1), x2(x2), y1(y1), y2(y2)
{
assert(x1 < x2);
assert(y1 < y2);
}
int x1, x2, y1, y2;
};
//some area of the r1 overlaps r2
bool overlap(const Rect &r1, const Rect &r2)
{
return r1.x1 < r2.x2 && r2.x1 < r1.x2 &&
r1.y1 < r2.y2 && r2.x1 < r1.y2;
}
//either the rectangles overlap or the edges touch
bool touch(const Rect &r1, const Rect &r2)
{
return r1.x1 <= r2.x2 && r2.x1 <= r1.x2 &&
r1.y1 <= r2.y2 && r2.x1 <= r1.y2;
}
Don't think of coordinates as indicating where pixels are. Think of them as being between the pixels. That way, the area of a 2x2 rectangle should be 4, not 9.
bool bOverlap = !((A.Left >= B.Right || B.Left >= A.Right)
&& (A.Bottom >= B.Top || B.Bottom >= A.Top));
Easiest way is
/**
* Check if two rectangles collide
* x_1, y_1, width_1, and height_1 define the boundaries of the first rectangle
* x_2, y_2, width_2, and height_2 define the boundaries of the second rectangle
*/
boolean rectangle_collision(float x_1, float y_1, float width_1, float height_1, float x_2, float y_2, float width_2, float height_2)
{
return !(x_1 > x_2+width_2 || x_1+width_1 < x_2 || y_1 > y_2+height_2 || y_1+height_1 < y_2);
}
first of all put it in to your mind that in computers the coordinates system is upside down. x-axis is same as in mathematics but y-axis increases downwards and decrease on going upward..
if rectangle are drawn from center.
if x1 coordinates is greater than x2 plus its its half of widht. then it means going half they will touch each other. and in the same manner going downward + half of its height. it will collide..
For those of you who are using center points and half sizes for their rectangle data, instead of the typical x,y,w,h, or x0,y0,x1,x1, here's how you can do it:
#include <cmath> // for fabsf(float)
struct Rectangle
{
float centerX, centerY, halfWidth, halfHeight;
};
bool isRectangleOverlapping(const Rectangle &a, const Rectangle &b)
{
return (fabsf(a.centerX - b.centerX) <= (a.halfWidth + b.halfWidth)) &&
(fabsf(a.centerY - b.centerY) <= (a.halfHeight + b.halfHeight));
}
Lets say the two rectangles are rectangle A and rectangle B. Let their centers be A1 and B1 (coordinates of A1 and B1 can be easily found out), let the heights be Ha and Hb, width be Wa and Wb, let dx be the width(x) distance between A1 and B1 and dy be the height(y) distance between A1 and B1.
Now we can say we can say A and B overlap: when
if(!(dx > Wa+Wb)||!(dy > Ha+Hb)) returns true
If the rectangles overlap then the overlap area will be greater than zero. Now let us find the overlap area:
If they overlap then the left edge of overlap-rect will be the max(r1.x1, r2.x1) and right edge will be min(r1.x2, r2.x2). So the length of the overlap will be min(r1.x2, r2.x2) - max(r1.x1, r2.x1)
So the area will be:
area = (max(r1.x1, r2.x1) - min(r1.x2, r2.x2)) * (max(r1.y1, r2.y1) - min(r1.y2, r2.y2))
If area = 0 then they don't overlap.
Simple isn't it?
I have implemented a C# version, it is easily converted to C++.
public bool Intersects ( Rectangle rect )
{
float ulx = Math.Max ( x, rect.x );
float uly = Math.Max ( y, rect.y );
float lrx = Math.Min ( x + width, rect.x + rect.width );
float lry = Math.Min ( y + height, rect.y + rect.height );
return ulx <= lrx && uly <= lry;
}
I have a very easy solution
let x1,y1 x2,y2 ,l1,b1,l2,be cordinates and lengths and breadths of them respectively
consider the condition ((x2
now the only way these rectangle will overlap is if the point diagonal to x1,y1 will lie inside the other rectangle or similarly the point diagonal to x2,y2 will lie inside the other rectangle. which is exactly the above condition implies.
A and B be two rectangle. C be their covering rectangle.
four points of A be (xAleft,yAtop),(xAleft,yAbottom),(xAright,yAtop),(xAright,yAbottom)
four points of A be (xBleft,yBtop),(xBleft,yBbottom),(xBright,yBtop),(xBright,yBbottom)
A.width = abs(xAleft-xAright);
A.height = abs(yAleft-yAright);
B.width = abs(xBleft-xBright);
B.height = abs(yBleft-yBright);
C.width = max(xAleft,xAright,xBleft,xBright)-min(xAleft,xAright,xBleft,xBright);
C.height = max(yAtop,yAbottom,yBtop,yBbottom)-min(yAtop,yAbottom,yBtop,yBbottom);
A and B does not overlap if
(C.width >= A.width + B.width )
OR
(C.height >= A.height + B.height)
It takes care all possible cases.
This is from exercise 3.28 from the book Introduction to Java Programming- Comprehensive Edition. The code tests whether the two rectangles are indenticle, whether one is inside the other and whether one is outside the other. If none of these condition are met then the two overlap.
**3.28 (Geometry: two rectangles) Write a program that prompts the user to enter the
center x-, y-coordinates, width, and height of two rectangles and determines
whether the second rectangle is inside the first or overlaps with the first, as shown
in Figure 3.9. Test your program to cover all cases.
Here are the sample runs:
Enter r1's center x-, y-coordinates, width, and height: 2.5 4 2.5 43
Enter r2's center x-, y-coordinates, width, and height: 1.5 5 0.5 3
r2 is inside r1
Enter r1's center x-, y-coordinates, width, and height: 1 2 3 5.5
Enter r2's center x-, y-coordinates, width, and height: 3 4 4.5 5
r2 overlaps r1
Enter r1's center x-, y-coordinates, width, and height: 1 2 3 3
Enter r2's center x-, y-coordinates, width, and height: 40 45 3 2
r2 does not overlap r1
import java.util.Scanner;
public class ProgrammingEx3_28 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Scanner input = new Scanner(System.in);
System.out
.print("Enter r1's center x-, y-coordinates, width, and height:");
double x1 = input.nextDouble();
double y1 = input.nextDouble();
double w1 = input.nextDouble();
double h1 = input.nextDouble();
w1 = w1 / 2;
h1 = h1 / 2;
System.out
.print("Enter r2's center x-, y-coordinates, width, and height:");
double x2 = input.nextDouble();
double y2 = input.nextDouble();
double w2 = input.nextDouble();
double h2 = input.nextDouble();
w2 = w2 / 2;
h2 = h2 / 2;
// Calculating range of r1 and r2
double x1max = x1 + w1;
double y1max = y1 + h1;
double x1min = x1 - w1;
double y1min = y1 - h1;
double x2max = x2 + w2;
double y2max = y2 + h2;
double x2min = x2 - w2;
double y2min = y2 - h2;
if (x1max == x2max && x1min == x2min && y1max == y2max
&& y1min == y2min) {
// Check if the two are identicle
System.out.print("r1 and r2 are indentical");
} else if (x1max <= x2max && x1min >= x2min && y1max <= y2max
&& y1min >= y2min) {
// Check if r1 is in r2
System.out.print("r1 is inside r2");
} else if (x2max <= x1max && x2min >= x1min && y2max <= y1max
&& y2min >= y1min) {
// Check if r2 is in r1
System.out.print("r2 is inside r1");
} else if (x1max < x2min || x1min > x2max || y1max < y2min
|| y2min > y1max) {
// Check if the two overlap
System.out.print("r2 does not overlaps r1");
} else {
System.out.print("r2 overlaps r1");
}
}
}
bool Square::IsOverlappig(Square &other)
{
bool result1 = other.x >= x && other.y >= y && other.x <= (x + width) && other.y <= (y + height); // other's top left falls within this area
bool result2 = other.x >= x && other.y <= y && other.x <= (x + width) && (other.y + other.height) <= (y + height); // other's bottom left falls within this area
bool result3 = other.x <= x && other.y >= y && (other.x + other.width) <= (x + width) && other.y <= (y + height); // other's top right falls within this area
bool result4 = other.x <= x && other.y <= y && (other.x + other.width) >= x && (other.y + other.height) >= y; // other's bottom right falls within this area
return result1 | result2 | result3 | result4;
}
struct point { int x, y; };
struct rect { point tl, br; }; // top left and bottom right points
// return true if rectangles overlap
bool overlap(const rect &a, const rect &b)
{
return a.tl.x <= b.br.x && a.br.x >= b.tl.x &&
a.tl.y >= b.br.y && a.br.y <= b.tl.y;
}