So, after hours of Googling and reading, I've found that the basic process of detecting a collision using SAT is:
for each edge of poly A
project A and B onto the normal for this edge
if intervals do not overlap, return false
end for
for each edge of poly B
project A and B onto the normal for this edge
if intervals do not overlap, return false
end for
However, as many ways as I try to implement this in code, I just cannot get it to detect the collision. My current code is as follows:
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < asteroids.size(); i++) {
if (asteroids.valid(i)) {
asteroids[i]->Update();
// Player-Asteroid collision detection
bool collision = true;
SDL_Rect asteroidBox = asteroids[i]->boundingBox;
// Bullet-Asteroid collision detection
for (unsigned int j = 0; j < player.bullets.size(); j++) {
if (player.bullets.valid(j)) {
Bullet b = player.bullets[j];
collision = true;
if (b.x + (b.w / 2.0f) < asteroidBox.x - (asteroidBox.w / 2.0f)) collision = false;
if (b.x - (b.w / 2.0f) > asteroidBox.x + (asteroidBox.w / 2.0f)) collision = false;
if (b.y - (b.h / 2.0f) > asteroidBox.y + (asteroidBox.h / 2.0f)) collision = false;
if (b.y + (b.h / 2.0f) < asteroidBox.y - (asteroidBox.h / 2.0f)) collision = false;
if (collision) {
bool realCollision = false;
float min1, max1, min2, max2;
// Create a list of vertices for the bullet
CrissCross::Data::LList<Vector2D *> bullVerts;
bullVerts.insert(new Vector2D(b.x - b.w / 2.0f, b.y + b.h / 2.0f));
bullVerts.insert(new Vector2D(b.x - b.w / 2.0f, b.y - b.h / 2.0f));
bullVerts.insert(new Vector2D(b.x + b.w / 2.0f, b.y - b.h / 2.0f));
bullVerts.insert(new Vector2D(b.x + b.w / 2.0f, b.y + b.h / 2.0f));
// Create a list of vectors of the edges of the bullet and the asteroid
CrissCross::Data::LList<Vector2D *> bullEdges;
CrissCross::Data::LList<Vector2D *> asteroidEdges;
for (int k = 0; k < 4; k++) {
int n = (k == 3) ? 0 : k + 1;
bullEdges.insert(new Vector2D(bullVerts[k]->x - bullVerts[n]->x,
bullVerts[k]->y - bullVerts[n]->y));
asteroidEdges.insert(new Vector2D(asteroids[i]->vertices[k]->x - asteroids[i]->vertices[n]->x,
asteroids[i]->vertices[k]->y - asteroids[i]->vertices[n]->y));
}
Vector2D *vectOffset = new Vector2D(asteroids[i]->center.x - b.x, asteroids[i]->center.y - b.y);
for (unsigned int k = 0; k < asteroidEdges.size(); k++) {
Vector2D *axis = asteroidEdges[k]->getPerpendicular();
axis->normalize();
min1 = max1 = axis->dotProduct(asteroids[i]->vertices[0]);
for (unsigned int l = 1; l < asteroids[i]->vertices.size(); l++) {
float test = axis->dotProduct(asteroids[i]->vertices[l]);
min1 = (test < min1) ? test : min1;
max1 = (test > max1) ? test : max1;
}
min2 = max2 = axis->dotProduct(bullVerts[0]);
for (unsigned int l = 1; l < bullVerts.size(); l++) {
float test = axis->dotProduct(bullVerts[l]);
min2 = (test < min2) ? test : min2;
max2 = (test > max2) ? test : max2;
}
float offset = axis->dotProduct(vectOffset);
min1 += offset;
max1 += offset;
delete axis; axis = NULL;
float d0 = min1 - max2;
float d1 = min2 - max1;
if ( d0 > 0 || d1 > 0 ) {
realCollision = false;
break;
} else {
realCollision = true;
}
}
if (realCollision) {
for (unsigned int k = 0; k < bullEdges.size(); k++) {
Vector2D *axis = bullEdges[k]->getPerpendicular();
axis->normalize();
min1 = max1 = axis->dotProduct(asteroids[i]->vertices[0]);
for (unsigned int l = 1; l < asteroids[i]->vertices.size(); l++) {
float test = axis->dotProduct(asteroids[i]->vertices[l]);
min1 = (test < min1) ? test : min1;
max1 = (test > max1) ? test : max1;
}
min2 = max2 = axis->dotProduct(bullVerts[0]);
for (unsigned int l = 1; l < bullVerts.size(); l++) {
float test = axis->dotProduct(bullVerts[l]);
min2 = (test < min2) ? test : min2;
max2 = (test > max2) ? test : max2;
}
float offset = axis->dotProduct(vectOffset);
min1 += offset;
max1 += offset;
delete axis; axis = NULL;
float d0 = min1 - max2;
float d1 = min2 - max1;
if ( d0 > 0 || d1 > 0 ) {
realCollision = false;
break;
} else {
realCollision = true;
}
}
}
if (realCollision) {
player.bullets.remove(j);
int numAsteroids;
float newDegree;
srand ( j + asteroidBox.x );
if ( asteroids[i]->degree == 90.0f ) {
if ( rand() % 2 == 1 ) {
numAsteroids = 3;
newDegree = 30.0f;
} else {
numAsteroids = 2;
newDegree = 45.0f;
}
for ( int k = 0; k < numAsteroids; k++)
asteroids.insert(new Asteroid(asteroidBox.x + (10 * k), asteroidBox.y + (10 * k), newDegree));
}
delete asteroids[i];
asteroids.remove(i);
}
while (bullVerts.size()) {
delete bullVerts[0];
bullVerts.remove(0);
}
while (bullEdges.size()) {
delete bullEdges[0];
bullEdges.remove(0);
}
while (asteroidEdges.size()) {
delete asteroidEdges[0];
asteroidEdges.remove(0);
}
delete vectOffset; vectOffset = NULL;
}
}
}
}
}
bullEdges is a list of vectors of the edges of a bullet, asteroidEdges is similar, and bullVerts and asteroids[i].vertices are, obviously, lists of vectors of each vertex for the respective bullet or asteroid.
Honestly, I'm not looking for code corrections, just a fresh set of eyes.
Turns out my mathematical understanding of the theorem was perfectly fine. Instead, the problem lay in the fact that I was not including the center points of the polygons in the vertice vectors.
Thank you everyone for their time.
You've added this vectOffset part which is wrong - both your asteroids' and bullets' coordinate systems are the same, right? (It must be, if the bounding box test is working.)
Are your asteroids squares? If so, then the bounding box test will always be exact, and realCollision and collision should always be identical. If not, then you're not building asteroidEdges properly - you need to iterate over the number of vertices, not 4.
But seriously, make this code a separate method and write a unit test for it, it's the only way I can run your code to see what is going on.
bullVerts.insert(new Vector2D(b.x - b.w / 2.0f, b.y + b.h / 2.0f));
bullVerts.insert(new Vector2D(b.x - b.w / 2.0f, b.y - b.h / 2.0f));
bullVerts.insert(new Vector2D(b.x + b.w / 2.0f, b.y - b.h / 2.0f));
bullVerts.insert(new Vector2D(b.x + b.w / 2.0f, b.y + b.h / 2.0f));
It looks like you're creating an asteroids clone, in which case you'd expect the bullet to be rotated, but this code always treats the bullet as though it is fully upright. Could that be your problem?
Something that may help find the problem is to make the bullet a point. It might illuminate problems with other parts of your code. Plus, then if your point makes a collision but the bullet does not you will get something concrete to look at.
In other words, simplify your problem until a solution emerges. ;)
Besides the whole offset thing, which is buggy, the rest of the algorithm seems OK. Have you tried tracing through it to spot the problem?
BTW, there are several stylistic quirks that make the code hard to read at a glance:
Why the pointers everywhere, instead of allocating all of those temporary Vector2Ds on the stack?
Why CrissCross::Data::LList instead of "good old" std::vector?
Surely Vector2D has an overloaded operator-?
Here's a quick-and-dirty self-contained implementation of the algorithm. I've somewhat tested it, but make no guarantees:
#include <vector>
#include <limits>
using namespace std;
class Vector2D
{
public:
Vector2D() : x(0), y(0) {}
Vector2D(double x, double y) : x(x), y(y) {}
Vector2D operator-(const Vector2D &other) const
{
return Vector2D(x - other.x, y - other.y);
}
double dot(const Vector2D &other) const
{
return x * other.x + y*other.y;
}
Vector2D perp() const
{
return Vector2D(-y, x);
}
double x,y;
};
bool checkCollisionOneSided(vector<Vector2D> &object1, vector<Vector2D> &object2)
{
int nume = object1.size();
for(int i=0; i<nume; i++)
{
Vector2D edge = object1[(i+1)%nume] - object1[i];
Vector2D normal = edge.perp();
double min1 = numeric_limits<double>::infinity();
double min2 = min1;
double max1 = -numeric_limits<double>::infinity();
double max2 = max1;
for(int j=0; j<object1.size(); j++)
{
double dot = normal.dot(object1[j]);
min1 = std::min(min1, dot);
max1 = std::max(max1, dot);
}
for(int j=0; j<object2.size(); j++)
{
double dot = normal.dot(object2[j]);
min2 = std::min(min2, dot);
max2 = std::max(max2, dot);
}
if(min2 > max1 || min1 > max2)
return false;
}
return true;
}
bool isColliding(vector<Vector2D> &object1, vector<Vector2D> &object2)
{
return checkCollisionOneSided(object1, object2) && checkCollisionOneSided(object2, object1);
}
Related
I have a vector<vector<double>> heightmap that is dynamically loaded from a CSV file of GPS data to be around 4000x4000. However, only provides 140,799 points.
It produces a greyscale map as shown bellow:
I wish to interpolate the heights between all the points to generate a height map of the area.
The below code finds all known points will look in a 10m radius of the point to find any other known points. If another point is found then it will linearly interpolate between the 2 points. Interpolated points are defined by - height and unset values are defined as -1337.
This approach is incredibly slow I am sure there are better ways to achieve this.
bool run_interp = true;
bool interp_interp = false;
int counter = 0;
while (run_interp)
{
for (auto x = 0; x < map.size(); x++)
{
for (auto y = 0; y < map.at(x).size(); y++)
{
const auto height = map.at(x).at(y);
if (height == -1337) continue;
if (!interp_interp && height < 0) continue;
//Look in a 10m radius of a known value to see if there
//Is another known value to linearly interp between
//Set height to a negative if it has been interped
const int radius = (1 / resolution) * 10;
for (auto rxi = 0; rxi < radius * 2; rxi++)
{
//since we want to expand outwards
const int rx = x + ((rxi % 2 == 0) ? rxi / 2 : -(rxi - 1) / 2);
if (rx < 0 || rx >= map.size()) continue;
for (auto ryi = 0; ryi < radius * 2; ryi++)
{
const int ry = y + ((rxi % 2 == 0) ? rxi / 2 : -(rxi - 1) / 2);
if (ry < 0 || ry >= map.at(x).size()) continue;
const auto new_height = map.at(rx).at(ry);
if (new_height == -1337) continue;
//First go around we don't want to interp
//Interps
if (!interp_interp && new_height < 0) continue;
//We have found a known point within 10m
const auto delta = new_height - height;
const auto distance = sqrt((rx- x) * (rx - x)
+ (ry - y) * (ry - y));
const auto angle = atan2(ry - y, rx - x);
const auto ratio = delta / distance;
//Backtrack from found point until we get to know point
for (auto radi = 0; radi < distance; radi++)
{
const auto new_x = static_cast<int>(x + radi * cos(angle));
const auto new_y = static_cast<int>(y + radi * sin(angle));
if (new_x < 0 || new_x >= map.size()) continue;
if (new_y < 0 || new_y >= map.at(new_x).size()) continue;
const auto interp_height = map.at(new_x).at(new_y);
//If it is a known height don't interp it
if (interp_height > 0)
continue;
counter++;
set_height(new_x, new_y, -interp_height);
}
}
}
}
std::cout << x << " " << counter << std::endl;;
}
if (interp_interp)
run_interp = false;
interp_interp = true;
}
set_height(const int x, const int y, const double height)
{
//First time data being set
if (map.at(x).at(y) == -1337)
{
map.at(x).at(y) = height;
}
else // Data set already so average it
{
//While this isn't technically correct and weights
//Later data significantly more favourablily
//It should be fine
//TODO: fix it.
map.at(x).at(y) += height;
map.at(x).at(y) /= 2;
}
}
If you put the points into a kd-tree, it will be much faster to find the closest point (O(nlogn)).
I'm not sure that will solve all your issues, but it is a start.
I have a mathematical control problem which I solve through Backward induction. The mathematical problem is the following :
with K less than n.
And final conditions
What is J(0,0,0) ?
For this purpose I am using c++ and mingw 32 bit as a compiler.
The problem is the code (below) which solve the problem is an induction and does not provide any results if n,M > 15.
I have tried to launch n=M=100 for 4 days but no results.
Does anyone have a solution? Is it a compiler option to change (the processor memory is not enough)? The complexity is too big?
Here my code
const int n = 10;
const int M = 10;
double J_naive (double K, double Z, double W)
{
double J_tmp = exp(100.0);
double WGreaterThanZero = 0.0;
//Final condition : Boundaries
if (K == n)
{
if (W > 0) WGreaterThanZero = 1.0;
else WGreaterThanZero = 0.0;
if (Z >= WGreaterThanZero) return 0.0;
return exp(100.0);//Infinity
}
//Induction
else if (K < n)
{
double y;
for (int i = 0; i <= M; i++)
{
y = ((double) i)/M;
{
J_tmp = std::min (J_tmp, ((double) n)*y*y +
0.5*J_naive(K+1.0, Z+y, W + 1.0/sqrt(n)) +
0.5*J_naive(K+1.0, Z+y, W - 1.0/sqrt(n)) );
}
}
}
return J_tmp;
}
int main()
{
J_naive(0.0, 0.0, 0.0);
}
You can try the following, completely untested DP code. It needs around 24*n^3*M bytes of memory; if you have that much memory, it should run within a few seconds. If there is some value that will never appear as a true return value, you can get rid of seen_[][][] and use that value in result_[][][] to indicate that the subproblem has not yet been solved; this will reduce memory requirements by about a third. It's based on your code before you made edits to fix bugs.
const int n = 10;
const int M = 10;
bool seen_[n][n * M][2 * n]; // Initially all false
double result_[n][n * M][2 * n];
double J_naive(unsigned K, unsigned ZM, double W0, int Wdsqrtn)
{
double J_tmp = exp(100.0);
double WGreaterThanZero = 0.0;
double Z = (double) ZM / M;
double W = W0 + Wdsqrtn * 1./sqrt(n);
//Final condition : Boundaries
if (K == n)
{
if (W > 0) WGreaterThanZero = 1.0;
else WGreaterThanZero = 0.0;
if (Z >= WGreaterThanZero) return 0.0;
return exp(100.0);//Infinity
}
//Induction
else if (K < n)
{
if (!seen_[K][ZM][Wdsqrtn + n]) {
// Haven't seen this subproblem yet: compute the answer
for (int i = 0; i <= M; i++)
{
J_tmp = std::min (J_tmp, ((double) n)*i/M*i/M +
0.5*J_naive(K+1, ZM+i, W0, Wdsqrtn+1) +
0.5*J_naive(K+1, ZM+i, W0, Wdsqrtn-1) );
}
result_[K][ZM][Wdsqrtn + n] = J_tmp;
seen_[K][ZM][Wdsqrtn + n] = true;
}
}
return result_[K][ZM][Wdsqrtn + n];
}
i've got a problem on my collision Check Algorithm.
The problem is when i try to resolve collisions between 3 objects, 1 of them is still not colliding and not resolving collisions, here's the code:
void check_collisions(engine_t* engine)
{
for (int i = 0; i < engine->actor_count; i++)
{
actor_t* first = (actor_t*)engine->collision_pairs->data[i];
collider_t* a = (collider_t*)get_component_by_name(first, "collider");
for(int j = 0; j < engine->actor_count; j++)
{
actor_t* second = (actor_t*)engine->collision_pairs->data[j];
if(second == first)
continue;
collider_t* b = (collider_t*)get_component_by_name(second, "collider");
hit_state_t hit = aabb(a, b);
resolve_collisions(a, b, hit.normal);
}
}
}
The problem is that when for example: i have A, B, C
A could collide with B and C at the same frame time, it seems that when more object are colliding the first one (first) will not be calculated anymore.. any idea?
void resolve_collisions(collider_t* a, collider_t* b, vec2_t normal)
{
//Stop rigidbody
vec2_t position = a->owner->transform.position;
vec2_t position2 = b->owner->transform.position;
rigid_body_t* rb = (rigid_body_t*)get_component_by_name(a->owner, "rigid_body");
// if(!rb) { SDL_Log("rigid_body not while resolving collisions"); return; }
//hit from dx
if (normal.x > 0.0f && position.x < b->owner->transform.position.x + b->size.x)
{
rb->velocity.x = 0.0f;
// SDL_Log("collided dx");
position.x = (b->owner->transform.position.x + b->size.x) + 0.7f;
}
//hit from sx
if (normal.x < 0.0f && position.x + a->size.x > b->owner->transform.position.x)
{
rb->velocity.x = 0.0f;
float offset = b->size.x - a->size.x;
float offset2 = a->size.x - b->size.x;
// SDL_Log("collided sx");
position.x = (b->owner->transform.position.x - b->size.x) + offset;
position2.x = (a->owner->transform.position.x - a->size.x) + offset2;
}
//hit from top
if (normal.y < 0.0f && position.y + a->size.y > b->owner->transform.position.y)
{
rb->velocity.y = 0.0f;
float offset = b->size.y - a->size.y;
position.y = (b->owner->transform.position.y - b->size.y) + offset;
}
//hit from bottom
if (normal.y > 0.0f && position.y < b->owner->transform.position.y + b->size.y)
{
rb->velocity.y = 0.0f;
// SDL_Log("collided bottom");
position.y = (b->owner->transform.position.y + b->size.y) + 0.7f;
}
//change pos
a->owner->transform.position = position;
}
any help would be much appreciated!
-Thanks
My computer graphics homework is to implement OpenGL algorithms using only the ability to draw points.
So obviously I need to get drawLine() to work before I can draw anything else. drawLine() has to be done using integers only. No floating point.
This is what I was taught. Basically, lines can be broken up into 4 different categories, positive steep, positive shallow, negative steep and negative shallow. This is the picture I am supposed to draw:
and this is the picture my program is drawing:
The colors are done for us. We are given vertices and we need to use Bresenham's Line algorithm to draw the lines based on the start and end points.
This is what I have so far:
int dx = end.x - start.x;
int dy = end.y - start.y;
//initialize varibales
int d;
int dL;
int dU;
if (dy > 0){
if (dy > dx){
//+steep
d = dy - 2*dx;
dL = -2*dx;
dU = 2*dy - 2*dx;
for (int x = start.x, y = start.y; y <= end.y; y++){
Vertex v(x,y);
drawPoint(v);
if (d >= 1){
d += dL;
}else{
x++;
d += dU;
}
}
} else {
//+shallow
d = 2*dy - dx;
dL = 2*dy;
dU = 2*dy - 2*dx;
for (int x = start.x, y = start.y; x <= end.x; x++) {
Vertex v(x,y);
drawPoint(v);
// if choosing L, next y will stay the same, we only need
// to update d by dL
if (d <= 0) {
d += dL;
// otherwise choose U, y moves up 1
} else {
y++;
d += dU;
}
}
}
} else {
if (-dy > dx){
cout << "-steep\n";
//-steep
d = dy - 2*dx;
//south
dL = 2*dx;
//southeast
dU = 2*dy - 2*dx;
for (int x = start.x, y = start.y; y >= end.y; --y){
Vertex v(x,y);
drawPoint(v);
//if choosing L, next x will stay the same, we only need
//to update d
if (d >= 1){
d -= dL;
} else {
x++;
d -= dU;
}
}
} else {
cout << "-shallow\n";
//-shallow
d = 2*dy - dx;
dL = 2*dy;
dU = 2*dy - 2*dx;
for (int x = start.x, y = start.y; x <= end.x; x++){
Vertex v(x,y);
drawPoint(v);
if (d >= 0){
d += dL;
} else {
--y;
d -= dU;
}
}
}
}
I know my error is going to be something silly, but I honestly cannot figure out what I am doing wrong. Why are some of the lines drawn incorrectly as shown above?
/*BRESENHAAM ALGORITHM FOR LINE DRAWING*/
#include<iostream.h>
#include<graphics.h>
#include<stdio.h>
#include<conio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<math.h>
#include<dos.h>
void bhm_line(int,int,int,int,int);
void main()
{
int ghdriver=DETECT,ghmode,errorcode,x1,x2,y1,y2;
initgraph(&ghdriver,&ghmode,"..\\bgi");
errorcode = graphresult();
if(errorcode !=grOk)
{
cout<<"Graphics error:%s\n"<<grapherrormsg(errorcode);
cout<<"Press any key to halt:";
getch();
exit(1);
}
clrscr();
cout<<"Enter the coordinates (x1,y1): ";
cin>>x1>>y1;
cout<<"Enter the coordinates (x2,y2): ";
cin>>x2>>y2;
bhm_line(x1,y1,x2,y2,1);
getch();
}
void bhm_line(int x1,int y1,int x2,int y2,int c)
{
int x,y,dx,dy,dx1,dy1,px,py,xe,ye,i;
dx=x2-x1;
dy=y2-y1;
dx1=fabs(dx);
dy1=fabs(dy);
px=2*dy1-dx1;
py=2*dx1-dy1;
if(dy1<=dx1)
{
if(dx>=0)
{
x=x1;
y=y1;
xe=x2;
}
else
{
x=x2;
y=y2;
xe=x1;
}
putpixel(x,y,c);
for(i=0;x<xe;i++)
{
x=x+1;
if(px<0)
{
px=px+2*dy1;
}
else
{
if((dx<0 && dy<0) || (dx>0 && dy>0))
{
y=y+1;
}
else
{
y=y-1;
}
px=px+2*(dy1-dx1);
}
delay(0);
putpixel(x,y,c);
}
}
else
{
if(dy>=0)
{
x=x1;
y=y1;
ye=y2;
}
else
{
x=x2;
y=y2;
ye=y1;
}
putpixel(x,y,c);
for(i=0;y<ye;i++)
{
y=y+1;
if(py<=0)
{
py=py+2*dx1;
}
else
{
if((dx<0 && dy<0) || (dx>0 && dy>0))
{
x=x+1;
}
else
{
x=x-1;
}
py=py+2*(dx1-dy1);
}
delay(0);
putpixel(x,y,c);
}
}
}
I implemented the original Bresenham's algorithm in C++ and tried to optimize as much as I could (especially regarding removing the IF from the interior loop).
It draws in a linear buffer instead of a surface, and for this matter, this implementation was almost as fast as EFLA (Extremely Fast Line Algorithm) (maybe 5% slower).
#include <vector>
#include <math.h>
using namespace std;
vector<unsigned char> buffer;
int imageSide = 2048; // the width of the surface
struct Point2Di
{
int x;
int y;
Point2Di(const int &x, const int &y): x(x), y(y){}
Point2Di(){}
};
void drawLine(const Point2Di &p0, const Point2Di &p1)
{
int dx = p1.x - p0.x;
int dy = p1.y - p0.y;
int dLong = abs(dx);
int dShort = abs(dy);
int offsetLong = dx > 0 ? 1 : -1;
int offsetShort = dy > 0 ? imageSide : -imageSide;
if(dLong < dShort)
{
swap(dShort, dLong);
swap(offsetShort, offsetLong);
}
int error = 2 * dShort - dLong;
int index = p0.y*imageSide + p0.x;
const int offset[] = {offsetLong, offsetLong + offsetShort};
const int abs_d[] = {2*dShort, 2*(dShort - dLong)};
for(int i = 0; i <= dLong; ++i)
{
buffer[index] = 255; // or a call to your painting method
const int errorIsTooBig = error >= 0;
index += offset[errorIsTooBig];
error += abs_d[errorIsTooBig];
}
}
The EFLA implementation that I am using is:
void drawLine(Point2Di p0, Point2Di p1)
{
bool yLonger=false;
int shortLen=p1.y-p0.y;
int longLen=p1.x-p0.x;
if (abs(shortLen)>abs(longLen)) {
swap(shortLen, longLen);
yLonger=true;
}
int decInc = longLen==0 ? decInc=0 : ((shortLen << 16) / longLen);
if (yLonger) {
p0.y*=imageSide;
p1.y*=imageSide;
if (longLen>0)
for (int j=0x8000+(p0.x<<16);p0.y<=p1.y;p0.y+=imageSide, j+=decInc)
buffer[p0.y + (j >> 16)] = 255; // or a call to your painting method
else
for (int j=0x8000+(p0.x<<16);p0.y>=p1.y;p0.y-=imageSide, j-=decInc)
buffer[p0.y + (j >> 16)] = 255; // or a call to your painting method
}
else
{
if (longLen>0)
for (int j=0x8000+(p0.y<<16);p0.x<=p1.x;++p0.x, j+=decInc)
buffer[(j >> 16) * imageSide + p0.x] = 255; // or a call to your painting method
else
for (int j=0x8000+(p0.y<<16);p0.x>=p1.x;--p0.x, j-=decInc)
buffer[(j >> 16) * imageSide + p0.x] = 255; // or a call to your painting method
}
}
In case anyone was wondering what the problem was, I still don't know what it was. What I ended up doing was re-factored my code so that the -shallow and -steep used the same algorithm as +shallow and +steep, respectively. After adjusting the x,y coordinates (negating the x or y coordinate), when I went to plot them I negated my original negation so that it plotted in the right spot.
I'm trying to fix this triangle rasterizer, but cannot make it work correctly. For some reason it only draws half of the triangles.
void DrawTriangle(Point2D p0, Point2D p1, Point2D p2)
{
Point2D Top, Middle, Bottom;
bool MiddleIsLeft;
if (p0.y < p1.y) // case: 1, 2, 5
{
if (p0.y < p2.y) // case: 1, 2
{
if (p1.y < p2.y) // case: 1
{
Top = p0;
Middle = p1;
Bottom = p2;
MiddleIsLeft = true;
}
else // case: 2
{
Top = p0;
Middle = p2;
Bottom = p1;
MiddleIsLeft = false;
}
}
else // case: 5
{
Top = p2;
Middle = p0;
Bottom = p1;
MiddleIsLeft = true;
}
}
else // case: 3, 4, 6
{
if (p0.y < p2.y) // case: 4
{
Top = p1;
Middle = p0;
Bottom = p2;
MiddleIsLeft = false;
}
else // case: 3, 6
{
if (p1.y < p2.y) // case: 3
{
Top = p1;
Middle = p2;
Bottom = p0;
MiddleIsLeft = true;
}
else // case 6
{
Top = p2;
Middle = p1;
Bottom = p0;
MiddleIsLeft = false;
}
}
}
float xLeft, xRight;
xLeft = xRight = Top.x;
float mLeft, mRight;
// Region 1
if(MiddleIsLeft)
{
mLeft = (Top.x - Middle.x) / (Top.y - Middle.y);
mRight = (Top.x - Bottom.x) / (Top.y - Bottom.y);
}
else
{
mLeft = (Top.x - Bottom.x) / (Top.y - Bottom.y);
mRight = (Middle.x - Top.x) / (Middle.y - Top.y);
}
int finalY;
float Tleft, Tright;
for (int y = ceil(Top.y); y < (int)Middle.y; y++)
{
Tleft=float(Top.y-y)/(Top.y-Middle.y);
Tright=float(Top.y-y)/(Top.y-Bottom.y);
for (int x = ceil(xLeft); x <= ceil(xRight) - 1 ; x++)
{
FrameBuffer::SetPixel(x, y, p0.r,p0.g,p0.b);
}
xLeft += mLeft;
xRight += mRight;
finalY = y;
}
// Region 2
if (MiddleIsLeft)
{
mLeft = (Bottom.x - Middle.x) / (Bottom.y - Middle.y);
}
else
{
mRight = (Middle.x - Bottom.x) / (Middle.y - Bottom.y);
}
for (int y = Middle.y; y <= ceil(Bottom.y) - 1; y++)
{
Tleft=float(Bottom.y-y)/(Bottom.y-Middle.y);
Tright=float(Top.y-y)/(Top.y-Bottom.y);
for (int x = ceil(xLeft); x <= ceil(xRight) - 1; x++)
{
FrameBuffer::SetPixel(x, y, p0.r,p0.g,p0.b);
}
xLeft += mLeft;
xRight += mRight;
}
}
Here is what happens when I use it to draw shapes.
When I disable the second region, all those weird triangles disappear.
The wireframe mode works perfect, so this eliminates all the other possibilities other than the triangle rasterizer.
I kind of got lost in your implementation, but here's what I do (I have a slightly more complex version for arbitrary convex polygons, not just triangles) and I think apart from the Bresenham's algorithm it's very simple (actually the algorithm is simple too):
#include <stddef.h>
#include <limits.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <time.h>
#define SCREEN_HEIGHT 22
#define SCREEN_WIDTH 78
// Simulated frame buffer
char Screen[SCREEN_HEIGHT][SCREEN_WIDTH];
void SetPixel(long x, long y, char color)
{
if ((x < 0) || (x >= SCREEN_WIDTH) ||
(y < 0) || (y >= SCREEN_HEIGHT))
{
return;
}
Screen[y][x] = color;
}
void Visualize(void)
{
long x, y;
for (y = 0; y < SCREEN_HEIGHT; y++)
{
for (x = 0; x < SCREEN_WIDTH; x++)
{
printf("%c", Screen[y][x]);
}
printf("\n");
}
}
typedef struct
{
long x, y;
unsigned char color;
} Point2D;
// min X and max X for every horizontal line within the triangle
long ContourX[SCREEN_HEIGHT][2];
#define ABS(x) ((x >= 0) ? x : -x)
// Scans a side of a triangle setting min X and max X in ContourX[][]
// (using the Bresenham's line drawing algorithm).
void ScanLine(long x1, long y1, long x2, long y2)
{
long sx, sy, dx1, dy1, dx2, dy2, x, y, m, n, k, cnt;
sx = x2 - x1;
sy = y2 - y1;
if (sx > 0) dx1 = 1;
else if (sx < 0) dx1 = -1;
else dx1 = 0;
if (sy > 0) dy1 = 1;
else if (sy < 0) dy1 = -1;
else dy1 = 0;
m = ABS(sx);
n = ABS(sy);
dx2 = dx1;
dy2 = 0;
if (m < n)
{
m = ABS(sy);
n = ABS(sx);
dx2 = 0;
dy2 = dy1;
}
x = x1; y = y1;
cnt = m + 1;
k = n / 2;
while (cnt--)
{
if ((y >= 0) && (y < SCREEN_HEIGHT))
{
if (x < ContourX[y][0]) ContourX[y][0] = x;
if (x > ContourX[y][1]) ContourX[y][1] = x;
}
k += n;
if (k < m)
{
x += dx2;
y += dy2;
}
else
{
k -= m;
x += dx1;
y += dy1;
}
}
}
void DrawTriangle(Point2D p0, Point2D p1, Point2D p2)
{
int y;
for (y = 0; y < SCREEN_HEIGHT; y++)
{
ContourX[y][0] = LONG_MAX; // min X
ContourX[y][1] = LONG_MIN; // max X
}
ScanLine(p0.x, p0.y, p1.x, p1.y);
ScanLine(p1.x, p1.y, p2.x, p2.y);
ScanLine(p2.x, p2.y, p0.x, p0.y);
for (y = 0; y < SCREEN_HEIGHT; y++)
{
if (ContourX[y][1] >= ContourX[y][0])
{
long x = ContourX[y][0];
long len = 1 + ContourX[y][1] - ContourX[y][0];
// Can draw a horizontal line instead of individual pixels here
while (len--)
{
SetPixel(x++, y, p0.color);
}
}
}
}
int main(void)
{
Point2D p0, p1, p2;
// clear the screen
memset(Screen, ' ', sizeof(Screen));
// generate random triangle coordinates
srand((unsigned)time(NULL));
p0.x = rand() % SCREEN_WIDTH;
p0.y = rand() % SCREEN_HEIGHT;
p1.x = rand() % SCREEN_WIDTH;
p1.y = rand() % SCREEN_HEIGHT;
p2.x = rand() % SCREEN_WIDTH;
p2.y = rand() % SCREEN_HEIGHT;
// draw the triangle
p0.color = '1';
DrawTriangle(p0, p1, p2);
// also draw the triangle's vertices
SetPixel(p0.x, p0.y, '*');
SetPixel(p1.x, p1.y, '*');
SetPixel(p2.x, p2.y, '*');
Visualize();
return 0;
}
Output:
*111111
1111111111111
111111111111111111
1111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111111111
11111111111111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111111111111111111
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111111111111111111111*
11111111111111111111111111111111111
1111111111111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111111111
11111111111111111111111
1111111111111111111
11111111111111
11111111111
1111111
1*
The original code will only work properly with triangles that have counter-clockwise winding because of the if-else statements on top that determines whether middle is left or right. It could be that the triangles which aren't drawing have the wrong winding.
This stack overflow shows how to Determine winding of a 2D triangles after triangulation
The original code is fast because it doesn't save the points of the line in a temporary memory buffer. Seems a bit over-complicated even given that, but that's another problem.
The following code is in your implementation:
if (p0.y < p1.y) // case: 1, 2, 5
{
if (p0.y < p2.y) // case: 1, 2
{
if (p1.y < p2.y) // case: 1
{
Top = p0;
Middle = p1;
Bottom = p2;
MiddleIsLeft = true;
}
else // case: 2
{
Top = p0;
Middle = p2;
Bottom = p1;
MiddleIsLeft = false;
}
}
This else statement means that p2.y (or Middle) can equal p1.y (or Bottom). If this is true, then when region 2 runs
if (MiddleIsLeft)
{
mLeft = (Bottom.x - Middle.x) / (Bottom.y - Middle.y);
}
else
{
mRight = (Middle.x - Bottom.x) / (Middle.y - Bottom.y);
}
That else line will commit division by zero, which is not possible.