the gif will better explain what I'm trying to do.
Bow aim.
as you can see I can't get the arrow to follow the aim. The problem is I have the Bow and Arrow separate so the bow spawns the arrow and that's the problem I can't get the calculation of the hspeed and vspeed and gravity of the arrow to match the bow draw event of the doted aim. I will post the doted aim code and the arrow gravity/movement code the spawn code for the arrow is simple on the release of the button it spawns the arrow at the x,y position of the bow. If you need any other code I will post it. Sorry if it's not well explained.
Arrow Code:
End Step
///Check if parent still exists
if (parent != noone)
if (!instance_exists(parent))
{
parent = noone;
}
///Gravity
if (grav != 0)
{
hsp += lengthdir_x(grav, grav_dir);
vsp += lengthdir_y(grav, grav_dir);
}
///Increase gravity over time, up until a maximum amount
grav = min(grav+grav_add, grav_max);
///Limit speed
hsp = clamp(hsp, -hsp_max, hsp_max);
vsp = clamp(vsp, -vsp_max, vsp_max);
///Calculate directional speed
var sp = point_distance(0, 0, hsp, vsp);
direction = point_direction(0, 0, hsp, vsp);
Bow:
DrawEvent:
var _f_x = x;
var _f_y = y;
var _f_spd_x = draw_aim_circle_max * dcos(controler_angle)
var _f_spd_y = draw_aim_circle_max *-dsin(controler_angle)
while (!instance_place(_f_x,_f_y,objAimCircleKiller))
{
draw_sprite(sprAimCircleSmall,0,_f_x,_f_y+1);
_f_x += _f_spd_x
_f_spd_y += grav_aimCircle
_f_y += _f_spd_y;
}
Do you have some code in Arrow to slowdown the horizontal speed? It seems to stop faster than it should. Try to use a different variable to manage the horizontal speed instead of the grav var.
When calculate the x speed of the arrow, define an explicit value max speed. The arrow speed should be max speed when the sin angle is 90° and close to 0 when sin angle is 0. Then just use the arcsin function to get a value from 0/1 and multiply for the max speed.
var maxHorSpeed = 10;
var aimAngle = lengthdir_y(bow.x,bow.y,target.x,target.y);
arrow.horizontalSpeed = clamp( sin(aimAngle)*maxHorSpeed,0.2, maxHorSpeed);
Related
I'm trying to create a smooth "wave" when the mouse moves over isometric logo shape.
I've created in in processing now I'm trying to recreate it in THREE.js
The shape acts strangely - the shape doesn't look as smooth when elevated compared to the processing sketch. If you look at the edges you can see segments that are not supposed to be there. I'm not sure what causes this.
Basically the shape is created through a loops that goes over 2 arrays:
for (var i = 0; i < xpos0.length; i++) {
shape.lineTo(xpos0[i], ypos0[i]);
}
Then it animates through another for loop that checks the distance between verteces[i].x and mouse location intersection with the ground
for (let p = 0; p < mesh.geometry.vertices.length; p=p+1) {
let delta = Math.abs(mesh.geometry.vertices[p].x - intersects[0].point.x);
mesh.geometry.vertices[p].z = bump2(-2, 2000, -1, 2, delta);
}
z value is calculated through this function:
function bump2(a,b,c,d,xval) {
xval = parseFloat(xval);
// console.log(typeof xval);
return Math.exp(a / (-xval * xval / b + c) + d) * -1;
}
https://codepen.io/NotYetDesignLab/pen/JjYaqRJ
How it looks on THREE.JS
notice how some segments appear "broken", like it's made of stiff parts instead of the many points that make up the segment in the array and give the illusion of "paper".
THIS IS HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO LOOK: (Processing/java)
This has been done using Processing. Notice how the elevation of the edges is smooth and not broken.
I am trying to store the motion detected from optical flow for frames in a video sequence and then use these stored motion vectors in order to predict the already known frames using just the first frame as a reference. I am currently using two processing sketches - the first sketch draws a motion vector for every pixel grid (each of width and height 10 pixels). This is done for every frame in the video sequence. The vector is only drawn in a grid if there is sufficient motion detected. The second sketch aims to reconstruct the video frames crudely from just the initial frame of the video sequence combined with information about the motion vectors got from the first sketch.
My approach so far is as follows: I am able to determine the size, position and direction of each motion vector drawn in the first sketch from four variables. By creating four arrays (two for the motion vector's x and y coordinate and another two for its length in the x and y direction), every time a motion vector is drawn I can append each of the four variables to the arrays mentioned above. This is done for each pixel grid throughout an entire frame where the vector is drawn and for each frame in the sequence - via for loops. Once the arrays are full, I can then save them to a text file as a list of strings. I then load these strings from the text file into the second sketch, along with the first frame of the video sequence. I load the strings into variables within a while loop in the draw function and convert them back into floats. I increment a variable by one each time the draw function is called - this moves on to the next frame (I used a specific number as a separator in my text-files which appears at the end of every frame - the loop searches for this number and then increments the variable by one, thus breaking the while loop and the draw function is called again for the subsequent frame). For each frame, I can draw 10 by 10 pixel boxes and move then by the parameters got from the text files in the first sketch. My problem is simply this: How do I draw the motion of a particular frame without letting what I've have blitted to the screen in the previous frame affect what will be drawn for the next frame. My only way of getting my 10 by 10 pixel box is by using the get() function which gets pixels that are already drawn to the screen.
Apologies for the length and complexity of my question. Any tips would be very much appreciated! I will add the code for the second sketch. I can also add the first sketch if required, but it's rather long and a lot of it is not my own. Here is the second sketch:
import processing.video.*;
Movie video;
PImage [] naturalMovie = new PImage [0];
String xlengths [];
String ylengths [];
String xpositions [];
String ypositions [];
int a = 0;
int c = 0;
int d = 0;
int p;
int gs = 10;
void setup(){
size(640, 480, JAVA2D);
xlengths = loadStrings("xlengths.txt");
ylengths = loadStrings("ylengths.txt");
xpositions = loadStrings("xpositions.txt");
ypositions = loadStrings("ypositions.txt");
video = new Movie(this, "sample1.mov");
video.play();
rectMode(CENTER);
}
void movieEvent(Movie m) {
m.read();
PImage f = createImage(m.width, m.height, ARGB);
f.set(0, 0, m);
f.resize(width, height);
naturalMovie = (PImage []) append(naturalMovie, f);
println("naturalMovie length: " + naturalMovie.length);
p = naturalMovie.length - 1;
}
void draw() {
if(naturalMovie.length >= p && p > 0){
if (c == 0){
image(naturalMovie[0], 0, 0);
}
d = c;
while (c == d && c < xlengths.length){
float u, v, x0, y0;
u = float(xlengths[a]);
v = float(ylengths[a]);
x0 = float(xpositions[a]);
y0 = float(ypositions[a]);
if (u != 1.0E-19){
//stroke(255,255,255);
//line(x0,y0,x0+u,y0+v);
PImage box;
box = get(int(x0-gs/2), int(y0 - gs/2), gs, gs);
image(box, x0-gs/2 +u, y0 - gs/2 +v, gs, gs);
if (a < xlengths.length - 1){
a += 1;
}
}
else if (u == 1.0E-19){
if (a < xlengths.length - 1){
c += 1;
a += 1;
}
}
}
}
}
Word to the wise: most people aren't going to read that wall of text. Try to "dumb down" your posts so they get to the details right away, without any extra information. You'll also be better off if you post an MCVE instead of only giving us half your code. Note that this does not mean posting your entire project. Instead, start over with a blank sketch and only create the most basic code required to show the problem. Don't include any of your movie logic, and hardcode as much as possible. We should be able to copy and paste your code onto our own machines to run it and see the problem.
All of that being said, I think I understand what you're asking.
How do I draw the motion of a particular frame without letting what I've have blitted to the screen in the previous frame affect what will be drawn for the next frame. My only way of getting my 10 by 10 pixel box is by using the get() function which gets pixels that are already drawn to the screen.
Separate your program into a view and a model. Right now you're using the screen (the view) to store all of your information, which is going to cause you headaches. Instead, store the state of your program into a set of variables (the model). For you, this might just be a bunch of PVector instances.
Let's say I have an ArrayList<PVector> that holds the current position of all of my vectors:
ArrayList<PVector> currentPositions = new ArrayList<PVector>();
void setup() {
size(500, 500);
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
currentPositions.add(new PVector(random(width), random(height)));
}
}
void draw(){
background(0);
for(PVector vector : currentPositions){
ellipse(vector.x, vector.y, 10, 10);
}
}
Notice that I'm just hardcoding their positions to be random. This is what your MCVE should do as well. And then in the draw() function, I'm simply drawing each vector. This is like drawing a single frame for you.
Now that we have that, we can create a nextFrame() function that moves the vectors based on the ArrayList (our model) and not what's drawn on the screen!
void nextFrame(){
for(PVector vector : currentPositions){
vector.x += random(-2, 2);
vector.y += random(-2, 2);
}
}
Again, I'm just hardcoding a random movement, but you would be reading these from your file. Then we just call the nextFrame() function as the last line in the draw() function:
If you're still having trouble, I highly recommend posting an MCVE similar to mine and posting a new question. Good luck.
Good day to all, I am trying to get an enemy boss ship to appear on screen and attack my ship and also dodge my attacks sometimes. So far I have gotten him to attack my ship but hes stays on the edge of the screen. Here is my code :
#pragma strict
// here are public variables for the enemy ship that can be accessed in the inspector
var health:int = 2;
var explosion:GameObject;
var expOrb:GameObject;
var enemyBullet:GameObject;
var expDrop:int = 3;
var hitSound:AudioClip;
var fireRate:float = 2.0;
//heres the private variable counter to keep track of time for fire rate.
private var counter:float = 0.0;
function Update () {
//here we make counter count based on time for the fire rate
counter += Time.deltaTime;
//if the ship goes too far left, we destroy it.
if(transform.position.x < -12){
Destroy(gameObject);
}
//here we shoot 4 bullets if the counter counts higher than the fire rate.
if(counter > fireRate){
var custom1 = Instantiate(enemyBullet, transform.position - Vector3(0.5,0.1,0), Quaternion.Euler(-90,0,0));
var custom2 = Instantiate(enemyBullet, transform.position - Vector3(0.5,0.1,0), Quaternion.Euler(-90,0,0));
var custom3 = Instantiate(enemyBullet, transform.position- Vector3(0.5,0.1,0), Quaternion.Euler(-90,0,0));
var custom4 = Instantiate(enemyBullet, transform.position- Vector3(0.5,0.1,0), Quaternion.Euler(-90,0,0));
//to make the bullets spread, we add extra z velocity to each one to they all move on their own path.
custom1.rigidbody.velocity.z = 3;
custom2.rigidbody.velocity.z = 1;
custom3.rigidbody.velocity.z = -1;
custom4.rigidbody.velocity.z = -3;
counter = 0.0;
}
//end of function update
}
//if a bullet hits the ship, the bullets sends us the hit message to trigger this function to bring down the ships health
function hit () {
health -= 1;
if(health != 0){
if(audio.enabled == true){
audio.PlayOneShot(hitSound);
}
}
if(health <= 0){
onDeath();
}
}
//if health is 0, then this function is triggered to spawn some orbs, spawn the explosion animation object, and destroy itself
function onDeath () {
Instantiate(expOrb,transform.position,Quaternion.Euler(-90,0,0));
expDrop -= 1;
if(expDrop <= 0){
Instantiate(explosion,transform.position,Quaternion.Euler(-90,Random.Range(-180,180),0));
Destroy(gameObject);
}
if(expDrop > 0){
onDeath();
}
}
How do i add the movement aspect to it?
There are many ways to move an object, you can try:
Transform.translate (http://docs.unity3d.com/ScriptReference/Transform.Translate.html)
Modifying transform.position (http://answers.unity3d.com/questions/188998/transformposition.html)
Adding force to it (http://docs.unity3d.com/ScriptReference/Rigidbody.AddForce.html)
And many other ways that I may have not known yet.
For a boss in this kind of game, the movement you may want is either random movement or following the player. Both are not hard to achieve.
Random movement: just do a Random.Range(-1, 1) * bossSpeed *
time.deltaTime and apply it to the boss' x position.
Following the player: get the player's x position then make the boss adjust to the position.
Then how to make the boss dodge the player's bullet sometimes? You can make the boss detect if a player's bullet is incoming by adding a collider thats stands in front of it. If a player's bullet collide with it, then random another number (eg. from 0 to 1). Afterwards, you just need to move the boss away if the random number is 1 and don't move the boss when the random number is 0.
I'm working on a 3D scene viewer with the HOOPS Engine
I want to implement support for a 3D mouse. Everything is working fine but there is one remaining problem I don't know how to solve:
I move my camera with following formula:
HC_Dolly_Camera(-(factor.x * this->m_speed), factor.y * this->m_speed, factor.z * this->m_speed);
this->m_speed is dependent on scene extents. But if the scene is really big (e.g. a airport) the camera speed is on a deep zoom level ridiculous fast.
My first attempt was to implement a kind of damping factor which is dependent on the distance from objects to my camera. It works ... somehow. Sometimes I noticed ugly "bouncing effects" which I can avoid with smooth acceleration and a modified cosine function.
But my question is: Is there a best practice to reduce camera speed in closeup situations in a 3D scene? My approach is working, but I think it is not a good solution due it uses many raycasts.
Best regards,
peekaboo777
P.S.:
My code
if(!this->smooth_damping)
{
if(int res = HC_Compute_Selection_By_Area(this->view->GetDriverPath(), ".", "v", -0.5, 0.5, -0.5, 0.5) > 0)
{
float window_x, window_y, window_z, camera_x, camera_y, camera_z;
double dist_length = 0;
double shortest_dist = this->max_world_extent;
while(HC_Find_Related_Selection())
{
HC_Show_Selection_Position(&window_x, &window_y, &window_z, &camera_x, &camera_y, &camera_z);
this->view->GetCamera(&this->cam);
// Compute distance vector
this->dist.Set(cam.position.x - camera_x, cam.position.y - camera_y, cam.position.z - camera_z);
dist_length = sqrt(pow((cam.position.x - camera_x), 2) + pow((cam.position.y - camera_y), 2) + pow((cam.position.z - camera_z), 2));
if(dist_length < shortest_dist)
shortest_dist = dist_length;
}
// Reduced computation
// Compute damping factor
damping_factor = ((1 - 8) / (this->max_world_extent - 1)) * (shortest_dist - 1) + 8;
// Difference to big? (Gap)
if(qFabs(damping_factor - damping_factor * 0.7) < qFabs(damping_factor - this->last_damping_factor))
{
this->smooth_damping = true;
this->damping_factor_to_reach = damping_factor; // this is the new damping factor we have to reach
this->freezed_damping_factor = this->last_damping_factor; // damping factor before gap.
if(this->last_damping_factor > damping_factor) // Negative acceleration
{
this->acceleration = false;
}
else // Acceleration
{
this->acceleration = true;
}
}
else
{
this->last_damping_factor = damping_factor;
}
}
}
else
{
if(this->acceleration)
{
if(this->freezed_damping_factor -= 0.2 >= 1);
damping_factor = this->freezed_damping_factor +
(((this->damping_factor_to_reach - this->freezed_damping_factor) / 2) -
((this->damping_factor_to_reach - this->freezed_damping_factor) / 2) *
qCos(M_PI * this->damping_step)); // cosine function between freezed and to reach
this->last_damping_factor = damping_factor;
if(damping_factor >= this->damping_factor_to_reach)
{
this->smooth_damping = false;
this->damping_step = 0;
this->freezed_damping_factor = 0;
} // Reset
}
else
{
if(this->freezed_damping_factor += 0.2 >= 1);
damping_factor = this->damping_factor_to_reach +
((this->freezed_damping_factor - this->damping_factor_to_reach) -
(((this->freezed_damping_factor - this->damping_factor_to_reach) / 2) -
((this->freezed_damping_factor - this->damping_factor_to_reach) / 2) *
qCos(M_PI * this->damping_step))); // cosine functio between to reach and freezed
this->last_damping_factor = damping_factor;
if(damping_factor <= this->damping_factor_to_reach)
{
this->smooth_damping = false;
this->damping_step = 0;
this->freezed_damping_factor = 0;
} // Reset
}
this->damping_step += 0.01; // Increase the "X"
}
I've never used the HOOPS engine, but do you have any way to get the closest object to the camera? You could scale your speed with this value, so your camera gets slower close to objects.
Even better would be to take the closest point on bounding-box instead of center of object. This would improve the behaviour close to big objects like long walls/floor.
Another solution I'd try would be to raycast through the view center to look for the first object and use the distance the same way. In this approach you'll not be slowed down by objects behind you. You may also add additional raycast points, like in 1/4 of screen and blend resulting values, so you have more constant speed scale.
What I understand from your question is that you want a way to steer camera through large scenes, like an airport and still be able to move slowly close to the objects. I don't think there's some 'universal' way of doing it. All will depend on your Engine/API features and specific needs. If all those solutions doesn't work, maybe you should try with paper and pen ;) .
You said that m_speed is dependent on scene extent, I guess this dependency is linear (by linear I mean if you are measuring the scene extend with something called sExtent, m_speed equals c*sExtent that c is some constant coefficient).
So to make m_speed dependent on scene extent but avoid huge m_speed for large scale scenes , I suggest to make dependency of m_speed to sExtent non-linear, like logarithmic dependency:
m_speed = c*log(sExtent+1)
This way your m_speed will be bigger if scene is bigger, but not in the same ratio. you also can use radical to create non-linear dependency. below you can compare these functions:
I have made the game, "Breakout". A small fun side-project.
Now, I usually do not make games, so collision-handling is not something I normally think about.
I have a paddle, a ball and some bricks.
For now, when there is a collision (I draw rectangles around each of the objects mentioned), I simply change the Y value of the ball to -Y.
This works fine, EXCEPT if the ball hits a brick from the side (either East or West). The side-effect is not pretty and ruins the gameplay.
I think I can safely assume that instead of the above technique, I need to change the X value to -X when this happens.
So far I have: if (ballRect.IntersectsWith(brickRect))
ballRect and brickRect being rectangles around each object.
Now, what if I created a rectangle around the eastern border of the brick, the western border, etc? I guess the width would be about a pixel.
If collision happens with western or eastern rectangle, then the balls X value should be -X.
And vice versa.
What about the corners though? Should I just randomly choose which rectangle to control of x corner?
Or perhaps should I make a rectangle around each corner? the rectangle being 1*1 in side.
If there is a collision => -x AND -y values of the ball?
Please share your thoughts.
Here is the process so far:
foreach (var brick in Bricks)
{
if (brick.IsAlive)
{
var brickRect = new Rectangle(brick.X, brick.Y, BrickWidth, BrickHeight);
if (ballRect.IntersectsWith(brickRect)) //Ball has hit brick. lets find out which side of the brick
{
var brickRectNorth = new Rectangle(brick.X, brick.Y + BrickHeight, BrickWidth, 1);
var brickRectSouth = new Rectangle(brick.X, brick.Y, BrickWidth, 1);
var brickRectEast = new Rectangle(brick.X, brick.Y, 1, BrickHeight);
var brickRectWest = new Rectangle(brick.X + BrickWidth, brick.Y, 1, BrickHeight);
if (ballRect.IntersectsWith(brickRectNorth) || ballRect.IntersectsWith(brickRectSouth))
{
//STUFF that makes ball.y = -ball.y
}
if (ballRect.IntersectsWith(brickRectWest) || ballRect.IntersectsWith(brickRectEast))
{
//STUFF that makes ball.x = -ball.x
}
}
}
}
Rather than looking for rectangle intersections, I'd intersect the actual edges. At the corner, your ball is touching two edges simultaneously, so its motion vector should be affected by both.
I would keep the single rectangle for collision detection, since that reduces the number of rectangles you need to test in your outer loop, but then once a collision with a brick has been detected, go into an inner loop to detect which edge it was that was hit. If you just test each edge and adjust the vector accordingly for each one, the corner will come for free (as long as you don't break out of the loop when you find the first intersecting edge).
Edit: In response to your updated question:
Actually, this is how I would do it (given your code, this appears to be C# 3.0, so that's what I've assumed below):
foreach(var brick in Bricks) {
if(brick.IsAlive) {
var brickRect = new Rectangle(brick.X, brick.Y, BrickWidth, BrickHeight);
if(ballRect.IntersectsWith(brickRect)) {
// Ball has hit brick. Now let's adjust the ball's vector accordingly
// Convenience variables. Compiler will probably inline.
var brickLeft = brick.X;
var brickRight = brick.X + BrickWidth;
var brickTop = brick.Y;
var brickBottom = brick.Y + BrickHeight;
var ballLeft = ball.X - ball.Radius;
var ballRight = ball.X + ball.Radius;
var ballTop = ball.Y - ball.Radius;
var ballBottom = ball.Y + ball.Radius;
// Test which vector(s) we need to flip
bool flipX = (ballRight >= brickLeft || ballLeft <= brickRight);
bool flipY = (ballTop >= brickBottom || ballBottom <= brickTop);
// Flip the vectors (there are probably ways to optimize this,
// too, but without seeing your code I can't tell).
if(flipY) {
// Stuff that makes ball.y = -ball.y
}
if(flipX) {
// Stuff that makes ball.x = -ball.x
}
}
}
}
Basically, the point is that since you already know the ball actually intersects the brick, you can simplify to a simple box test, which is much faster. Also, there's no need to create extra rectangles for the edges -- just use the edges of the rectangle you already have.