I'm currently writing a android game and and am dealing with fast collision detections.
I've come up with a solution, yet I'd like to know the most and preferred way to do this.
My solution: If we have a game object that moves 30 units a frame, we might go straight through another game object. So when I update I iterate the game object by 1 unit and run a collision detections until my wanted velocity is reached, and then I render.
This is a game object, that checks if the player's lasers or if the player itself has collided with it.
public void update(PlayerDroid[] holderPlayerDroid) {
// Update the location
//y = y + velocity;
//stupidBadDroidPositionShape.setLocation(this.x, this.y);
// Updates regarding interactions with the enemy out of the StupidBadDroids perspective, which is the PlayeDroid
for(int numberOfPlayerDroid = 0; numberOfPlayerDroid < holderPlayerDroid.length; numberOfPlayerDroid++) {
// Check if the StupidBadDroid got hit
for(int iterations = 0; iterations < velocity; iterations++) {
y = y + 1;
stupidBadDroidPositionShape.setLocation(this.x, this.y);
// Check if StupidBadDroid collides with the enemy (which is the player)
if(Physics.shapeInShape(holderPlayerDroid[numberOfPlayerDroid].getPlayerPositionShape(), getPlayerPositionShape())) {
isDead = true;
}
for(int i = 0; i < holderPlayerDroid[numberOfPlayerDroid].amountOfVisibleLasers; i++) {
if(holderPlayerDroid[numberOfPlayerDroid].holderLaser[i].isDisposed() == false) {
if(Physics.shapeInShape(holderPlayerDroid[numberOfPlayerDroid].holderLaser[i].getLaserPositionShape(), getPlayerPositionShape())) {
isDead = true;
holderPlayerDroid[numberOfPlayerDroid].holderLaser[i].dispose();
}
}
}
}
}
}
This way is very CPU demanding. Do you believe there are better solution I could apply?
You are describing tunneling, and are attempting to do continuous collision detection. Your method is CPU intensive because you are attempting to brute-force the solution.
The more fidelity that you want, the more technical the solution. If you don't need much fidelity, you could assume that the path the objects take in each frame is linear, and "expand" your hitboxes to cover the entire distance the objects moved during the frame. So, for example, instead of moving each point a discrete distance at a time, you could simply expand the points to a line segment and see if they intersect. Your hitboxes are not going to be points, though, so just "stretch" them by the path length. This is a very low-fi solution - if multiple collisions on the same object happen, you won't always pick the collision that happened "first".
For very complex solutions, try -
http://www.bulletphysics.org/mediawiki-1.5.8/index.php/Collision_Detection_and_Physics_FAQ
Related
I've implemented a selection sort algorithm in Processing 3.0 and I would like to display the bars as they are being sorted. The code is as follow:
ArrayList<Bar> sort() {
int smallest;
for (int i = 0; i < sortedBars.size(); i++) {
smallest = indexOfMinimum(i);
swap(sortedBars, smallest, i);
background(0);
for (int i2 = 0; i2 < sortedBars.size(); i2++) {
sortedBars.get(i2).display(i2, 255);
}
}
return sortedBars;}
however, this code only displays some bars in the initial state and the final state, skipping everything in between.
On the other hand, if I use a similar function, but that runs only one time
ArrayList<Bar> sort(int i) {
int smallest = indexOfMinimum(i);
swap(sortedBars, smallest, i);
return sortedBars;}
And then call it multiple times inside draw() function, it works just fine.
Am I doing something wrong?
edit: Forgot to mention, this is the display function:
void display(int position, color col) {
stroke(col);
line(position, height, position, height - barSize);}
Also, the Bar class has an attribute called barSie.
This is exactly how Processing is intended to work.
Processing is double-buffered, which means that it draws everything to an off-screen buffer before it copies that buffer to the screen. Usually that's a good thing, as it makes animations smoother. But like you've discovered, it prevents the "in-between" frames from showing.
To solve your problem, there are two approaches I can think of:
Option one: instead of using a for loop to do your iteration, use each call to the draw() function as one "step" in your algorithm. That would allow you to show one step per frame.
Option two: instead of drawing to the screen, draw each step of your algorithm to its own buffer, which you can create using the createGraphics() function. Either save the frames to disc, or in their own data structure. Then when the algorithm completes, you'll have a set of frames that you can then display.
Which approach you take really depends on you and what your end goal is. Good luck.
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.
G'day All,
My little game has 5 bouncing balls and 1 player. Initially I wrote the code for the bouncing balls first and each ball has a collision detection method:
foreach (Bouncer bouncer in Game.Components) //For each bouncer component in the game...
{
if (bouncer != this)// Don't collide with myself
{
if (bouncer.collisionRectangle.Intersects(this.collisionRectangle))
{
// How far apart of the positions of the top right hand corners of the sprites when they hit?
int deltaX = Math.Abs((int)this.position.X - (int)bouncer.position.X);
int deltaY = Math.Abs((int)this.position.Y - (int)bouncer.position.Y);
// This is the width and height of a sprite so when two sprites touch this is how far the corners are from each other.
int targetWidth = 80;
int targetHeight = 80;
// The following determins the type of collision (vert hit vs horiz hit)
// Because the app is driven by a game based timer the actual amount of sprite overlap when the collision detection occurs is variable.
// This bit of simple logic has a 10 pixel tollerance for a hit.
// If target - delta is > 10 it will be interpreted as overlap in the non-colliding axis.
// If both if statements are triggered it is interpreted as a corner collision resulting in both sprites rebounding back along the original paths.
if (targetWidth - deltaX < 10) // The hit is a side on hit.
{
this.velocity.X *= -1;
}
if (targetHeight - deltaY < 10) // The hit is a vertical hit
{
this.velocity.Y *= -1;
}
this.numberOfCollisions = this.numberOfCollisions + 1;
}
}
}
base.Update(gameTime);
}
Then I added my player component and the wheels fell off. The app compiles OK but when I run it I get an InvalidCastException and the message:
Unable to cast object of type 'Bounce2.Player' to type 'Bounce2.Bouncer'.
I don't want to include the player object in this collision detector.
Is there a way I can enumerate my way through the Bouncer objects and exclude any other objects?
Thanks,
Andrew.
You can use this:
foreach (Bouncer bouncer in Game.Components.OfType<Bouncer>())
Note that you can store the Bouncer instances in other list too.
Im working on a project where i want to generate a 3D mesh to represent a certain amount of data.
To create this mesh i want to use transformation Matrixes, so i created a class based upon the mathematical algorithms found on a couple of websites.
Everything seems to work, scale/translation but as soon as im rotating a mesh on its x-axis its starts to deform after 2 to 3 complete rotations. It feels like my scale values are increasing which transforms my mesh. I'm struggling with this problem for a couple of days but i can't figure out what's going wrong.
To make things more clear you can download my complete setup here.
I defined the coordinates of a box and put them through the transformation matrix before writing them to the screen
This is the formula for rotating my object
void appendRotation(float inXAngle, float inYAngle, float inZAngle, PVector inPivot ) {
boolean setPivot = false;
if (inPivot.x != 0 || inPivot.y != 0 || inPivot.z != 0) {
setPivot = true;
}
// If a setPivot = true, translate the position
if (setPivot) {
// Translations for the different axises need to be set different
if (inPivot.x != 0) { this.appendTranslation(inPivot.x,0,0); }
if (inPivot.y != 0) { this.appendTranslation(0,inPivot.y,0); }
if (inPivot.z != 0) { this.appendTranslation(0,0,inPivot.z); }
}
// Create a rotationmatrix
Matrix3D rotationMatrix = new Matrix3D();
// xsin en xcos
float xSinCal = sin(radians(inXAngle));
float xCosCal = cos(radians(inXAngle));
// ysin en ycos
float ySinCal = sin(radians(inYAngle));
float yCosCal = cos(radians(inYAngle));
// zsin en zcos
float zSinCal = sin(radians(inZAngle));
float zCosCal = cos(radians(inZAngle));
// Rotate around x
rotationMatrix.setIdentity();
// --
rotationMatrix.matrix[1][1] = xCosCal;
rotationMatrix.matrix[1][2] = xSinCal;
rotationMatrix.matrix[2][1] = -xSinCal;
rotationMatrix.matrix[2][2] = xCosCal;
// Add rotation to the basis matrix
this.multiplyWith(rotationMatrix);
// Rotate around y
rotationMatrix.setIdentity();
// --
rotationMatrix.matrix[0][0] = yCosCal;
rotationMatrix.matrix[0][2] = -ySinCal;
rotationMatrix.matrix[2][0] = ySinCal;
rotationMatrix.matrix[2][2] = yCosCal;
// Add rotation to the basis matrix
this.multiplyWith(rotationMatrix);
// Rotate around z
rotationMatrix.setIdentity();
// --
rotationMatrix.matrix[0][0] = zCosCal;
rotationMatrix.matrix[0][1] = zSinCal;
rotationMatrix.matrix[1][0] = -zSinCal;
rotationMatrix.matrix[1][1] = zCosCal;
// Add rotation to the basis matrix
this.multiplyWith(rotationMatrix);
// Untranslate the position
if (setPivot) {
// Translations for the different axises need to be set different
if (inPivot.x != 0) { this.appendTranslation(-inPivot.x,0,0); }
if (inPivot.y != 0) { this.appendTranslation(0,-inPivot.y,0); }
if (inPivot.z != 0) { this.appendTranslation(0,0,-inPivot.z); }
}
}
Does anyone have a clue?
You never want to cumulatively transform matrices. This will introduce error into your matrices and cause problems such as scaling or skewing the orthographic components.
The correct method would be to keep track of the cumulative pitch, yaw, roll angles. Then reconstruct the transformation matrix from those angles every update.
If there is any chance: avoid multiplying rotation matrices. Keep track of the cumulative rotation and compute a new rotation matrix at each step.
If it is impossible to avoid multiplying the rotation matrices then renormalize them (starts on page 16). It works for me just fine for more than 10 thousand multiplications.
However, I suspect that it will not help you, numerical errors usually requires more than 2 steps to manifest themselves. It seems to me the reason for your problem is somewhere else.
Yaw, pitch and roll are not good for arbitrary rotations. Euler angles suffer from singularities and instability. Look at 38:25 (presentation of David Sachs)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7JQ7Rpwn2k
Good luck!
As #don mentions, try to avoid cumulative transformations, as you can run into all sort of problems. Rotating by one axis at a time might lead you to Gimbal Lock issues. Try to do all rotations in one go.
Also, bare in mind that Processing comes with it's own Matrix3D class called PMatrix3D which has a rotate() method which takes an angle(in radians) and x,y,z values for the rotation axis.
Here is an example function that would rotate a bunch of PVectors:
PVector[] rotateVerts(PVector[] verts,float angle,PVector axis){
int vl = verts.length;
PVector[] clone = new PVector[vl];
for(int i = 0; i<vl;i++) clone[i] = verts[i].get();
//rotate using a matrix
PMatrix3D rMat = new PMatrix3D();
rMat.rotate(angle,axis.x,axis.y,axis.z);
PVector[] dst = new PVector[vl];
for(int i = 0; i<vl;i++) {
dst[i] = new PVector();
rMat.mult(clone[i],dst[i]);
}
return dst;
}
and here is an example using it.
HTH
A shot in the dark: I don't know the rules or the name of the programming language you are using, but this procedure looks suspicious:
void setIdentity() {
this.matrix = identityMatrix;
}
Are you sure your are taking a copy of identityMatrix? If it is just a reference you are copying, then identityMatrix will be modified by later operations, and soon nothing makes sense.
Though the matrix renormalization suggested probably works fine in practice, it is a bit ad-hoc from a mathematical point of view. A better way of doing it is to represent the cumulative rotations using quaternions, which are only converted to a rotation matrix upon application. The quaternions will also drift slowly from orthogonality (though slower), but the important thing is that they have a well-defined renormalization.
Good starting information for implementing this can be:
http://www.cprogramming.com/tutorial/3d/quaternions.html
http://www.scheib.net/school/library/quaternions.pdf
A useful academic reference can be:
K. Shoemake, “Animating rotation with quaternion curves,” ACM
SIGGRAPH Comput. Graph., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 245–254, 1985. DOI:10.1145/325165.325242
I have a simple sketch (in Processing), basically a bunch of dots wander around, if they come into contact with each other they fight (each has a strength value, increased each time they win, if it's equal the winner is randomly chosen)
It works well with about 5000 12-pixel "zombies" (there's a slight slowdown for a half a second, while the zombies initially collide with each other), the problem is when the zombies are made smaller, they don't collide with each other as quick, and the slowdown can last much longer..
The code is really simple - basically each zombie is a class, which has an X/Y coordinate. Each frame all the zombies are nudged one pixel, randomly turning lurching degrees (or not). I think the biggest cause of slowness is the collision detection - each zombie checks every other one (so zombie 1 checks 2-5000, zombie 2 checks 1,3-5000 etc..)
I'd like to keep everything simple, and "plain Processing" (not using external libraries, which might be more efficient and easy, but I don't find it very useful for learning)
int numZombies = 5000;
Zombie[] zombies = new Zombie[numZombies];
void setup(){
size(512, 512);
noStroke();
for(int i = 0; i < numZombies; i++){
zombies[i] = new Zombie(i, random(width), random(height), random(360), zombies);
}
}
void draw(){
background(0);
for(int i = 0; i < numZombies; i++){
zombies[i].move();
zombies[i].display();
}
}
class Zombie{
int id; // the index of this zombie
float x, y; // current location
float angle; // angle of zombies movement
float lurching = 10; // Amount angle can change
float strength = 2;
boolean dead = false; // true means zombie is dead
float diameter = 12; // How big the zombie is
float velocity = 1.0; // How fast zombie moves
Zombie[] others; // Stores the other zombies
Zombie(int inid, float xin, float yin, float inangle, Zombie[] oin){
id = inid;
x = xin;
y = yin;
angle = inangle;
others = oin;
}
void move(){
if(dead) return;
float vx = velocity * sin(radians(180-angle));
float vy = velocity * cos(radians(180-angle));
x = x + vx;
y = y + vy;
if(x + vx < 0 || x + vx > width || y + vy < 0 || y + vy > height){
// Collided with wall
angle = angle + 180;
}
float adecide = random(3);
if(adecide < 1){
// Move left
angle=angle - lurching;
}
else if(adecide > 1 && adecide < 2){
// Don't move x
}
else if(adecide > 2){
// Move right
angle = angle + lurching;
}
checkFights();
}
void checkFights(){
for (int i=0; i < numZombies; i++) {
if (i == id || dead || others[i].dead){
continue;
}
float dx = others[i].x - x;
float dy = others[i].y - y;
float distance = sqrt(dx*dx + dy*dy);
if (distance < diameter){
fight(i);
}
}
}
void fight(int oid){
Zombie o = others[oid];
//println("Zombie " + id + "(s: "+ strength +") fighting " + oid + "(s: "+ o.strength +")");
if(strength < o.strength){
kill();
o.strength++;
}
else if (strength == o.strength){
if(random(1) > 0.5){
kill();
o.strength++;
}
else{
o.kill();
strength++;
}
}
}
void kill(){
dead = true;
}
void display(){
if(dead) return;
ellipse(x, y, diameter, diameter);
}
}
You got yourself O(n^2) complexity, and that's killing your algorithm. It's correct that each zombie that moves has to check with all the others if they collided which brings you to quadratic complexity.
One direction might be to create a matrix representing your screen, and instead of iterating over all the other zombies, simply update the current zombie's location on the matrix, and check there if another zombie is already occupying that same cell.
Like 1800 INFORMATION says, somehow you need to reduce the number of comparisons.
Splitting the playing area into zones is a good idea. I would imagine the time it takes to compare current location against zone boundaries and add/remove zombies from the appropriate collections is worth it. Assuming they generally will go in straight lines, they shouldn't be changing zones too frequently.
We have the problem though of possible collisions between zones. To piggyback on the idea, you could divide the screen into 4 zones then 9 zones again. Think a tic-tac-toe board overlaid on a cross. This is a bad drawing, but:
| ! |
| ! |
----+--!-+----
| ! |
====|==x=|====
----+--!-+----
| ! |
| ! |
This way each zombie is in two zones at once and every border in one scheme is covered by another zone. You wouldn't even have to check all the same zombies again because either we'd be dead or they would. So the only double-processing is a single others[i].dead check.
Another thing I can see quickly is you still loop through the rest of the elements even though you're dead:
if (i == id || dead || others[i].dead){
continue;
}
It might not save a lot of processing, but it can certainly cut some instructions if you:
if (dead) return;
instead.
Also as a side note, do you want to be checking the diameter or the radius against the distance?
Your basic collision detection algorithm has O(n^2) complexity.
You need some approach which will reduce the number of comparisons.
One approach already mentioned, is to divide the playing field into zones/regions, and
only check for collision when a zombie is in the same zone/region. This is an attempt
to sort the entities topologically (by distance). What you want is to separate these
zombies not simply by geography, but to sort them so that they are only compared when
they are 'close' to one another. And you want to ignore empty regions.
Consider a tree structure to your regions. When a region has more than some number N of zombies, you could split the region smaller, until the region radius approaches your collision distance. Use a map to lookup region, and check all zombies in a given region (and any 'close enough' region).
You probably want N to be <= log(n)...
Maybe you should split the playing field up into zones and only check for collisions between zombies that are in the same zone. You need to reduce the number of comparisons.
It reminds me of this thread: No idea what could be the problem!!. And collision detection help where I point to Wikipedia's Collision detection article.
Quadtrees seem to be often used for 2D partitioning.