I'm animating a camera in my scene and have been playing with Quaternion.slerp() and Vector3.lerpVectors().
With lerpVectors, I have a function that takes in a Vector3 to look at, and a duration to animate across, e.g.
rotateCameraToDestination(new Vector(1,1,1), 3);
With slerp, I have an identical function that takes in a Quaternion to orient to, and also a duration to animate across, e.g.
rotateCameraToDestination(new Quaternion().setFromRotationMatrix(m), 3);
Both durations are 3 seconds (both using delta time to animate during render loop) yet when I test the slerp function, I generally have to increase the duration to something like 30 or 300.
Do the two methods interpolate at different rates?
Any explanation would be appreciated, I need to leave appropriate documentation on any functions I develop, cheers
EDIT
As mentioned in my comment, I think that because I was updating the start position for my lerp function, it starts quickly, then ends slow, the slerp was just consistent rate, as I wasn't changing the start quaternion each frame.
So they just appeared to run at different rates.
Crudely represented like this:
LERP:
l-------l-------l-----l----l----l---l---l--l--l--l-l-llll
SLERP:
l---l---l---l---l---l---l---l---l---l---l---l---l---l---l
Sorry for hassle guys :(
I am currently working with painting and displaying on a Cartesian coordinate system. In my game, I have fast moving objects, bullets, for which I use the following formula to determine position:
x += speed * Cos(theta);
y += speed * Sin(theta);
where theta is a radian measure and speed modifies the speed at the cost of overall continuity. [lim speed → ∞] then x and y = larger "jump" between the starting and next calculated x,y point.
I had to use this formula with a 'high speed' object, so instead of using a timer, which is limited to milisecond .001, I utilized a while loop:
while(true) {
if(currentTime - oldTime > setInterval) //x,y and intersection operations {
//operations
} if(currentTime - oldTime > setInterval) //paint operations {
//operations
}
sleep(0,nanoseconds);//sleeps thread or if you're a C kind of guy, "task"
}
I want x,y and intersection operations to happen at a much faster rate than the paint event, which I plan to have occur at 30-125 times a second (basically the hertage of a monitor).
Actual Questions:
What would be the most efficient rate for the x,y and intersection operations, so that they would perform at a rate consistent across different CPUs (from a dusty single core # 1.6 ghz to a fancy shmancy hex-core # 4.0 ghz)?
Is there a better angle position formula than mine for these operations?
*note my method of painting the object has nothing to do with my problems, in case you were wondering.
Have a timer fire every time the screen refreshes (60Hz?). In that time you calculate where the object is at this point in time. You draw the object at the determined location.
Whenever you want to find out where the object currently is, you run the physics simulation until time has caught up with the point in time you want to render. This way you get the object being animated in exactly the point in time it should be in.
Define the frequency at which the physics simulation runs. You can pick 60Hz as well or any integer multiple of it. Run the physics engine with the same time increment (which is 1/Frequency). When you want to render, find out how many physics ticks are missing and run them one by one.
This scheme is completely robust against missing or superfluous timer ticks. CPU clock rate does not matter either. The object is always rendered at the price position it should be in.
When creating a game with any programming language (that can), it is important to have a fixed target frame rate the game will redraw the screen at, however some languages either do not have a sync function or timers are unreliable so is there any method of keeping the frame rate steady manually with only math and/or by sleeping the thread? Maybe using a frame delta?
So far I have only tried 'sleep(targetframerate - (targetframerate-delta))'
This is supposed to realise that the previous frame took longer than the target so then compensates by making the next frame sooner, however it effects itself and simply kills the frame rate reverse exponentially.
These built-in sync functions must be using some sort of math in a method like this to steady the frame rate. How is it done in high-end APIs such as OpenGL?
Create a timer that runs very quickly such as every millisecond (explained why later) and declare these three variables:
private int targetMillis = 1000/60,
lastTime = (int)System.currentTimeMillis(),
targetTime = lastTime+targetMillis;
targetMilis is the desired amount of milliseconds between each frame. Change 60 to desired frame rate.
lastTime is simply when the last frame was, to compare how long its been. Set to now.
targetTime is what time the next frame is due. Now + targetMillis.
An optional timerScaler can be added also, to scale any movements so they don't slow down because the frame rate has with:
public static float timeScaler = 1;
Then on each tick of the timer, run this code that will check if it's time for the next frame and to set up the next - taking into account if the frame is late and making the next one sooner appropriately.
int current = (int)System.currentTimeMillis(); // Now time
if (current < targetTime) return; // Stop here if its not time for the next frame
timeScaler = (float)targetMillis/(current-lastTime);
//Scale game on how late frame is.
lastTime = current;
targetTime = (current+targetMillis)-(current-targetTime);
// Create next frame where it should be (in targetMillis) and subtract if frame was late.
[Game code here.]
One would assume if we needed a frame every targetMillis we can just create a timer for that time, however as you said they can be a few milliseconds out therefore if we still used this method and did offset the targetTime a few back it wouldn't matter as it would always overshoot, therefore the speed of the timer is more of a resolution of accuracy.
I'm making a snake game and on every tick the snake moves. because the snake is moving a whole unit on each tick the animation is jumpy. The game is on an invisable grid so the snake can only change directions at specific points.
Would it be considered better practice to have a timer that will move the snake a pixels at a time counting it with a variable, and on every n tick run the code to change direction. Or is it better to have two separate timers; one for move the snake a pixel at a time and another for changing the snakes direction?
Essentially, you're creating a "game-loop" to update the displayList (in Actionscript) and re-draw your view. When the game gets complex, Timers and listening for ENTER_FRAME events will be constrained to the flashplayer settings for screen refresh (i.e. it's FPS) and the CPU's rendering based on what it is tasked to process.
For frame-rate independent animation, you should probably use a combination of ENTER_FRAME to track milliseconds and GetTimer() calls to more accurately (to the millisecond) call animations and normalize the experience across a variety of platforms.
Basically, listen for the ENTER_FRAME event, check the current milliseconds since the last update and if it exceeds your refresh-rate (in terms of milli's), fire off the animation/state update: check for snake collision detection with a "direction-block" - handle if true, then update the snake's movement / position / state.
Flash updates the Display List at whatever it's settings, and CPU / machine-dependent issues are. The key, I've found, is to make sure you're normalizing the speed of updates to make the experience consistent. Timer's have their usage, but can cause memory performance issues. ENTER_FRAME is synced to the main timeline / frame-rate settings.
For a dated, but interesting discussion 3 years ago, check out this post from actionscript.org.
I'd like to get mouse movements in high resolution and high framerate on OSX.
"High framerate" = 60 fps or higher (preferably > 120)
"High resolution" = Subpixel values
Problem
I've got an opengl view running at about the monitor refresh rate, so it's ~60 fps. I use the mouse to look around, so I've hidden the mouse cursor and I'm relying on mouse delta values.
The problem is the mouse events come in at much too low framerate, and values are snapped to integer (whole pixels). This causes a "choppy" viewing experience. Here's a visualization of mouse delta values over time:
mouse delta X
^ xx
2 | x x x x xx
| x x x x xx x x x
0 |x-x-x--xx-x-x-xx--x-x----x-xx-x-----> frame
|
-2 |
v
This is a typical (shortened) curve created from the user moving the mouse a little bit to the right. Each x represent the deltaX value for each frame, and since deltaX values are rounded to whole numbers, this graph is actually quite accurate. As we can see, the deltaX value will be 0.000 one frame, and then 1.000 the next, but then it will be 0.000 again, and then 2.000, and then 0.000 again, then 3.000, 0.000, and so on.
This means that the view will rotate 2.000 units one frame, and then rotate 0.000 units the next, and then rotate 3.000 units. This happens while the mouse is being dragged with more or less constant speed. Nedless to say, this looks like crap.
So, how can I 1) increased the event framerate of the mouse? and 2) get subpixel values?
So far
I've tried the following:
- (void)mouseMoved:(NSEvent *)theEvent {
CGFloat dx, dy;
dx = [theEvent deltaX];
dy = [theEvent deltaY];
// ...
actOnMouse(dx,dy);
}
Well, this one was obvious. dx here is float, but values are always rounded (0.000, 1.000 etc.). This creates the graph above.
So the next step was to try and tap the mouse events before they enter the WindowServer, I thought. So I've created a CGEventTrap:
eventMask = (1 << kCGEventMouseMoved);
eventTap = CGEventTapCreate(kCGHIDEventTap, kCGHeadInsertEventTap,
0, eventMask, myCGEventCallback, NULL);
//...
myCGEventCallback(...){
double dx = CGEventGetDoubleValueField(event, kCGMouseEventDeltaX);
double dy = CGEventGetDoubleValueField(event, kCGMouseEventDeltaY);
}
Still values are n.000, although I believe the rate of event firing is a little higher. But it it's still not at 60 fps. I still get the chart above.
I've also tried setting the mouse sensitivity really high, and then scale the values down on my side. But it seems OSX adds some sort of acceleration or something—the values get really "unstable" and consequently unusable, and the rate of fire is still too low.
With no luck, I've been starting to follow the mouse events down the rabbit hole, and I've arrived at IOKit. This is scary for me. It's the mad hatter. The Apple documentation gets weird and seems to say "if you're this deep down, all you really need is header files".
So I have been reading header files. And I've found some interesting tidbits.
In <IOKit/hidsystem/IOLLEvent.h> on line 377 there's this struct:
struct { /* For mouse-down and mouse-up events */
UInt8 subx; /* sub-pixel position for x */
UInt8 suby; /* sub-pixel position for y */
// ...
} mouse;
See, it says sub-pixel position! Ok. Then on line 73 in <IOKit/hidsystem/IOLLParameter.h>
#define kIOHIDPointerResolutionKey "HIDPointerResolution"
Hmm.
All in all, I get the feeling OSX knows about sub-pixel mouse coordinates deep down, and there just has to be a way to read raw mouse movements every frame, but I've just no idea how to get those values.
Questions
Erh, so, what am I asking for?
Is there a way of getting high framerate mouse events in OSX? (Example code?)
Is there a way of getting sub-pixel mouse coordinates in OSX? (Example code?)
Is there a way of reading "raw" mouse deltas every frame? (Ie not rely on an event.)
Or, how do I get NXEvents or set HIDParameters? Example code? (So I can dig deeper into this on my own...)
(Sorry for long post)
(This is a very late answer, but one that I think is still useful for others that stumble across this.)
Have you tried filtering the mouse input? This can be tricky because filtering tends to be a trade-off between lag and precision. However, years ago I wrote an article that explained how I filtered my mouse movements and wrote an article for a game development site. The link is http://www.flipcode.com/archives/Smooth_Mouse_Filtering.shtml.
Since that site is no longer under active development (and may go away) here is the relevant excerpt:
In almost every case, filtering means averaging. However, if we simply average the mouse movement over time, we'll introduce lag. How, then, do we filter without introducing any side-effects? Well, we'll still use averaging, but we'll do it with some intelligence. And at the same time, we'll give the user fine-control over the filtering so they can adjust it themselves.
We'll use a non-linear filter of averaged mouse input over time, where the older values have less influence over the filtered result.
How it works
Every frame, whether you move the mouse or not, we put the current mouse movement into a history buffer and remove the oldest history value. So our history always contains X samples, where X is the "history buffer size", representing the most recent sampled mouse movements over time.
If we used a history buffer size of 10, and a standard average of the entire buffer, the filter would introduce a lot of lag. Fast mouse movements would lag behind 1/6th of a second on a 60FPS machine. In a fast action game, this would be very smooth, but virtually unusable. In the same scenario, a history buffer size of 2 would give us very little lag, but very poor filtering (rough and jerky player reactions.)
The non-linear filter is intended to combat this mutually-exclusive scenario. The idea is very simple. Rather than just blindly average all values in the history buffer equally, we average them with a weight. We start with a weight of 1.0. So the first value in the history buffer (the current frame's mouse input) has full weight. We then multiply this weight by a "weight modifier" (say... 0.2) and move on to the next value in the history buffer. The further back in time (through our history buffer) we go, the values have less and less weight (influence) on the final result.
To elaborate, with a weight modifier of 0.5, the current frame's sample would have 100% weight, the previous sample would have 50% weight, the next oldest sample would have 25% weight, the next would have 12.5% weight and so on. If you graph this, it looks like a curve. So the idea behind the weight modifier is to control how sharply the curve drops as the samples in the history get older.
Reducing the lag means decreasing the weight modifier. Reducing the weight modifier to 0 will provide the user with raw, unfiltered feedback. Increasing it to 1.0 will cause the result to be a simple average of all values in the history buffer.
We'll offer the user two variables for fine control: the history buffer size and the weight modifier. I tend to use a history buffer size of 10, and just play with the weight modifier until I'm happy.
If you are using the IOHIDDevice callbacks for the mouse you can use this to get a double value:
double doubleValue = IOHIDValueGetScaledValue(inIOHIDValueRef, kIOHIDTransactionDirectionTypeOutput);
The possibility of subpixel coordinates exists because Mac OS X is designed to be resolution independent. A square of 2x2 hardware pixels on a screen could represent a single virtual pixel in software, allowing the cursor to be placed at (x + 0.5, y + 0.5).
On any actual Mac using normal 1x scaling, you will never see subpixel coordinates because the mouse cursor cannot be moved to a fractional pixel position on the screen--the quantum of mouse movement is precisely 1 pixel.
If you need to get access to pointer device delta information at a lower level than the event dispatching system provides then you'll probably need to use the user-space USB APIs.