I'm working on a game (using Game Maker: Studio Professional v1.99.355) that needs to have both user-modifiable level geometry and AI pathfinding based on platformer physics. Because of this, I need a way to dynamically figure out which platforms can be reached from which other platforms in order to build a node graph I can feed to A*.
My current approach is, more or less, this:
For each platform consider each other platform in the level.
For each of those platforms, if it is obviously unreachable (due to being higher than the maximum jump height, for example) do not form a link and move on to next platform.
If a link seems possible, place an ai_character instance on the starting platform and (within the current step event) simulate a jump attempt.
3.a Repeat this jump attempt for each possible starting position on the starting platform.
If this attempt is successful, record the data necessary to replicate it in real time and move on to the next platform.
If not, do not form a link.
Repeat for all platforms.
This approach works, more or less, and produces a link structure that when visualised looks like this:
linked platforms (Hyperlink because no rep.)
In this example the mostly-concealed pink ghost in the lower right corner is trying to reach the black and white box. The light blue rectangles are just there to highlight where recognised platforms are, the actual platforms are the rows of grey boxes. Link lines are green at the origin and red at the destination.
The huge, glaring problem with this approach is that for a level of only 17 platforms (as shown above) it takes over a second to generate the node graph. The reason for this is obvious, the yellow text in the screen centre shows us how long it took to build the graph: over 24,000(!) simulated frames, each with attendant collision checks against every block - I literally just run the character's step event in a while loop so everything it would normally do to handle platformer movement in a frame it now does 24,000 times.
This is, clearly, unacceptable. If it scales this badly at a mere 17 platforms then it'll be a joke at the hundreds I need to support. Heck, at this geometric time cost it might take years.
In an effort to speed things up, I've focused on the other important debugging number, the tests counter: 239. If I simply tried every possible combination of starting and destination platforms, I would need to run 17 * 16 = 272 tests. By figuring out various ways to predict whether a jump is impossible I have managed to lower the number of expensive tests run by a whopping 33 (12%!). However the more exceptions and special cases I add to the code the more convinced I am that the actual problem is in the jump simulation code, which brings me at long last to my question:
How would you determine, with complete reliability, whether it is possible for a character to jump from one platform to another, preferably without needing to simulate the whole jump?
My specific platform physics:
Jumps are fixed height, unless you hit a ceiling.
Horizontal movement has no acceleration or inertia.
Horizontal air control is allowed.
Further info:
I found this video, which describes a similar problem but which doesn't provide a good solution. This is literally the only resource I've found.
You could limit the amount of comparisons by only comparing nearby platforms. I would probably only check the horizontal distance between platforms, and if it is wider than the longest jump possible, then don't bother checking for a link between those two. But you might have done this since you checked for the max height of a jump.
I glanced at the video and it gave me an idea. Instead of looking at all platforms to find which jumps are impossible, what if you did the opposite? Try placing an AI character on all platforms and see which other platforms they can reach. That's certainly easier to implement if your enemies can't change direction in midair though. Oh well, brainstorming is the key to finding something.
Several ideas you could try out:
Limit the amount of comparisons you need to make by using a spatial data structure, like a quad tree. This would allow you to severely limit how many platforms you're even trying to check. This is mostly the same as what you're currently doing, but a bit more generic.
Try to pre-compute some jump trajectories ahead of time. This will not catch all use cases that you have - as you allow for full horizontal control - but might allow you to catch some common cases more quickly
Consider some kind of walkability grid instead of a link generation scheme. When geometry is modified, compute which parts of the level are walkable and which are not, with some resolution (something similar to the dimensions of your agent might be good starting point). You could also filter them with a height, so that grid tiles that are higher than your jump height, and you can't drop from a higher place on to them, are marked as unwalkable. Then, when you compute your pathfinding, as part of your pathfinding step you can compute when you start a jump, if a path is actually executable ('start a jump, I can go vertically no more than 5 tiles, and after the peak of the jump, i always fall down vertically with some speed).
Related
I have noticed that every computer graphics system I have ever used uses a left-handed coordinate system with its origin in the upper left corner. Cairo, Java, Microsoft XYZ, and most graphics programs all use this system. I assume they all date back to a common ancestor, but I can't find any references about this.
If I had to guess I'd say it came from VGA graphics mode, using the same coordinates as text, which were naturally based on how the English language is read top-down, left-right, with the "second line" below the "first line"... but I'm making that up.
Was anyone around to tell the tale, or can point me in the direction of the correct history book?
It's an old convention, and the reasons might be a bit apocryphal. Here are some hypotheses I've found:
It's derived from CRT electron beam sweep behavior.
Scanning from top to bottom means you don't have to wait for an entire frame to be sent first, you just begin scanning as soon as you begin receiving data. (Which raises the question again, why scan from top to bottom)
It allows a right-handed coordinate system with the Z axis going into the screen rather than coming out of it.
Annoyingly, Cocoa and Quartz use lower-left origin.
I doubt that is an old convention that is kept due to legacy reasons.
UpperLeft has the advantage, that is no language writing system that goes from bottom to up. So in UpperLeft is easier:
To place multiline text
Work with pages of unknown or infinite height
If the page height is changed (ie bigger or smaller device), in BottomLeft you have to translate every object coordinate, while in UpperLeft you don't.
The last one extends also to dynamic placement and layouts, where a graphics object's coordinates are offsets to their parent
No idea. I don't think there is a definitive answer. It's likely that when people still had console based machines it made sense to go from the top left corner down to the bottom right. It's how a lot of people in the world read, as you've said. It makes sense to put the origin there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory-mapped_I/O
The wikipedia article has some information about memory mapped displays. Say for example we dedicate a part of our memory to turning off and on pixels on the screen. And we let address 0 be the upper left hand part of the screen and move over in chunks turning on and off pixels depending on if they're in the memory. That's basically what the first article is saying.
I don't know if they let address 0 be the upper left hand side of a display but it makes sense and it might have just carried over.
I was also wondering about the same question. Here is another source:
The origin is always in the upper left. And that comes from the fact that, kind of TVs when they're first built, scan from left to right and then top to bottom. So it doesn't work he same way you saw kind of at high school geometry where the origin wasn't always in the lower left....
An Introduction to Interactive Programming in Python
Description:
The goal of my current project is to determine the location of an "object" with just its 3D-coordinates.
To achieve that I figured it'd be best to turn off the "Fill"-Mode of my Camera (ZED 2 from Stereolabs), because I want some hard edges in my depth-image.
The Problem:
The depth image is being distorted to a major degree due to proximity of other "objects".
The following image shows the depth image from the side, it is viewing some bars before a smooth woodwall. The wall is mostly plain, so everything is fine here.
I blacked the Color-Image and Myself, do not worry about those parts.
When I put my hand or another object in front of the wood wall parts that are bigger than my actual hand get "pulled" towards the camera around the location of the hand or other object. These parts seem to "stick" to other elevated parts in the proximity, as the area between the bars and my arm gets pulled entirely.
Question(s):
Is this normal?
Is there an easy way to get rid of it?
What is the reason behind it?
My own assumption(s):
Feel like this is some sort of approximation of unknown parts
Hopefully.. Glad the camera was calibrated by default, as that usually is a pain to do right.
Due to the new object that gets put in front of the wall, there is more stuff hidden and therefore more areas that the camera cannot see with both lenses, maybe it just "guesses" that the area between is not so far off due to some underlying algorithms that make the image smoother..
First of all I would advice you to change the depth mode also with keeping the sensing mode in STANDARD:
ULTRA: offers the highest depth range and better preserves Z-accuracy along the sensing range.
QUALITY: has a strong filtering stage giving smooth surfaces.
PERFORMANCE: designed to be smooth, can miss some details.
*********************From your description, it seems like you are using the Performance mode
The ZED Camera uses a matching alogorithm to generate the disparity/depth map, which is a closed source and I have recently contacted stereolabs about that and they've said "We cannot disclose this information to you because it's internal information and proprietary to Stereolabs."
Other works on the zed camera showed some limitations in depth sensing, specially when there is a variation in lightning and shadows. """Depth Data Error Modeling of the ZED 3D Vision Sensor from
Stereolabs"""
In addition to this, the depth error is directly proportional to the distance of the object from the camera, so make sure to set your depth range properly.
I already have an A* Implementation that works. The problem is that if you pick a destination that is unwalkable, no path is returned. I want to be able to get the 'closest' I can get.
The preferable option would be completely dynamic (not just checking the 8 tiles around the destination to try to find one). That way, even if they click an unwalkable tile surrounded by a huge square of unwalkable tiles, it will still get as close as it can.
While the simple answers provided here MIGHT be sufficient enough, I think it depends on your game type and what you're trying to achieve.
For example, take this play field (sorry I'm reusing the same software I used to show you the fog of war :)) :
As you can see, an Angry Chicken is blocking the path between the left side and the right side. The Angry Chicken could be anything... if it's a static obstacle, then going with the lowest h node might be enough, but if it's a dynamic object (like a locked door, draw bridge, etc...) the following examples might help you find out how you want to solve your problem.
If we set the destination for our Hero on the other side
We need to think what we want the path to be, since obviously we can't reach it. Using a standard heuristic like manhattan distance or euclidian distance, you will get this result:
Which might be good enough, but if there's any way our little Hero could interact with the chicken to pass, it doesn't make sense at all, what you want is this
How can you do this? Well, an easy way to do this is to pathfind on hierarchical graphs. This sounds complicated but it isn't. First, you want to be able to build a new set of high level nodes and edges that will contain multiple grid nodes (or other representation, wouldn't change a thing)
As you can see, we now have a right blue node and a left red node. The arrow represents the edge between the two nodes. How to build this graph you ask? It's easy, simply start from an open node, expand all of its neighbors and add them to a high level node, when you're done, open the dynamic nodes that could lead to another part of the graph and do the same.
Now, when you ask for a path from our Hero to the red X, you first do the pathfinding on the high level... is there a way from blue node to red node? Yes! Through the chicken.
You can now easily know how to navigate on the blue side by going to the edge that will allow you to cross, which is the chicken.
If it was just a plain wall, you could determine very quickly, by visiting a single node, that there is NO way to reach on the other side and then handle it the way you want, possibly still performing an A* and returning the lowest h node.
You could keep a pointer which holds a tile with the lowest h-value, then if no path is returned simply generate a path to the tile you're holding onto instead.
This has been greatly bothering me in the past few weeks. In this time I've been researching online, even reading books in the Computers section at Borders to try to find an answer, but I haven't had much luck.
I programmed a 2D level editor for side-scroller video games. Now I want to turn it into a game where I have a player who can run and jump to explore the level, similar to "Mario".
The thing that is really giving me trouble is the collision response (not detection: I already know how to tell if two blocks are colliding). Here are some scenarios that I am going to illustrate so that you can see my problems (the shaded blocks are the ground, the arrow is the velocity vector of the player, the dashed lines are the projected path of the player).
See this collision response scenarios image:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12556943/collision_detection.jpg
Assume that the velocity vectors in scenarios (1) and (2) are equal (same direction and magnitude). Yet, in scenario (1), the player is hitting the side of the block, and in scenario (2), the player is landing on top of the block. This allows me to conclude that determining the collision response is dependent not only on the velocity vector of the player, but also the player's relative position to the colliding block. This leads to my first question: knowing the velocity vector and the relative position of the player, how can I determine from which direction (either left side, right side, top, or bottom) the player is colliding with the block?
Another problem that I'm having is how to determine the collision response if the player collides with multiple blocks in the same frame. For instance, assume that in scenario (3), the player collides with both of those blocks at the same time. I'm assuming that I'm going to have to loop through each block that the player is colliding with and adjust the reaction accordingly from each block. To sum it up, this is my second question: how do I handle collision response if the player collides with multiple blocks?
Notice that I never revealed the language that I'm programming in; this is because I'd prefer for you to not know (nothing personal, though :] ). I'm more interested in pseudo-code than to see language-specific code.
Thanks!
I think the way XNA's example platform game handles collisions could work well for you. I posted this answer to a very similar question elsewhere on Stack Overflow but will relay it here as well.
After applying movement, check for and resolve collisions.
Determine the tiles the player overlaps based on the player's bounding box.
Iterate through all of those tiles doing the following: (it's usually not very many unless your player is huge compared to your world tiles)
If the tile being checked isn't passable:
Determine how far on the X and Y axes the player is overlapping the non-passable tile
Resolve collision by moving the player out of that tile only on the shallow axis (whichever axis is least penetrated)
For example, if Y is the shallow axis and the collision is below, shift the player up to no longer overlap that tile.
Something like this: if(abs(overlap.y) < abs(overlap.x)) { position.y += overlap.y; } else { position.x += overlap.x; }
Update the bounding box's position based on the player's new position
Move on to the next tile...
If the tile being checked is passable, do nothing
If it's possible that resolving a collision could move the player into another collision, you may want to run through the above algorithm a second time. Or redesign your level.
The XNA version of this logic is in player.cs in the HandleCollisions() function if you are interested in grabbing their code to see what they specifically do there.
So what makes this a little more tricky is the constant force of gravity adjusting your players position. If your player jumps on top of a block they shouldn't bounce off they should land on top of the block and stay there. However, if the player hits a block on the left or right they shouldn't just stay there gravity must pull them down. I think that's roughly your question at a high level.
I think you'll want to separate the two forces of gravity and player velocity from collision detection/response algorithm. Using the velocity of the player if they collide with a block regardless of direction simply move the player's position to the edge of the collision, and subtract equal and opposite vector from the player's velocity since not doing this would cause them to collide yet again with the object. You will want to calculate the intersection point and place the player's position there on the block.
On a side note you could vary that really big force by what type of block the player collided with allowing for interesting responses like the player can break through the block if they are running fast enough (ie the player's velocity > than the force of the block)
Then continue to apply the constant force gravity to the player's position and continue doing your normal calculation to determine if the player has reached a floor.
I think by separating these two concepts you have a really simple straight forward collision response algorithm, and you have a fairly simple gravity-floor algorithm. That way you can vary gravity without having to redo your collision response algorithm. Say for example a water level, space level, etc and collision detection response is all the same.
I thought about this for a long time recently.
I am using the separating axis theorem, and so if I detected a collision I proceeded to project the object onto the normalized velocity vector and move the object by that distance in the direction of the negative velocity vector. Assuming the object came from a safe place this solution will position the object in a safe place post collision.
May not be the answer you're looking to get, but hopefully it'll point you in the right direction?
After working for a while developing games, I've been exposed to both variable frame rates (where you work out how much time has passed since the last tick and update actor movement accordingly) and fixed frame rates (where you work out how much time has passed and choose either to tick a fixed amount of time or sleep until the next window comes).
Which method works best for specific situations? Please consider:
Catering to different system specifications;
Ease of development/maintenance;
Ease of porting;
Final performance.
I lean towards a variable framerate model, but internally some systems are ticked on a fixed timestep. This is quite easy to do by using a time accumulator. Physics is one system which is best run on a fixed timestep, and ticked multiple times per frame if necessary to avoid a loss in stability and keep the simulation smooth.
A bit of code to demonstrate the use of an accumulator:
const float STEP = 60.f / 1000.f;
float accumulator = 0.f;
void Update(float delta)
{
accumulator += delta;
while(accumulator > STEP)
{
Simulate(STEP);
accumulator -= STEP;
}
}
This is not perfect by any means but presents the basic idea - there are many ways to improve on this model. Obviously there are issues to be sorted out when the input framerate is obscenely slow. However, the big advantage is that no matter how fast or slow the delta is, the simulation is moving at a smooth rate in "player time" - which is where any problems will be perceived by the user.
Generally I don't get into the graphics & audio side of things, but I don't think they are affected as much as Physics, input and network code.
It seems that most 3D developers prefer variable FPS: the Quake, Doom and Unreal engines both scale up and down based on system performance.
At the very least you have to compensate for too fast frame rates (unlike 80's games running in the 90's, way too fast)
Your main loop should be parameterized by the timestep anyhow, and as long as it's not too long, a decent integrator like RK4 should handle the physics smoothly Some types of animation (keyframed sprites) could be a pain to parameterize. Network code will need to be smart as well, to avoid players with faster machines from shooting too many bullets for example, but this kind of throttling will need to be done for latency compensation anyhow (the animation parameterization would help hide network lag too)
The timing code will need to be modified for each platform, but it's a small localized change (though some systems make extremely accurate timing difficult, Windows, Mac, Linux seem ok)
Variable frame rates allow for maximum performance. Fixed frame rates allow for consistent performance but will never reach max on all systems (that's seems to be a show stopper for any serious game)
If you are writing a networked 3D game where performance matters I'd have to say, bite the bullet and implement variable frame rates.
If it's a 2D puzzle game you probably can get away with a fixed frame rate, maybe slightly parameterized for super slow computers and next years models.
One option that I, as a user, would like to see more often is dynamically changing the level of detail (in the broad sense, not just the technical sense) when framerates vary outside of a certian envelope. If you are rendering at 5FPS, then turn off bump-mapping. If you are rendering at 90FPS, increase the bells and whistles a bit, and give the user some prettier images to waste their CPU and GPU with.
If done right, the user should get the best experince out of the game without having to go into the settings screen and tweak themselves, and you should have to worry less, as a level designer, about keeping the polygon count the same across difference scenes.
Of course, I say this as a user of games, and not a serious one at that -- I've never attempted to write a nontrivial game.
The main problem I've encountered with variable length frame times is floating point precision, and variable frame times can surprise you in how they bite you.
If, for example, you're adding the frame time * velocity to a position, and frame time gets very small, and position is largish, your objects can slow down or stop moving because all your delta was lost due to precision. You can compensate for this using a separate error accumulator, but it's a pain.
Having fixed (or at least a lower bound on frame length) frame times allows you to control how much FP error you need to take into account.
My experience is fairly limited to somewhat simple games (developed with SDL and C++) but I have found that it is quite easy just to implement a static frame rate. Are you working with 2d or 3d games? I would assume that more complex 3d environments would benefit more from a variable frame rate and that the difficulty would be greater.