I would like to draw sector of circle on map defined by point, radius, startAngle and stopAngle. I found lots of exmaples but with polygons etc whitch was too complicated for my case.
Thanks for any help!
a Circle is an object with no defined sides. Only a radius and a center point.
You are required to use a polygon to build a semi circle as it is a two sied object
There is not always an easy way out in coding, and typicaly they are the bad ways to do things (unless your talking about somthing like JQ/Bootstrap)
Here is a fairly stright forware implementation
http://googlemaps.googlermania.com/google_maps_api_v3/en/draw-semi-circle.html
This was refered in this question
Google Maps Polygon Incorrectly Rendered
they even provide a working example for you to rip apart
http://maps.forum.nu/temp/gm_bearing.html
Related
I'm currently working on a glsl shader (EDIT : I'm starting to think that a shader isn't necessarily the best solution and as I'm doing this in processing, I can consider a vectorial solution too) supposed to render something like this but filling the entire 2D space (or at least a larger surface):
To do so, I want to map the repeating patterns on the general leaves shapes that you can see on the top of the sketch below.
My problem is this mapping part : is it possible to find a function that project XY coordinates on the screen to another position in such a way that I can map my patterns the way I want? The leaves must have some kind of UV coordinates inside them (to be able to apply the repeating pattern) and the transformation must be a conformal map because otherwise, there would be some distortions in the pattern.
I've tried several lines of thought but I haven't managed to get the final result :
recursion :
the idea is to first cut the plane in stripes, then cut the stripes in leaves shapes that touch the top and the bottom of the stripes (because that's easier) and finally recursively cut the leaves in halves until the result looks more random. as long as the borders of the stripe aren't on the screen, it shouldn't be too noticeable. The biggest difficulty here is to avoid the distortion.
voronoi :
it may be possible to find a distance function guided by a vector field such that the Voronoi diagram looks more like what I'm looking for. However I don't think it will be possible to have the UV mapping I want. If it's the case, a good approximation woult do the trick, the result doesn't need to be exact as long as it isn't too noticable.
distortion :
it could also be possible to find a more direct way to do this projection. While desperately looking for a solution, I came across the fact that a continuous complex function is a conform map but I haven't managed to go any further.
Finaly, there may be another solution I haven't thought about and I would be glad if someone gave me a complete solution or just a new idea I haven't tried yet.
I have a 2d world made of tiles. Tiles are either passable, non-passable or have some sort of movement penalty.
All entities and tiles have their own hitboxes and sizes for collision detection.
Each tile tile has dimensions of 16x16px.
Most examples I've read seem to suggest that we're moving from center of one tile to the center of another tile. And as we see from the picture below, that red part looks hardly optimal nor it doesn't take entity size into account. Also pathding nodes are also placed into 2d array, with only 8 possible directions from each node.
But wouldn't actually shortest path be something like this?
How should I implement pathfinding?
Should tiles be splitted into smaller nodes for pathfinding or is there some other way to get more accurate routes? Even if I splitted each tile to have 10x10 pathfinding nodes, It still wouldn't find shortest line between 2 points.
Should there be more than 8 directions and if so, how should that be implemented?
For example if my world was 50x50 tiles big, how should the pathfinding map look like and how it should be generated?
It depends on your definition of "shortest path" and what you plan to do with it.
In your example, it appears that you consider a valid move to be from the center of one tile to the center of any other tile in unobstructed view. How you'd validate moves to partially obstructed tiles is not clear. This differs from the geometrically shortest path, which would obviously hug the wall, and the realistic shortest path, would would use a unit width and turn radius to avoid walls and sudden changes in direction.
A common approach is to use A* as usual, and then post-process the path in a number of ways to optimize and smooth it. This works both for grid based worlds like yours, and for more general navmeshes.
Gamasutra had a nice overview of this called Toward More Realistic Pathfinding, with a variety of ideas and techniques from smoothing zigzags and adding curves, to optimizing paths for units with acceleration and direction.
I had almost same problem and I have coded a pre-computation software for all tiles to all tiles with some optimization
You can find source code here : https://github.com/FurkanGozukara/pathfinding-2d-tile-map
The development video is here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRTA0iLjv6M
I did come up with my own algorithm and implementation. Therefore it is probably not the best nor the most optimized one. Although it is already implemented into my free browser based game MonsterMMORPG and it works great : https://www.monstermmorpg.com/
Ok, here is the thing. Recently i decided i wanted to understand how Random map generation works. I found some papers and some arguments. The most interesting one was "Diamond Square algorithm" and "Midpoint Displacement". I still have to try to apply those to a software, but other than that, i ran into this site: http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~amitp/game-programming/polygon-map-generation/
As you can see, the idea is to use polygons. But i have no idea how to apply that a Tile-Based map, not even how to create those polygons using the tools i have (c++ and sdl). I am assuming there is no way to do it ( please correct me if i am wrong.) But if i am not, how does a non-tile map works, and how are these polygons generated?
This answer will not give you directly the answers you're looking for, but hopefully will get you close enough!
The Problem
I think what blocks you is how to represent the data. You're probably used to a 2D grid that simply represent the type of each tile. As you know, this is fine to handle a tile-based map, but doesn't properly allow you to model worlds where tiles are of a different shape.
Graphs
What I suggest to you, is to see the problem a bit differently. A grid is nothing more than a graph (more info) with nodes that have 4 (or 8 if you allow diagonals) implicit neighbor nodes. So first, what I would do if I was you, would be to move from your strict standard 2D grid to a more "loose" graph, where each node has a position, a position, a list of neighbors (in most cases you'll have corners with 2 neighbors, borders with 3 and "middle" tiles with 4) and finally a rendering component which simply draws your tile on screen at the given position. Once this is done, you should be able to have the exact same results on screen that you currently have with your "2D Tile-Based" engine by simply calling the rendering component with each node who's bounding box (didn't touch it in what you should add to your node, but I'll get back to this later) intersects with the camera's frustum (in a 2D world, it would most likely if the position +/- the size intersects the RECT currently being drawn).
Search
The more generic approach will also help you doing stuff like pathfinding with generic algorithms that explore nodes until they find a valid path (see A* or Dijkstra). Even if you decided to stick to a good old 2D Tile Map game, these techniques would still be useful!
Yeah but I want Polygons
I hear you! So, if you want polygons, basically all you need to do, is add to your nodes a list of vertices and the appropriate data that you might need to render your polygons (either vertex color, textures and U/V maps, etc...) and update your rendering component to do the appropriate OpenGL (this for example should help) calls to draw your nodes. Once again, the first step to iteratively upgrade your 2D Tile Engine to a polygon map engine would be to, for each tile in your map, give each of your nodes two triangles, a texture resource (the tile), and U/V mappings (0,0 - 0,1 - 1,0 and 1,1). Once again, when this step is done, you should have a "generic" polygon based tile map engine. The creation of most of this data can be created procedurally by calculating coordinates based on tile position, tile size, etc...
Convex Polygons
If you decide that you ever might need NPCs to navigate on your map or want to allow your player to navigate by clicking the map, I would suggest that you always use convex polygons (the triangle being the simplest for of a convex polygon). This allows your code that assume that two different positions on the same polygon can be navigated to in straight line.
Complex Maps
Based on the link you provided, you want to have rather complex maps. In this case, the author used Voronoi Diagrams to generate the polygons of the map. There are already solutions to do triangulation like that, but you might also want to use other techniques that are easier to work with if you're just switching to 3D like this one for example. Once you have interesting results, you should consider implementing serialization to save/open your map data from the game. If you want to create an editor, be aware that it might be a lot of work but can be worth it if you want people to help you creating maps or to add elements to the maps (like geometry that's not part of the terrain).
I went all over the place with this answer, but hopefully it helps!
Just iterate over all the tiles, and do a hit-test from the centre of the tile to the polys. Turn the type of the tile into the type of the polygon. Did you need more than that?
EDIT: Sorry, I realize that probably isn't helpful. Playing with procedural algorithms can be fun and profitable. Start with a loop that iterates over all tiles and chooses randomly whether or not the tile is occupied. Then, iterate over them again and choose whether it is occupied or its neighbour is.
Also, check out the source code for this: http://dustinfreeman.org/toys/wall7-dustin.html
How to place marker inside polygon (this polygon already on map)?
My thoughts are: find a way to inscribe for example circle to the polygon and find a center of this circle (it is not problem), but can't find way to inscribe circle.
Method getCenter() on LatLngBounds works not as expected, because math center of polygon can be out of this polygon visually.
As said Dr.Molle this is really duplicate of this question. So, for get center of polygon need to use programm realization of anything math algorithm for find center of polygon, there is no more easy way unfortunately.
My question is similar to this one on another SE site, which didn't seem to get answered very usefully:
https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/10741/google-maps-js-api-v3-polygon-formation
I'm trying to shade large areas of the globe in Google Maps V3 using polygons. My issue is that that algorithm decides on its own which part of the map is "inside" the polygon and which is "outside".
From what I've been able to tell, the map always sets the South pole outside the polygon. Example jsfiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/YFJ6a/6/
I'm guessing from earlier questions about filling in the area outside a polygon (eg. Google Maps Polygon Outer Fill) that there's no way to simply invert a polygon. I've had some success in using the method described in the link, combining my polygon with a polygon that tightly circles the South pole:
[new google.maps.LatLng(-89.99,180), new google.maps.LatLng(-89.99,-120),
new google.maps.LatLng(-89.99,-60), new google.maps.LatLng(-89.99,0),
new google.maps.LatLng(-89.99,60), new google.maps.LatLng(-89.99,120),
new google.maps.LatLng(-89.99,180)]
The path above generates a polygon that covers pretty much the entire globe. But this is messy and only works if my shape doesn't actually intersect with this polygon, which I can't guarantee. (It's easy for me to wind up with polygons that cross directly at the pole, for example.)
Is there any cleaner or more direct way to accomplish this?