I'm writing a program that will rotate a rectangular prism around a point. It handles the rotations via 3 rotation methods that each manage a rotation around a single axis (X, Y, and Z). Here's the code
public void spinZ(Spin spin) {
if (x == 0 && y == 0) {
return;
}
double mag = Math.sqrt(x * x + y * y);
double pxr = Math.atan(y / x);
x = Math.cos(spin.zr + pxr) * mag;
y = Math.sin(spin.zr + pxr) * mag;
}
public void spinY(Spin spin) {
if (z == 0 && x == 0) {
return;
}
double mag = Math.sqrt(x * x + z * z);
double pxr = Math.atan(z / x);
x = Math.cos(spin.yr + pxr) * mag;
z = Math.sin(spin.yr + pxr) * mag;
}
public void spinX(Spin spin) {
if (z == 0 && y == 0) {
return;
}
double mag = Math.sqrt(y * y + z * z);
double pxr = Math.atan(z / y);
y = Math.cos(spin.xr + pxr) * mag;
z = Math.sin(spin.xr + pxr) * mag;
}
public void addSpin(Spin spin) {
spinY(spin);
spinX(spin);
spinZ(spin);
}
Spin is a useless class that stores three doubles (which are rotations). These methods basically convert the rotations into 2D vectors (how I store the points) and rotate them as such. The first if statement makes sure the 2D vectors don't a magnitude of 0. They are allowed to, but in that case it's not necessary to carry out the rotation calculations. The other part just handles the trig. The bottom method just ties everything together and allows me to quickly change the order of the rotations (because order should and does affect the final rotation).
The problem isn't with the individual rotations but when they all come together. I can easily get a single rotation around a single axis to work without distorting the rectangular prism. When I put them all together, like if you were to call addSpin().
When spinY is called first, the prism is distorted when the rotations include a Y rotation (if the y component of the rotation is zero, and no rotation around the y-axis should occur, then no distortion occurs). In fact, if spinY() is called anytime but last a distortion of the cube will occur.
The same is the case with spinZ(). If spinZ() is called last, the cube won't get warped. However spinX() can go anywhere and not cause a distortion.
So the question is: Is there a problem with how I'm going about the rotations? The other question is while all rotations cannot be encompassed by rotations along just the X and Y axes or any other pair of distinct axes (like X and Z, or Y and Z), can those three sets collectively make all rotations? To clarify, can the rotations, which cannot be reached by a set of rotations around the X and Y axes, be reached by a set of rotations around the X and Z axes or the Y and Z axes?
I trust the medium I'm using to display the prisms. It's a ray-tracer I made that works well with rectangular prisms. This is a more math-based question, but it has a fairly comprehensive programming component.
These are some parallel calculations that still yield in distortions.
public void spinZ(Spin spin) {
double c = Math.cos(spin.yr);
double s = Math.sin(spin.yr);
double xp = x*c - y*s;
double yp = y*s + x*c;
x = xp;
y = yp;
}
public void spinY(Spin spin) {
double c = Math.cos(spin.yr);
double s = Math.sin(spin.yr);
double zp = z*c - x*s;
double xp = z*s + x*c;
x = xp;
z = zp;
}
public void spinX(Spin spin) {
double c = Math.cos(spin.yr);
double s = Math.sin(spin.yr);
double yp = y*c - z*s;
double zp = z*c + y*s;
y = yp;
z = zp;
}
Your checks for things like
x == 0
are unnecessary and dangerous as a double almost never will have the precise value 0. The atan when you have a division can lead to catastrophic loss of precision as well.
Why are they unnecessary? Because the following performs your rotation in a cleaner (numerically stable) fashion:
double c = Math.cos(spin.yr);
double s = Math.cos(spin.yr);
double zp = z*c - x*s;
double xp = z*s + x*c;
x = xp;
z = zp;
Of course, my example assumes you treat the y rotation with a right handed orientation, but from your sample code you seem to be treating it as left handed. Anyways, the wikipedia article on the Rotation matrix explains the math.
Related
I'm making a game with libGDX in Java. I'm trying to make a collision detection. As you can see in the image, I have a line which is a wall and a player with specified radius. The desired position is the next location which the player is trying to be in. But because there is a wall, he's placed in the Actual Position which is on the Velocity vector, but more closer to the prev location. I'm trying to figure out how can I detect that closer position?
My attempt:
private void move(float deltaTime) {
float step;
beginMovementAltitude();
if (playerComponent.isWalking())
step = handleAcceleration(playerComponent.getSpeed() + playerComponent.getAcceleration());
else step = handleDeacceleration(playerComponent.getSpeed(), playerComponent.getAcceleration());
playerComponent.setSpeed(step);
if (step == 0) return;
takeStep(deltaTime, step, 0);
}
private void takeStep(float deltaTime, float step, int rotate) {
Vector3 position = playerComponent.getCamera().position;
float x = position.x;
float y = position.y;
int radius = playerComponent.getRadius();
auxEnvelope.init(x, x + radius, y, y + radius);
List<Line> nearbyLines = lines.query(auxEnvelope);
float theta;
int numberOfIntersections = 0;
float angleToMove = 0;
Gdx.app.log(step + "", "");
for (Line line : nearbyLines) {
VertexElement src = line.getSrc();
VertexElement dst = line.getDst();
auxVector3.set(playerComponent.getCamera().direction);
auxVector3.rotate(Vector3.Z, rotate);
float nextX = x + (step * deltaTime) * (auxVector3.x);
float nextY = y + (step * deltaTime) * playerComponent.getCamera().direction.y;
float dis = Intersector.distanceLinePoint(src.getX(), src.getY(), dst.getX(), dst.getY(), nextX, nextY);
boolean bodyIntersection = dis <= 0.5f;
auxVector21.set(src.getX(), src.getY());
auxVector22.set(dst.getX(), dst.getY());
auxVector23.set(nextX, nextY);
if (bodyIntersection) {
numberOfIntersections++;
if (numberOfIntersections > 1) {
return;
}
theta = auxVector22.sub(auxVector21).nor().angle();
float angle = (float) (180.0 / MathUtils.PI * MathUtils.atan2(auxVector23.y - position.y, auxVector23.x - position.x));
if (angle < 0) angle += 360;
float diff = (theta > angle) ? theta - angle : angle - theta;
if (step < 0) step *=-1;
angleToMove = (diff > 90) ? theta + 180 : theta;
}
}
if (numberOfIntersections == 0) {
moveCameraByWalking(deltaTime, step, rotate);
} else {
moveCameraInDirection(deltaTime, step, angleToMove);
}
}
The idea is to find intersection of path of object center and the line moved by radius of the circle, see that picture.
At first, you need to find a normal to the line. How to do it, depends on how the line is defined, if it's defined by two points, the formula is
nx = ay - by
ny = bx - ax
If the line is defined by canonical equation, then coefficients at x and y define normal, if I remembered correctly.
When normal is found, we need to normalize it - set length to 1 by dividing coordinates by vector length. Let it be n.
Then, we will project starting point, desired point and randomly chosen point on line to n, treating them as radius vectors.
Projection of vector a to vector b is
project (a, b) = scalar_product (a, b) / length (b)**2 * b
but since b is n which length equals 1, we will not apply division, and also we want to only find length of the result, we do not multiply by b. So we only compute scalar product with n for each of three aforementioned points, getting three numbers, let s be the result for starting point, d for desired point, l for chosen point on the line.
Then we should modify l by radius of the circle:
if (s < d) l -= r;
else if (s > d) l += r;
If s = d, your object moves in parallel along the line, so line can't obstruct its movement. It's highly improbable case but should be dealt with.
Also, that's important, if l was initially between s and d but after modifying is no longer between then, it's a special case you may want to handle (restrict object movement for example)
Ather that, you should compute (d - s) / (l - s).
If the result is greater or equals 1, the object will not reach the line.
If the result is between 0 and 1, the line obstructs movement and the result indicates part of the path the object will complete. 0.5 means that object will stop halfway.
If the result is negative, it means the line is behind the object and will not obstruct movement.
Note that when using floating point numbers the result will not be perfectly precise, that's why we handle that special case. If you want to prevent this from happening at all, organize loop and try approximations until needed precision is reached.
I've been trying to make a simple physics engine for games. I am well aware that this is re-inventing the wheel but it's more of a learning exercise than anything else. I never expect it to be as complete as box2d for instance.
I'm having issues with my implementation of 2d Vectors. The issue is related to the fact that in the game world I want to represent north as being zero radians and east as being 1/2 PI Radians, or 0 and 90 degrees respectively. However in mathematics (or maybe more specifically the Math class of Java), I believe trigonometry functions like sine and cosine assume that "east" is zero radians and I think north is 1/2 PI Radians?
Anyway I've written a small version of my vector class that only demonstrates the faulty code.
public class Vector {
private final double x;
private final double y;
public Vector(double xIn, double yIn) {
x = xIn;
y = yIn;
}
public double getX() {
return x;
}
public double getY() {
return y;
}
public double getR() {
return Math.sqrt((x * x) + (y * y));
}
public double getTheta() {
return Math.atan(y / x);
}
public double bearingTo(Vector target) {
return (Math.atan2(target.getY() - y, target.getX() - x));
}
public static Vector fromPolar(double magnitude, double angle) {
return new Vector(magnitude * Math.cos(angle),
magnitude * Math.sin(angle));
}
}
And here is the test code to demonstrate the issue:
public class SOQuestion {
public static void main(String[] args) {
//This works just fine
Vector origin = new Vector(0, 0);
Vector target = new Vector(10, 10);
double expected = Math.PI * 0.25;
double actual = origin.bearingTo(target);
System.out.println("Expected: " + expected);
System.out.println("Actual: " + actual);
//This doesn't work
origin = new Vector(0, 0);
target = new Vector(10, 0);
expected = Math.PI * 0.5; //90 degrees, or east.
actual = origin.bearingTo(target); //Of course this is going to be zero, because in mathematics right is zero
System.out.println("Expected: " + expected);
System.out.println("Actual: " + actual);
//This doesn't work either
Vector secondTest = Vector.fromPolar(100, Math.PI * 0.5); // set the vector to the cartesian coordinates of (100,0)
System.out.println("X: " + secondTest.getX()); //X ends up being basically zero
System.out.println("Y: " + secondTest.getY()); //Y ends up being 100
} }
The requirements are:
fromPolar(magnitude,angle) should return a vector with x and y initialized to the appropriate values assuming north is at zero radians and east is at 1/2 PI radians. for example fromPolar(10,PI) should construct a vector with x: 0 and y: -1
getTheta() should return a value greater than or equal to zero and less than 2 PI. Theta is the angular component of the vector it's called on. For example a vector with x:10 and y:10 would return a value of 1/4 PI when getTheta() is called.
bearingTo(target) should return a value that is greater than or equal to zero and less than 2 PI. The value represents the bearing to another vector.
The test code demonstrates that when you try to get the bearing of one point at (0,0) to another point at (10,0), it doesn't produce the intended result, it should be 90 degrees or 1/2 PI Radians.
Likewise, trying to initialize a vector from polar coordinates sets the x and y coordinate to unexpected values. I'm trying to avoid saying "incorrect values" since it' not incorrect, it just doesn't meet the requirements.
I've messed around with the code a lot, adding fractions of PI here or taking it away there, switching sine and cosine, but all of these things only fix parts of the problem and never the whole problem.
Finally I made a version of this code that can be executed online http://tpcg.io/OYVB5Q
Typical polar coordinates 0 points to the East and they go counter-clockwise. Your coordinates start at the North and probably go clockwise. The simplest way to fix you code is to first to the conversion between angles using this formula:
flippedAngle = π/2 - originalAngle
This formula is symmetrical in that it converts both ways between "your" and "standard" coordinates. So if you change your code to:
public double bearingTo(Vector target) {
return Math.PI/2 - (Math.atan2(target.getY() - y, target.getX() - x));
}
public static Vector fromPolar(double magnitude, double angle) {
double flippedAngle = Math.PI/2 - angle;
return new Vector(magnitude * Math.cos(flippedAngle),
magnitude * Math.sin(flippedAngle));
}
It starts to work as your tests suggest. You can also apply some trigonometry knowledge to not do this Math.PI/2 - angle calculation but I'm not sure if this really makes the code clearer.
If you want your "bearing" to be in the [0, 2*π] range (i.e. always non-negative), you can use this version of bearingTo (also fixed theta):
public class Vector {
private final double x;
private final double y;
public Vector(double xIn, double yIn) {
x = xIn;
y = yIn;
}
public double getX() {
return x;
}
public double getY() {
return y;
}
public double getR() {
return Math.sqrt((x * x) + (y * y));
}
public double getTheta() {
return flippedAtan2(y, x);
}
public double bearingTo(Vector target) {
return flippedAtan2(target.getY() - y, target.getX() - x);
}
public static Vector fromPolar(double magnitude, double angle) {
double flippedAngle = flipAngle(angle);
return new Vector(magnitude * Math.cos(flippedAngle),
magnitude * Math.sin(flippedAngle));
}
// flip the angle between 0 is the East + counter-clockwise and 0 is the North + clockwise
// and vice versa
private static double flipAngle(double angle) {
return Math.PI / 2 - angle;
}
private static double flippedAtan2(double y, double x) {
double angle = Math.atan2(y, x);
double flippedAngle = flipAngle(angle);
// additionally put the angle into [0; 2*Pi) range from its [-pi; +pi] range
return (flippedAngle >= 0) ? flippedAngle : flippedAngle + 2 * Math.PI;
}
}
I'm using JFreeChart to draw chart. I have XYSeries with points (0, 0), (1, 2), (2, 5) and I want to read Y value for let's say x=1.5.
Is it possible to read value for points which are not in XYSeries? I couldn't find similar topic.
This is not supported directly. It does not make sense in many cases: There simply is no data available for x=1.5. The value there could be 1000.0, or -3.141. You don't know.
However, you're most likely looking for a linear interpolation. The pragmatic approach is thus to find the interval that contains the respective x-value, and interpolate the y-values linearly.
There are some technical caveats. E.g. the XYSeries may be not sorted, or may contain duplicate x-values, in which case there is no unique y-value for a given x-value. But for now, we can assume that the data set does not have these properties.
The following is an example of how this could be implemented. Note that this is not very efficient. If you have to compute many intermediate values (that is, if you intend to call the interpolate method very often), it would be beneficial to create a tree-based data structure that allows looking up the interval in O(logn).
However, if this is not time critical (e.g. if you only intend to show the value in a tooltip or so), you may interpolate the values like this:
import java.util.List;
import org.jfree.data.xy.XYDataItem;
import org.jfree.data.xy.XYSeries;
public class XYInterpolation
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
XYSeries s = new XYSeries("Series");
s.add(0,0);
s.add(1,2);
s.add(2,5);
double minX = -0.5;
double maxX = 3.0;
int steps = 35;
for (int i=0; i<=steps; i++)
{
double a = (double)i / steps;
double x = minX + a * (maxX - minX);
double y = interpolate(s, x);
System.out.printf("%8.3f : %8.3f\n", x, y);
}
}
private static double interpolate(XYSeries s, double x)
{
if (x <= s.getMinX())
{
return s.getY(0).doubleValue();
}
if (x >= s.getMaxX())
{
return s.getY(s.getItemCount()-1).doubleValue();
}
List<?> items = s.getItems();
for (int i=0; i<items.size()-1; i++)
{
XYDataItem i0 = (XYDataItem) items.get(i);
XYDataItem i1 = (XYDataItem) items.get(i+1);
double x0 = i0.getXValue();
double y0 = i0.getYValue();
double x1 = i1.getXValue();
double y1 = i1.getYValue();
if (x >= x0 && x <= x1)
{
double d = x - x0;
double a = d / (x1-x0);
double y = y0 + a * (y1 - y0);
return y;
}
}
// Should never happen
return 0;
}
}
(This implementation clamps at the limits. This means that for x-values that are smaller than the minimum x-value or larger than the maximum x-value, the y-value of the minimum/maximum x-value will be returned, respectively)
You can use DatasetUtils.findYValue() from package org.jfree.data.general
I'm programming a software renderer in Java, and am trying to use Z-buffering for the depth calculation of each pixel. However, it appears to work inconsistently. For example, with the Utah teapot example model, the handle will draw perhaps half depending on how I rotate it.
My z-buffer algorithm:
for(int i = 0; i < m_triangles.size(); i++)
{
if(triangleIsBackfacing(m_triangles.get(i))) continue; //Backface culling
for(int y = minY(m_triangles.get(i)); y < maxY(m_triangles.get(i)); y++)
{
if((y + getHeight()/2 < 0) || (y + getHeight()/2 >= getHeight())) continue; //getHeight/2 and getWidth/2 is for moving the model to the centre of the screen
for(int x = minX(m_triangles.get(i)); x < maxX(m_triangles.get(i)); x++)
{
if((x + getWidth()/2 < 0) || (x + getWidth()/2 >= getWidth())) continue;
rayOrigin = new Point2D(x, y);
if(pointWithinTriangle(m_triangles.get(i), rayOrigin))
{
zDepth = zValueOfPoint(m_triangles.get(i), rayOrigin);
if(zDepth > zbuffer[x + getWidth()/2][y + getHeight()/2])
{
zbuffer[x + getWidth()/2][y + getHeight()/2] = zDepth;
colour[x + getWidth()/2][y + getHeight()/2] = m_triangles.get(i).getColour();
g2.setColor(m_triangles.get(i).getColour());
drawDot(g2, rayOrigin);
}
}
}
}
}
Method for calculating the z value of a point, given a triangle and the ray origin:
private double zValueOfPoint(Triangle triangle, Point2D rayOrigin)
{
Vector3D surfaceNormal = getNormal(triangle);
double A = surfaceNormal.x;
double B = surfaceNormal.y;
double C = surfaceNormal.z;
double d = -(A * triangle.getV1().x + B * triangle.getV1().y + C * triangle.getV1().z);
double rayZ = -(A * rayOrigin.x + B * rayOrigin.y + d) / C;
return rayZ;
}
Method for calculating if the ray origin is within a projected triangle:
private boolean pointWithinTriangle(Triangle triangle, Point2D rayOrigin)
{
Vector2D v0 = new Vector2D(triangle.getV3().projectPoint(modelViewer), triangle.getV1().projectPoint(modelViewer));
Vector2D v1 = new Vector2D(triangle.getV2().projectPoint(modelViewer), triangle.getV1().projectPoint(modelViewer));
Vector2D v2 = new Vector2D(rayOrigin, triangle.getV1().projectPoint(modelViewer));
double d00 = v0.dotProduct(v0);
double d01 = v0.dotProduct(v1);
double d02 = v0.dotProduct(v2);
double d11 = v1.dotProduct(v1);
double d12 = v1.dotProduct(v2);
double invDenom = 1.0 / (d00 * d11 - d01 * d01);
double u = (d11 * d02 - d01 * d12) * invDenom;
double v = (d00 * d12 - d01 * d02) * invDenom;
// Check if point is in triangle
if((u >= 0) && (v >= 0) && ((u + v) <= 1))
{
return true;
}
return false;
}
Method for calculating surface normal of a triangle:
private Vector3D getNormal(Triangle triangle)
{
Vector3D v1 = new Vector3D(triangle.getV1(), triangle.getV2());
Vector3D v2 = new Vector3D(triangle.getV3(), triangle.getV2());
return v1.crossProduct(v2);
}
Example of the incorrectly drawn teapot:
What am I doing wrong? I feel like it must be some small thing. Given that the triangles draw at all, I doubt it's the pointWithinTriangle method. Backface culling also appears to work correctly, so I doubt it's that. The most likely culprit to me is the zValueOfPoint method, but I don't know enough to know what's wrong with it.
My zValueOfPoint method was not working correctly. I'm unsure why :( however, I changed to a slightly different method of calculating the value of a point in a plane, found here: http://forum.devmaster.net/t/interpolation-on-a-3d-triangle-using-normals/20610/5
To make the answer here complete, we have the equation of a plane:
A * x + B * y + C * z + D = 0
Where A, B, and C are the surface normal x/y/z values, and D is -(Ax0 + By0 + Cz0).
x0, y0, and z0 are taken from one of the vertices of the triangle. x, y, and z are the coordinates of the point where the ray intersects the plane. x and y are known values (rayOrigin.x, rayOrigin.y) but z is the depth which we need to calculate. From the above equation we derive:
z = -A / C * x - B / C * y - D
Then, copied from the above link, we do:
"Note that for every step in the x-direction, z increments by -A / C, and likewise it increments by -B / C for every step in the y-direction.
So these are the gradients we're looking for to perform linear interpolation. In the plane equation (A, B, C) is the normal vector of the plane.
It can easily be computed with a cross product.
Now that we have the gradients, let's call them dz/dx (which is -A / C) and dz/dy (which is -B / C), we can easily compute z everywhere on the triangle.
We know the z value in all three vertex positions.
Let's call the one of the first vertex z0, and it's position coordinates (x0, y0). Then a generic z value of a point (x, y) can be computed as:"
z = z0 + dz/dx * (x - x0) + dz/dy * (y - y0)
This found the Z value correctly and fixed my code. The new zValueOfPoint method is:
private double zValueOfPoint(Triangle triangle, Point2D rayOrigin)
{
Vector3D surfaceNormal = getNormal(triangle);
double A = surfaceNormal.x;
double B = surfaceNormal.y;
double C = surfaceNormal.z;
double dzdx = -A / C;
double dzdy = -B / C;
double rayZ = triangle.getV1().z * modelViewer.getModelScale() + dzdx * (rayOrigin.x - triangle.getV1().projectPoint(modelViewer).x) + dzdy * (rayOrigin.y - triangle.getV1().projectPoint(modelViewer).y);
return rayZ;
}
We can optimize this by only calculating most of it once, and then adding dz/dx to get the z value for the next pixel, or dz/dy for the pixel below (with the y-axis going down). This means that we cut down on calculations per polygon significantly.
this must be really slow
so much redundant computations per iteration/pixel just to iterate its coordinates. You should compute the 3 projected vertexes and iterate between them instead look here:
triangle/convex polygon rasterization
I dislike your zValueOfPoint function
can not find any use of x,y coordinates from the main loops in it so how it can compute the Z value correctly ?
Or it just computes the average Z value per whole triangle ? or am I missing something? (not a JAVA coder myself) in anyway it seems that this is your main problem.
if you Z-value is wrongly computed then Z-Buffer can not work properly. To test that look at the depth buffer as image after rendering if it is not shaded teapot but some incoherent or constant mess instead then it is clear ...
Z buffer implementation
That looks OK
[Hints]
You have too much times terms like x + getWidth()/2 why not compute them just once to some variable? I know modern compilers should do it anyway but the code would be also more readable and shorter... at least for me
Alright, I'm trying to do some simple object moving in the direction of where you touched the screen.
If I touch directly northwest of the object, it'll kind of move into the direction of the touch position. If I touch directly southeast of the object, it will kind of move into the direction of the touch position as well. However, if I touch directly northeast of the object, it'll move into the opposite direction towards the southwest. If I touch directly southwest of the object, it'll also move to the opposite direction towards northeast.
Also, if I touch north of the object, but just a little to the west, it will go straight west with a little to the north. Same with touching west of the object with a little bit to the north, it'll go straight north with a little bit to the west. Same thing for other directions.
Really, all the directions are from somewhat to obviously incorrect. I've been doing some paper calculations as well and I've seemed to be getting some correct angles, but at this point I'm completely stumped.
Does anyone know what the problem may be?
package com.badlogic.androidgames.texasholdem;
import java.util.List;
import android.util.FloatMath;
import com.badlogic.androidgames.framework.Game;
import com.badlogic.androidgames.framework.Graphics;
import com.badlogic.androidgames.framework.Input.TouchEvent;
import com.badlogic.androidgames.framework.Screen;
public class MainMenuScreen extends Screen {
public static float TO_RADIANS = (1 / 180.0f) * (float) Math.PI;
public static float TO_DEGREES = (1 / (float) Math.PI) * 180;
float num_x = 0; // Position of object on X axis
float num_y = 0; // Position of object on Y axis
float angle = 0;
public MainMenuScreen(Game game) {
super(game);
}
public void update(float deltaTime) {
Graphics g = game.getGraphics();
List<TouchEvent> touchEvents = game.getInput().getTouchEvents();
game.getInput().getKeyEvents();
int len = touchEvents.size();
for(int i = 0; i < len; i++) {
TouchEvent event = touchEvents.get(i);
if(event.type == TouchEvent.TOUCH_UP) {
if(inBounds(event, 0, 0, g.getWidth(), g.getHeight()) ) {
// Calculate the angle of the direction between two points
angle = (float) Math.atan2(event.x - num_x, event.y - num_y) * TO_DEGREES;
if (angle < 0)
angle += 360;
// This is just to give me numbers on the Math.atan2 result, angle, to/from X position, and to/from Y position
System.out.println("Pressed! - ATAN: " + Math.atan2(event.x - num_x, event.y - num_y)
+ " - ANGLE:" + angle + " - POS: " + event.x + "tx/"
+ (int)num_x + "fx " + event.y + "ty/" + (int)num_y + "fy");
}
}
}
// Moving object in direction at 1f speed
num_x += (1f * (float) Math.cos(angle * TO_RADIANS));
num_y += (1f * (float) Math.sin(angle * TO_RADIANS));
}
private boolean inBounds(TouchEvent event, int x, int y, int width, int height) {
if(event.x > x && event.x < x + width - 1 &&
event.y > y && event.y < y + height - 1)
return true;
else
return false;
}
public void present(float deltaTime) {
Graphics g = game.getGraphics();
g.drawPixmap(Assets.background, 0, 0);
g.drawPixmap(Assets.backcard, (int)num_x, (int)num_y);
}
public void pause() {
Settings.save(game.getFileIO());
}
public void resume() {
}
public void dispose() {
}
}
if event x> x then x must be positive to move toward event.x
the problem here is that when event.x< x then your moving x must be negative
int dx,dy;
dx = (1f * (float) Math.cos(angle * TO_RADIANS));
dy = (1f * (float) Math.sin(angle * TO_RADIANS));
if(event.x<x){
dx=-dx;}
if(event.y<y){
dy=-dy;}
num_x+=dx;
num_y+=dy;
this way is simpler but less precise....
public void update(){
//(find dif between item x, and touch x)
float xdif=destx-x;
float ydif=desty-y;
if(x<destx){
dx=xdif/8;
}
else if(x>destx){
//we devide both x and y differences by the same number
dx=xdif/8;
}
else if(x==destx){
dx=0;
}
if(y<desty){
dy=ydif/5;
}
else if(y>desty){
dy=ydif/5;
}
else if(y==desty){
dy=0;
}
x+=dx;
y+=dy;
there u go, pathing in a straight line between two points, item.x and touch x.
Firstly, the math - I think the problem is that, for example, tan(135deg) = tan (-45deg) = -1. Therefore, atan has return values ranging between -90deg and 90deg as a resolution to ambiguity (look at its graph here). I think La5t5tarfighter's solution - negating the x movement in some cases - is on the right track, but you need to negate the y component in those cases as well. You could try that, but it would be much simpler if you used libGDX's Vector2 class. This is how I'd do it:
move.set(touchX, touchY); // y should be through flipping or unproject() before this
move.sub(objectPos); // move now points from object to where you touched
move.nor(); // now 1 unit long
move.scl(SPEED*deltaTime); // multiplied by a constant and delta - framerate-independent
objectPos.add(move);
You could even chain it into just one line if you want:
objectPos.add(move.set(x,y).sub(objectPos).nor().scl(SPEED*deltaTime));
Secondly, you're not using a Camera. I'm not completely sure what the default coordinate system is, but I believe the y axis points up which is not the same as the one used for inputs - Input.getY() is given with an y axis pointing down from the top left corner. If you had a Camera, you'd do this:
cam.unproject(someVector.set(Gdx.input.getX(), Gdx.input.getY(), 0));
Lacking that, you might need to flip the y axis:
event.y = Gdx.graphics.getHeight() - event.y;
Still, this could be wrong. Try drawing the object right at the touch position - if I'm right in this, it'll seem mirrored vertically. If it draws correctly where you touch, ignore this part.