In the game i'm building, I have made a basic collision detection system.
My current method is explained below:
I workout where the player will be in the next step of the game:
double checkforx = x+vx;
double checkfory = y+vy;
I then check for a collision with blocks (1) in mapArray.
public static Boolean checkForMapCollisions(double character_x,double character_y){
//First find our position in the map so we can check for things...
int map_x = (int) Math.round((character_x-10)/20);
int map_y = (int) Math.round((character_y-10)/20);
//Now find out where our bottom corner is on the map
int map_ex = (int) Math.round((character_x+10)/20);
int map_ey = (int) Math.round((character_y+10)/20);
//Now check if there's anything in the way of our character being there...
try{
for(int y = map_y; y <= map_ey; y++){
for(int x = map_x; x <= map_ex; x++){
if (levelArray[y][x] == 1){
return true;
}
}
}
}catch (Exception e){
System.out.println("Player outside the map");
}
return false;
}
If true is returned {nothing}
If false is returned {Player physics}
I need the player to be able to land on a block and then be able to walk around but I cannot find and adequate tutorial for this.
Can someone give me an idea on how to run my collision detection and/or movement?
There are 2 parts to this question. Collision detection, meaning determining whether a volume is touching or intersecting another volume. The second is collision response. Collision response is the physics portion.
I'll cover collision detection here as that's primarily what you asked about.
Ddefine a class for the map like so:
int emptyTile = 0;
//this assumes level is not a ragged array.
public boolean inBounds(int x, int y){
return x>-1 && y>-1 && x<levelArray[0].length && y<levelArray.length;
}
public boolean checkForCollisions(Rectangle rectangle){
boolean wasCollision = false;
for(int x=0;x<rectangle.width && !wasCollision;x++){
int x2 = x+rectangle.x;
for(int y=0;y<rectangle.height && !wasCollision;y++){
int y2 = y+rectangle.y;
if(inBounds(x2,y2) && levelArray[y2][x2] != emptyTile){
//collision, notify listeners.
wasCollision=true;
}
}
}
}
Do not make your methods static. You probably want more than one instance of a level right? Static is for when you need to share state which remains constant across multiple instances of a class. Level data will surely not remain constant for every level.
Instead of passing in a coordinate, try passing in an entire rectangle. This rectangle will be the bounding box of your character (the bounding box is also sometimes referred to as AABB, which means Axis-aligned bounding box, just FYI in case you're reading tutorials online for this sort of thing.) Let your Sprite class decide what its bounding rectangle is, that's not the map class's responsibility. All the map should be used for is maybe rendering, and whether a rectangle is overlapping tiles which are not empty.
I am sorry for a very shitty explanation but here is my github code and it will help better.
https://github.com/Quillion/Engine
Just to explain what I do. I have character object (https://github.com/Quillion/Engine/blob/master/QMControls.java) and it has vectors and a boolean called standing. Every time boolean standing is false. Then we pass it to the engine to check for collision, if collision happens then standing is true and y vector is 0. As to x vector whenever you press any arrow keys you make the xvector of the object to whatever value you want. And in the update loop you displace the given box by the amount of speed.
Related
I have a GUI Maze game that I am creating and I am having trouble implementing walls that prevent the player from moving. The walls are rectangles but the player is a circle so I had to create a collision detection method between a rectangle and a circle. The problem I am having is that my collidesWith() method is in the player class and it takes a single wall as a parameter and returns a string that tells you which side of the wall is the player intersecting with. This means I can only check if the player is colliding with one wall at a time. Here is the code for the collidesWith() method. x and y are the x and y coordinates of the player since this method is in the player class:
I should mention that the code above doesn't exactly work how I wanted it to since it only works when the player is coming from the sides. If the player is coming from the top or bottom, the player just goes through the wall.
The reason I need this method to return a string to tell me where the player is coming from is so that I can explicitly restrict the movement of the player when the up, down, left, right keys are pressed. This is in another class where all the GUI components are. Here is the code for that. I have created a wall object on top so that it can be passed as a parameter here when checking for intersection:
In my view, it is better to avoid to iterate through the whole array of wallsArraylist. If I understood correctly, it is necessary to explore neighbour cells, if yes, then you can explore neighbours in a two-dimensional array using this approach:
(pseudo-code)
row_limit = count(array);
if(row_limit > 0){
column_limit = count(array[0]);
for(x = max(0, i-1); x <= min(i+1, row_limit); x++){
for(y = max(0, j-1); y <= min(j+1, column_limit); y++){
if(x != i || y != j){
print array[x][y];
}
}
}
}
In addition, try to avoid magic strings. Replace "comingFromRight" and etc to constant string:
public static final String COMING_FROM_RIGHT = "comingFromRight";
I´m currently programming my first chess game and I have a small problem with my pieces. I´ll add some of my code below, but generally, I would like to check whether the tile a player moves a certain piece (in this example the king) to, is already occupied by another piece because in that case the other piece would either be killed (if the piece belongs to the other player) or the move would be false (tile occupied by own piece).
If you have any ideas how it could be done, I´d appreciate it greatly.
Best regards
public abstract class Piece
{
protected int x;
protected int y;
protected Tile finalTile;
protected Type type;
protected boolean killed;
protected boolean white;
public Piece(boolean white, int x, int y)
{
this.setWhite(white);
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
this.finalTile = finalTile;
}
public boolean isWhite() {
return this.white;
}
public void setWhite (boolean white) {
this.white = white;
}
public boolean isKilled() {
return this.killed;
}
public void setKilled (boolean killed) {
this.killed = killed;
}
// which type of Piece is being used
public abstract Type getType();
//is the chosen move valid?
public abstract boolean canMovePiece (Chessboard chessboard, int finalX, int finalY);
//The validation of the move does not show in which direction the piece is being moved. To set
the piece at its new spot (tile), a determination of the direction is needed for the
// calculation of the new spot on the chessboard
public abstract void setNewPieceLocation();
}
public class King extends Piece
{
public King(boolean white, int x, int y)
{
super(white, x, y);
type = Type.KING;
}
public Type getType() {
return Type.KING;
}
#Override
public boolean canMovePiece(Chessboard chessboard, int finalX, int finalY) {
int x_diff = Math.abs(finalX - this.x);
int y_diff = Math.abs(finalY - this.y);
//the king can only move one tile per round. The direction does not matter. Therefore, the
movements can be either one on the x-axis, the y-axis or one on both.
if ( x_diff == 1 && y_diff == 0 || x_diff == 0 && y_diff == 1 || x_diff == 1 && y_diff ==1) {
return true;
}
}
#Override
public void setNewPieceLocation() {
int finalX = this.x;
int finalY = this.y;
}
}
In tile-based computer games, you always have to make a very important initial design decision about what you choose as your central data structure:
The field itself, e.g. as a two-dimensional array, where the state of each tile in the field represents which piece is on it or
A collection of pieces with coordinates.
Option 1 is great if you have a small field and the pieces can only be directly on a tile.
Option 2 should only be done if option 2 is not possible, i.e.:
your game world is very large and sparse, e.g. 1 million x 1 million, then you would have an array with one trillion entries or (inclusive or)
your pieces can be halfway or otherwise fractionally located respectively with the tiles
Option 1 is easiest to implement if there is at most one piece at any one tile at the same time but you can work around that and it would depend on the specific circumstances, which one is best.
Now which case do we have in chess? As an exercise you can think about this yourself but I will give the solution below:
The first option is the perfect fit for chess, because you have a very small field (8x8), the pieces are exactly on the tiles (in theory, even if they may be a few millimeters off in practice) and there can be at most one piece per tile.
Option 1 has the advantage that it becomes extremely easy to check, which piece is on a certain tile: just check the field data structure at that point!
Another very important point for beginners is however how to map your coordinate system to your data structure especially in the case of a two dimensional array. Which dimension of the array is which axis of your game world and in which direction? There is however no right or wrong here, just clearly document it and be consistent!
For example, I personally like to have y going from top to bottom as the first dimension of the array and x going from left to right as field[y][x] because computer graphics memory is aligned that way (at least it was this way in the old 10h 320x200 8 bit palette video mode) but a mathematics teacher may very well prefer x first and y going from bottom to top as field[x][y] because that's how you usually draw 2-dimensional plots and write points with x first in mathematical notation.
So in my mental model, checking the top left would be checking the value field[0][0], top right would be field[0][7], bottom left field[7][0] and bottom right would be field[7][7].
Our hypothetical mathematics teacher could instead use field[0][7] for top left, top right would be field[7][7], bottom left field[0][0] and bottom right would be field[7][0].
Just use what works for you (and your team if you have one).
In order to prevent problems with object equality vs object identity I would not use a class for the type but an enum as that is the perfect fit for this case. As an empty field, you can either use null, but then you may need a bunch of checks to prevent NullPointerException, or you create a special value for an empty field.
Checking, which piece is in a certain spot with option 2 is not hard either, but as option 1 is so much easier here and also faster in case that matters, I will not get into detail about that here as that is not the best solution to your problem.
I'm working on a collision system for my game, however I can't get it to work, if I add more than one wall (which is the object I'm rendering) the collision system doesn't work and I can get through the block.
However if I leave only one wall the collision works correctly, or if at the end of the loop I add a break;
the collision works but only on the first wall of the map, the others don't get the collision.
Would anyone know how to solve this? I've been trying to solve it for 2 days and I couldn't.
public boolean checkCollisionWall(int xnext, int ynext){
int[] xpoints1 = {xnext+3,xnext+3,xnext+4,xnext+3,xnext+3,xnext+4,xnext+10,xnext+11,xnext+11,xnext+10,xnext+11,xnext+11};
int[] ypoints1 = {ynext+0,ynext+8,ynext+9,ynext+11,ynext+12,ynext+15,ynext+15,ynext+12,ynext+11,ynext+9,ynext+8,ynext+0};
int npoints1 = 12;
Polygon player = new Polygon(xpoints1,ypoints1,npoints1);
Area area = new Area(player);
for(int i = 0; i < Game.walls.size(); i++){
Wall atual = Game.walls.get(i);
int[] xpoints2 = {atual.getX(),atual.getX(),atual.getX()+16,atual.getX()+16};
int[] ypoints2 = {atual.getY(),atual.getY()+16,atual.getY()+16,atual.getY()};
int npoints2 = 4;
Polygon Wall = new Polygon(xpoints2,ypoints2,npoints2);
area.intersect(new Area(Wall));
if(area.isEmpty()){
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
I'm pretty sure the problem is this call:
area.intersect(new Area(Wall));
Here's the JavaDoc for that method:
public void intersect(Area rhs)
Sets the shape of this Area to the intersection of its current shape
and the shape of the specified Area. The resulting shape of this Area
will include only areas that were contained in both this Area and also
in the specified Area.
So area, which represents the shape of your player, is going to be modified by each test with a wall, which is why it's only working with one wall.
You could fix the issue by simply making the player Area the argument of the call, as in:
Area wallArea = new Area(Wall);
wallArea.intersect(area);
if(wallArea.isEmpty()){
return true;
}
By the way, this logic is reversed isn't it. Don't you want to check that the resulting area is not empty, i.e. there was an overlap between the player and the wall?
The other option, if each Wall is actually a rectangle, would be to use the this Area method instead:
public boolean intersects(double x,
double y,
double w,
double h)
Tests if the interior of the Shape intersects the interior of a
specified rectangular area. The rectangular area is considered to
intersect the Shape if any point is contained in both the interior of
the Shape and the specified rectangular area.
Something like this:
if(area.intersects(atual.getX(), atual.getY(), 16, 16)) {
return true;
}
As this avoids the creation of an Area object for each wall, and the intersection test is going to be much simpler, and faster.
I've finally completed the collision detection, however the collision response is very glitchy (if you try you can go through walls) and that's mainly because I have no information about the collision angle!
I have camPos(x,y,z) coordinates of my camera aswell as the min and max values of model(minX,minY,minZ,maxX,maxY,maxZ).. with a simple test I check if the camPos is interecting the model boundaries:
if(cameraX > xMax || cameraX < xMin) {
collisionX = false;
collisionY = false;
collisionZ = false;
} else {
collisionX = true;
System.out.println("collisionX: "+ collisionX); // collision on x is true!
}
I have acess to all vertice positions and calculated the min max values of the object to create a BoundingBox.
In order to get the right direction in which I want to push the object I need to know in which direction the nearest face is pointing (left,right,forward,back?)
To find out the angle I thought I could use the normal coordinates which I also have acess to, since they indicate a 90 degree angle to the face, right?
console print: //all 'vn' values of cube.obj
xNormals:0.0
yNormals:0.0
zNormals:0.0
xNormals:0.0
yNormals:0.0
zNormals:0.0
xNormals:1.0
yNormals:1.0
zNormals:1.0
xNormals:0.0
yNormals:0.0
zNormals:0.0
xNormals:-1.0
yNormals:-1.0
zNormals:-1.0
xNormals:0.0
yNormals:0.0
zNormals:0.0
Basically I want to know how these normal coordinates have to be applied to the min and max values of the object so that I can define all faces of the BoundingBox for example: face A is defined by xMin_a and xMax_a and faces left, face B is defined by xMin_b and xMax_b and faces right and so on..
I hope it's a bit more understandable, it's quite hard to explain..
Okay I've figured out a way to do it, hope it will help someone else too: I found out how to calculate the faces of a bounding box, it was actually not even that hard and it had absolutely nothing to do with normals.. sorry for the confusion.
As shown in my answer you can calculate the boundingBox of objects with their min/max values.. but you can also define all six faces of the box by extending the check and use a boolean to find out if the respective face collides somewhere:
if(collisionX == true && collisionY == true) {
if(cameraZ+0.2 > zMin_list.get(posIndex)-0.2 && cameraZ+0.2 < zMin_list.get(posIndex)) {
faceA = true;
System.out.println("faceA = " +faceA + " face a is true!");
} else {
faceA = false;
}
}
You can do this for all six faces where A(Forward), B(Back), C(Left), D(Right), E(Up) and F(Down) will define where the collision direction should be:
If the collision is on Face A, the response will be moving backwards (on z axis minus).. That way you will never be able to glitch through a wall because it will always push you away from the collision area.
I am using libgdx for easy 3D game, I need check model is clicked.
It is my code:
public int getObject (int screenX, int screenY) {
Ray ray = cam.getPickRay(screenX, screenY);
int result = -1;
float distance = -1;
for (int i = 0; i < rooms.size; ++i) {
final GameObject instance = rooms.get(i);
instance.transform.getTranslation(position);
position.add(instance.center);
final float len = ray.direction.dot(position.x-ray.origin.x, position.y-ray.origin.y, position.z-ray.origin.z);
if (len < 0f)
continue;
float dist2 = position.dst2(ray.origin.x+ray.direction.x*len, ray.origin.y+ray.direction.y*len, ray.origin.z+ray.direction.z*len);
if (distance >= 0f && dist2 > distance)
continue;
if (dist2 <= instance.radius * instance.radius ) {
result = i;
distance = dist2;
}
}
return result;
}
It it sometimes work.
Is is my model:
http://www6.zippyshare.com/v/97501566/file.html
What do I wrong?
Any help for me?
I am new with libgdx.
When was I press 1 it lights, but when I waas press 2, 1 lights too (instead 2)...
I didn't fully analyze your code nor do I know what It it sometimes work. actually means (e.g. in which circumstances doesn't it work?) but you're using a bounding sphere for detecting whether the object has been clicked or not.
Assuming your calculations are correct (as I said, I didn't check them in depth) you still can have false positives or negatives since the only shape which is perfectly represented by a bounding sphere is ... well... a sphere.
That might be the source for click detection to work "sometimes".
If that is the case and you want more accurate detection you should either use different bound volumes, bounding volumne hierarchies or a rendering based approach (i.e. render the object id into some buffer, which would allow for pixel perfect selection).
UPDATE:
From your post update it seems that bounding spheres are not the problem here, since they should not overlap, unless your data is wrong - which you should check/debug.
So the problem might actually lie in your calculations. From the documentation it looks like the ray you get is projected into the scene (i.e. into world space) so you'd need to transform your objects' center into worldspace as well.
You're currently only applying the position but ignore rotation and scale thus the resulting position might be wrong. I'm sure there's some built-in transform code, so instead of transforming manually you should use that. Please check the docs on how to do that.