Related
So the issue that I'm having is that in developing an HTML5 canvas app I need to use a lot of transformations (i.e. translate, rotate, scale) and therefore a lot of calls being made to context.save() and context.restore(). The performance drops very quickly even with drawing very little (because the save() and restore() are being called as many times as possible in the loop). Is there an alternative to using these methods but still be able to use the transformations? Thank you!
Animation and Game performance tips.
Avoid save restore
Use setTransform as that will negate the need for save and restore.
There are many reasons that save an restore will slow things down and these are dependent on the current GPU && 2D context state. If you have the current fill and/or stroke styles set to a large pattern, or you have a complex font / gradient, or you are using filters (if available) then the save and restore process can take longer than rendering the image.
When writing for animations and games performance is everything, for me it is about sprite counts. The more sprites I can draw per frame (60th second) the more FX I can add, the more detailed the environment, and the better the game.
I leave the state open ended, that is I do not keep a detailed track of the current 2D context state. This way I never have to use save and restore.
ctx.setTransform rather than ctx.transform
Because the transforms functions transform, rotate, scale, translate multiply the current transform, they are seldom used, as i do not know what the transform state is.
To deal with the unknown I use setTransform that completely replaces the current transformation matrix. This also allows me to set the scale and translation in one call without needing to know what the current state is.
ctx.setTransform(scaleX,0,0,scaleY,posX,posY); // scale and translate in one call
I could also add the rotation but the javascript code to find the x,y axis vectors (the first 4 numbers in setTransform) is slower than rotate.
Sprites and rendering them
Below is an expanded sprite function. It draws a sprite from a sprite sheet, the sprite has x & y scale, position, and center, and as I always use alpha so set alpha as well
// image is the image. Must have an array of sprites
// image.sprites = [{x:0,y:0,w:10,h:10},{x:20,y:0,w:30,h:40},....]
// where the position and size of each sprite is kept
// spriteInd is the index of the sprite
// x,y position on sprite center
// cx,cy location of sprite center (I also have that in the sprite list for some situations)
// sx,sy x and y scales
// r rotation in radians
// a alpha value
function drawSprite(image, spriteInd, x, y, cx, cy, sx, sy, r, a){
var spr = image.sprites[spriteInd];
var w = spr.w;
var h = spr.h;
ctx.setTransform(sx,0,0,sy,x,y); // set scale and position
ctx.rotate(r);
ctx.globalAlpha = a;
ctx.drawImage(image,spr.x,spr.y,w,h,-cx,-cy,w,h); // render the subimage
}
On just an average machine you can render 1000 +sprites at full frame rate with that function. On Firefox (at time of writing) I am getting 2000+ for that function (sprites are randomly selected sprites from a 1024 by 2048 sprite sheet) max sprite size 256 * 256
But I have well over 15 such functions, each with the minimum functionality to do what I want. If it is never rotated, or scaled (ie for UI) then
function drawSprite(image, spriteInd, x, y, a){
var spr = image.sprites[spriteInd];
var w = spr.w;
var h = spr.h;
ctx.setTransform(1,0,0,1,x,y); // set scale and position
ctx.globalAlpha = a;
ctx.drawImage(image,spr.x,spr.y,w,h,0,0,w,h); // render the subimage
}
Or the simplest play sprite, particle, bullets, etc
function drawSprite(image, spriteInd, x, y,s,r,a){
var spr = image.sprites[spriteInd];
var w = spr.w;
var h = spr.h;
ctx.setTransform(s,0,0,s,x,y); // set scale and position
ctx.rotate(r);
ctx.globalAlpha = a;
ctx.drawImage(image,spr.x,spr.y,w,h,-w/2,-h/2,w,h); // render the subimage
}
if it is a background image
function drawSprite(image){
var s = Math.max(image.width / canvasWidth, image.height / canvasHeight); // canvasWidth and height are globals
ctx.setTransform(s,0,0,s,0,0); // set scale and position
ctx.globalAlpha = 1;
ctx.drawImage(image,0,0); // render the subimage
}
It is common that the playfield can be zoomed, panned, and rotated. For this I maintain a closure transform state (all globals above are closed over variables and part of the render object)
// all coords are relative to the global transfrom
function drawGlobalSprite(image, spriteInd, x, y, cx, cy, sx, sy, r, a){
var spr = image.sprites[spriteInd];
var w = spr.w;
var h = spr.h;
// m1 to m6 are the global transform
ctx.setTransform(m1,m2,m3,m4,m5,m6); // set playfield
ctx.transform(sx,0,0,sy,x,y); // set scale and position
ctx.rotate(r);
ctx.globalAlpha = a * globalAlpha; (a real global alpha)
ctx.drawImage(image,spr.x,spr.y,w,h,-cx,-cy,w,h); // render the subimage
}
All the above are about as fast as you can get for practical game sprite rendering.
General tips
Never use any of the vector type rendering methods (unless you have the spare frame time) like, fill, stroke, filltext, arc, rect, moveTo, lineTo as they are an instant slowdown. If you need to render text create a offscreen canvas, render once to that, and display as a sprite or image.
Image sizes and GPU RAM
When creating content, always use the power rule for image sizes. GPU handle images in sizes that are powers of 2. (2,4,8,16,32,64,128....) so the width and height have to be a power of two. ie 1024 by 512, or 2048 by 128 are good sizes.
When you do not use these sizes the 2D context does not care, what it does is expand the image to fit the closest power. So if I have an image that is 300 by 300 to fit that on the GPU the image has to be expanded to the closest power, which is 512 by 512. So the actual memory footprint is over 2.5 times greater than the pixels you are able to display. When the GPU runs out of local memory it will start switching memory from mainboard RAM, when this happens your frame rate drops to unusable.
Ensuring that you size images so that you do not waste RAM will mean you can pack a lot more into you game before you hit the RAM wall (which for smaller devices is not much at all).
GC is a major frame theef
One last optimisation is to make sure that the GC (garbage collector) has little to nothing to do. With in the main loop, avoid using new (reuse and object rather than dereference it and create another), avoid pushing and popping from arrays (keep their lengths from falling) keep a separate count of active items. Create a custom iterator and push functions that are item context aware (know if an array item is active or not). When you push you don't push a new item unless there are no inactive items, when an item becomes inactive, leave it in the array and use it later if one is needed.
There is a simple strategy that I call a fast stack that is beyond the scope of this answer but can handle 1000s of transient (short lived) gameobjects with ZERO GC load. Some of the better game engines use a similar approch (pool arrays that provide a pool of inactive items).
GC should be less than 5% of your game activity, if not you need to find where you are needlessly creating and dereferencing.
I've been trying to find out how to block the player from moving the correct way. However, the way I've been doing now, stops the player from moving at all.
I want the player to stop moving horizontally if it touches the side of the block's collisionArea, and if it touches the top or bottom of the block's collisionArea, I want it to stop moving vertically only. So that way you can still move up and down when you touch the side, and side to side when you touch top or botttom. Thanks.
if (player.collisionArea.hitTestObject(block.collisionArea))
{
player.y -= vy;
player.x -= vx;
}
Your basic approach is to move your object, test if the current position hits your obstacle, then move it back if it does. This could be adapted to separate out the x and y axis quite easily (reduced code for clarity):
player.x += vx;
if(player.hitTestObject(block)){
player.x -= vx;
}
player.y += vy;
if(player.hitTestObject(block)){
player.y -= vy;
}
However, there are potential problems with this. First of all, DisplayObject/x and y round their values to "twips", so your addition and subtraction of vx and vy will not necessarily result in the object landing back in the original position exactly. This can produce problems with objects getting stuck in walls and such. Sound strange? Try this:
var s:Sprite = new Sprite();
s.x = 1.1925;
trace(s.x); // 1.15
So, to avoid this, you can store the position separately instead of relying on the DisplayObject x and y property.
var oldPosition:Point = new Point(player.x, player.y);
player.x += vx;
if(player.hitTestObject(block)){
player.x = oldPosition.x;
}
player.y += vy;
if(player.hitTestObject(block)){
player.y = oldPosition.y;
}
Second, I thought I would just mention that while hitTestObject() is a convenient API to check the intersection of two display object bounding rectangles, in my experience when you mix it with movement and collision response it starts to break down, because it relies on the state of the display, which is subject to oddities like the twips rounding, and inflexible with timing (you can't, for example, project all your movements, then check collisions, since you need to move your display object to get a valid result from hitTestObject()). The better way IMO is to make collision detection purely math based, for example circle intersection/distance checks. All that hitTestObject() is really doing is Rectangle/intersects() based on display objects bounds anyway. Pure math based collision detection is more work to setup, but more flexible and in my experience more predictable. Just a thought for the future, perhaps!
First of all, this question is very genuine - Just for the next time, make sure you clarify the background of your question (i.e I`m making a game with an actionscript 2d graphics, blah blah blah).
Anyhow, I'll copy you a part of a code i written back in the day when i was into developing javascript games. Since i dont know how your objects are arranged, i`ll modify it in a way that'll just introduce the general algorithm.
// player: a class that holds an array of moves, and other relevant information. Varys on your program.
var optimizePosition = function (player) {
//after each time the player attempts to move, i check if he touches of the blocks. if he does, i move him back.
foreach(Block block in blocks)// replace this with an iterator for all the blocks
{
if (player.x-block.x < 32 || player.y-block.y < 32 ) // if player is touching a block:
undoLastMove(getLastMove(player),player);
}
// a little extra: always good to check if he's going out of the screen in the same function:
if(player.x > canvas.width - 64 || player.y > canvas.height - 64)
undoLastMove(getLastMove(player),player);
}
and each time the player moves, i call the function:
optimizePosition(player);
The content of undoLastMove(player) will contain the code you written above.
If the whole "game world" is thousands of times wider than a viewport, and if I want to use scene2d to manage game objects as Actors, should I create Stage object as wide as the whole world, or should the Stage be some area around current viewport but not the whole world?
In other words, does a Stage with greater width and height consume more memory itself, even if I render objects only on a small viewport-sized part of it?
I think you misunderstood what exactly a Stage is. A Stage doesn't really have a size itself. You don't specify a width or height or the Stage, you only specify the width and height of the viewport. The viewport is like a window, which shows only a part of your world, aka scene. A Stage is a 2D scene graph and it "grows" with your Actors. The more Actors you have, the bigger (memory wise) your Stage is, but it doesn't depend on how far spreaded your Actors actually are. If they are very far spreaded and you only display a very small part of your whole Stage, it will be handled very efficient, because a scene graph sub-divides this huge space to be able to very quickly decide whether to ignore a certain Actor, or draw it on the Screen.
That means a Stage is actually exactly what you need for this kind of situation and you should probably not have any problems, FPS and memory wise. But of course if your Stage is 1000s of times the size of your viewport and you know yourself that certain Actors aren't displayed soon, then it might make sense to not add them to the Stage yet.
A stage is only a root node that will hold all the actors. It's role is to call methods for its children (like draw and act); thus only the number and complexity of actor have an impact on memory and frame rate.
For your situation a culling method is certainly required. The simplest one would be to check if an actor is in the viewport and if not skip drawing him. Create a custom actor and add this code: source
public void draw (SpriteBatch batch, float parentAlpha) {
// if this actor is not within the view of the camera we don't draw it.
if (isCulled()) return;
// otherwise we draw via the super class method
super.draw(batch, parentAlpha);
}
Rectangle actorRect = new Rectangle();
Rectangle camRect = new Rectangle();
boolean visible;
private boolean isCulled() {
// we start by setting the stage coordinates to this
// actors coordinates which are relative to its parent
// Group.
float stageX = getX();
float stageY = getY();
// now we go up the hierarchy and add all the parents'
// coordinates to this actors coordinates. Note that
// this assumes that neither this actor nor any of its
// parents are rotated or scaled!
Actor parent = this.getParent();
while (parent != null) {
stageX += parent.getX();
stageY += parent.getY();
parent = parent.getParent();
}
// now we check if the rectangle of this actor in screen
// coordinates is in the rectangle spanned by the camera's
// view. This assumes that the camera has no zoom and is
// not rotated!
actorRect.set(stageX, stageY, getWidth(), getHeight());
camRect.set(camera.position.x - camera.viewportWidth / 2.0f,
camera.position.y - camera.viewportHeight / 2.0f,
camera.viewportWidth, camera.viewportHeight);
visible = (camRect.overlaps(actorRect));
return !visible;
}
If you need to improve performance even further you can switch to manually deciding what is visible and what not (ex when moving the camera). This would be faster because all those culling calculations are executed at EVERY frame, for EVERY actor. So although it's a lot faster to do some math instead of drawing, a big number of actors would give a huge amount of unwanted calls.
As you well know in as3 we have a getBounds() method which returns the exact dimension and coordinates of the movieclip in the DisplayObject container we want.
Fact is that these data are calculated based on the graphics in their state in the MC at the frame it is while getBounds() is called.
What I want is the REAL bounds rectangle, that is the larger rectangle that the WHOLE animated movieclip will take in its container.
I thought of two ways:
1 - a flash built-in method that I don't know
2 - going through every frame always getting the bounds and finally returning the biggest (but what if it's a long animation? should I wait for it to play completely before I can get what I want?)
I hope I've been clear. If you need examples, let me know!
You can iterate through each frame without having to wait for the animation to play:
Let's say your clip is called bob:
var lifetimeBounds:Rectangle = new Rectangle();
bob.gotoAndStop(1);
for(var i:int=1;i<=bob.totalFrames;i++){
lifetimeBounds.width = Math.max(lifetimeBounds.width, bob.width);
lifetimeBounds.height = Math.max(lifetimeBounds.height, bob.height);
lifetimeBounds.x = Math.min(lifetimeBounds.x, bob.x);
lifetimeBounds.y = Math.min(lifetimeBounds.y, bob.y);
bob.nextFrame();
}
bob.gotoAndStop(1); //reset bob back to the beginning
It's more CPU taxing (so I'd recommend not using it if the above works for your situation), but you could also use getBounds() in the example above and compare the returned rectangle against the lifetimeBounds rectangle:
var tempRect:Rectangle;
var lifetimeBounds:Rectangle = new Rectangle();
bob.gotoAndStop(1);
for(var i:int=1;i<=bob.totalFrames;i++){
tmpRect = bob.getBounds(this);
lifetimeBounds.width = Math.max(lifetimeBounds.width, tempRect.width);
lifetimeBounds.height = Math.max(lifetimeBounds.height, tempRect.height);
lifetimeBounds.x = Math.min(lifetimeBounds.x, tempRect.x);
lifetimeBounds.y = Math.min(lifetimeBounds.y, tempRect.y);
bob.nextFrame();
}
I had this issue when converting animations to bitmapData frames, as I wanted all the resulting frames to be a uniform size and match the largest frame dimensions.
I basically had to loop through the animation 1 frame at a time and compare the bounding box to the current largest dimensions. I too thought it was a less than an ideal solution, but it worked.
So #2 is your best bet, as there is no flash built in method that provides what you seek.
I've written a fairly simple java application that allows you to drag your mouse and based on the length of the mouse drag you did, it will shoot a ball in that direction, bouncing off walls as it goes.
Here is a quick screenshot:
alt text http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/3179/ballbouncemf9.png
Each one of the circles on the screen is a Ball object. The balls movement is broken down into an x and y vector;
public class Ball {
public int xPos;
public int yPos;
public int xVector;
public int yVector;
public Ball(int xPos, int yPos, int xVector, int yVector) {
this.xPos = xPos;
this.yPos = yPos;
this.xVector = xVector;
this.yVector = yVector;
}
public void step()
{
posX += xVector;
posY += yVector;
checkCollisions();
}
public void checkCollisions()
{
// Check if we have collided with a wall
// If we have, take the negative of the appropriate vector
// Depending on which wall you hit
}
public void draw()
{
// draw our circle at it's position
}
}
This works great. All the balls bounce around and around from wall to wall.
However, I have decided that I want to be able to include the effects of gravity. I know that objects accelerate toward the earth at 9.8m/s but I don't directly know how this should translate into code. I realize that the yVector will be affected but my experimentation with this didn't have the desired effect I wanted.
Ideally, I would like to be able to add some gravity effect to this program and also allow the balls to bounce a few times before settling to the "ground."
How can I create this bouncing-elastic, gravity effect? How must I manipulate the speed vectors of the ball on each step? What must be done when it hits the "ground" so that I can allow it to bounce up again, but somewhat shorter then the previous time?
Any help is appreciated in pointing me in the right direction.
Thanks you for the comments everyone! It already is working great!
In my step() I am adding a gravity constant to my yVector like people suggested and this is my checkCollision():
public void checkCollision()
{
if (posX - radius < 0) // Left Wall?
{
posX = radius; // Place ball against edge
xVector = -(xVector * friction);
}
else if (posX + radius > rightBound) // Right Wall?
{
posX = rightBound - radius; // Place ball against edge
xVector = -(xVector * friction);
}
// Same for posY and yVector here.
}
However, the balls will continue to slide around/roll on the floor. I assume this is because I am simply taking a percentage (90%) of their vectors each bounce and it is never truly zero. Should I add in a check that if the xVector becomes a certain absolute value I should just change it to zero?
What you have to do is constantly subtract a small constant (something that represents your 9.8 m/s) from your yVector. When the ball is going down (yVector is already negative), this would make it go faster. When it's going up (yVector is positive) it would slow it down.
This would not account for friction, so the things should bounce pretty much for ever.
edit1:
To account for friction, whenever it reverses (and you reverse the sign), lower the absolute number a little. Like if it hits at yVector=-500, when you reverse the sign, make it +480 instead of +500. You should probably do the same thing to xVector to stop it from bouncing side-to-side.
edit2:
Also, if you want it to react to "air friction", reduce both vectors by a very small amount every adjustment.
edit3:
About the thing rolling around on the bottom forever--Depending on how high your numbers are, it could be one of two things. Either your numbers are large and it just seems to take forever to finish, or you are rounding and your Vectors are always 5 or something. (90% of 5 is 4.5, so it may round up to 5).
I'd print out a debug statement and see what the Vector numbers are like. If they go to somewhere around 5 and just stay there, then you can use a function that truncates your fraction to 4 instead of rounding back to 5. If it keeps on going down and eventually stops, then you might have to raise your friction coefficient.
If you can't find an easy "rounding" function, you could use (0.9 * Vector) - 1, subtracting 1 from your existing equation should do the same thing.
When the balls are all rolling around on the ground, yes, check to see if the velocity is below a certain minimum value and, if so, set it to zero. If you look at the physics behind this type of idealized motion and compare with what happens in the real world, you'll see that a single equation cannot be used to account for the fact that a real ball stops moving.
BTW, what you're doing is called the Euler method for numerical integration. It goes like this:
Start with the kinematic equations of motion:
x(t) = x0 + vx*t + 0.5*axt^2
y(t) = y0 + vyt + 0.5*ayt^2
vx(t) = vx0 + axt
vy(t) = vy0 + ay*t
Where x and y are position, vx and vy are velocity, ax and ay are acceleration, and t is time. x0, y0, vx0, and vy0 are the initial values.
This describes the motion of an object in the absence of any outside force.
Now apply gravity: ay = -9.8 m/s^2
To this point, there's no need to do anything tricky. We can solve for the position of each ball using this equation for any time.
Now add air friction: Since it's a spherical ball, we can assume it has a coefficient of friction c. There are typically two choices for how to model the air friction. It can be proportional to the velocity or to the square of velocity. Let's use the square:
ax = -cvx^2
ay = -cvy^2 - 9.8
Because the acceleration is now dependent on the velocity, which is not constant, we must integrate. This is bad, because there's no way to solve this by hand. We'll have to integrate numerically.
We take discrete time steps, dt. For Euler's method, we simply replace all occurances of t in the above equations with dt, and use the value from the previous timestep in place of the initial values, x0, y0, etc. So now our equations look like this (in pseudocode):
// Save previous values
xold = x;
yold = y;
vxold = vx;
vyold = vy;
// Update acceleration
ax = -cvxold^2;
ay = -cvyold^2 - 9.8;
// Update velocity
vx = vxold + axdt;
vy = vyold + aydt;
// Update position
x = xold + vxold*dt + 0.5*axdt^2;
y = yold + vyolddt + 0.5*ay*dt^2;
This is an approximation, so it won't be exactly correct, but it'll look OK. The problem is that for bigger timesteps, the error increases, so if we want to accurately model how a real ball would move, we'd have to use very tiny values for dt, which would cause problems with accuracy on a computer. To solve that, there are more complicated techniques. But if you just want to see behavior that looks like gravity and friction at the same time, then Euler's method is ok.
Every time slice you have to apply the effects of gravity by accelerating the ball in teh y downwards direction. As Bill K suggested, that's as simple as making a subtraction from your "yVector". When the ball hits the bottom, yVector = -yVector, so now it's moving upwards but still accelarating downwards. If you want to make the balls eventually stop bouncing, you need to make the collisions slightly inelastic, basically by removing some speed in the y-up direction, possibly by instead of "yVector = -yVector", make it "yVector = -0.9 * yVector".
public void step()
{
posX += xVector;
posY += yVector;
yVector += g //some constant representing 9.8
checkCollisions();
}
in checkCollisions(), you should invert and multiply yVector by a number between 0 and 1 when it bounces on the ground. This should give you the desired effect
It's a ballistic movement. So you got a linear movement on x-axis and an uniform accelerated movement on y-axis.
The basic idea is that the y-axis will follow the equation:
y = y0 + v0 * t + (0.5)*a*t^2
Or, in C code, for example:
float speed = 10.0f, acceleration = -9.8f, y = [whatever position];
y += speed*t + 0.5f*acceleration*t^2;
Where here I use tiem parametrization. But you could use Torricelli:
v = sqrt(v0^2 + 2*acceleration*(y-y0));
And, on this model, you must maintain the last values of v and y.
Finally, I've done something similar using the first model with dt (time's differential) being fixed at 1/60 second (60 FPS).
Well, both models give good real-like results, but sqrt(), for example, is expensive.
You really want to simulate what gravity does - all it does is create force that acts over time to change the velocity of an object. Every time you take a step, you change the velocity of your ball a little bit in order to "pull" it towards the bottom of the widget.
In order to deal with the no-friction / bouncing ball settles issue, you need to make the "ground" collision exert a different effect than just strict reflection - it should remove some amount of energy from the ball, making it bounce back at a smaller velocity after it hits the ground than it would otherwise.
Another thing that you generally want to do in these types of bouncy visualizations is give the ground some sideways friction as well, so that when it's hitting the ground all the time, it will eventually roll to a stop.
I agree with what "Bill K" said, and would add that if you want them to "settle" you will need to reduce the x and y vectors over time (apply resistance). This will have to be a very small amount at a time, so you may have to change your vectors from int to a floating point type, or only reduce them by 1 every few seconds.
What you want to do is change the values of xVector and yVector to simulate gravity and friction. This is really pretty simple to do. (Need to change all of your variables to floats. When it comes time to draw, just round the floats.)
In your step function, after updating the ball's position, you should do something like this:
yVector *= 0.95;
xVector *= 0.95;
yVector -= 2.0;
This scales the X and Y speed down slightly, allowing your balls to eventually stop moving, and then applies a constant downward "acceleration" to the Y value, which will accumulate faster than the "slowdown" and cause the balls to fall.
This is an approximation of what you really want to do. What you really want is to keep a vector representing the acceleration of your balls. Every step you would then dot product that vector with a constant gravity vector to slightly change the ball's acceleration. But I think that my be more complex than you want to get, unless you're looking for a more realistic physics simulation.
What must be done when it hits the
"ground" so that I can allow it to
bounce up again
If you assume a perfect collision (ie all the energy is conserved) all you have to do reverse the sign of one of the velocity scalar depending on which wall was hit.
For example if the ball hits the right or left walls revese the x scalar component and leave the the y scalar component the same:
this.xVector = -this.xVector;
If the ball hits the top or bottom walls reverse the y scalar component and leave the x scalar component the same:
this.yVector = -this.yVector;
but somewhat shorter then the previous
time?
In this scenario some of the energy will be lost in the collision with the wall so just add in a loss factor to take of some of the velocity each time the wall is hit:
double loss_factor = 0.99;
this.xVector = -(loss_factor * this.xVector);
this.yVector = -(loss_factor * this.yVector;