I am writing a flash app for an LED floor using a Kinect to track tuio points. The interactive is split into three zones. When a particular zone has more tuio points than any other zone, it will send a message to another application which triggers a photostream (not important right now)...
I am wondering what the best way to count these points would be. Would three different containers do it? If so, how is it that each container could effectively "contain" the points. I was thinking of drawing three different Rectangles and creating some kind of function that counts the points within the coords of each rect. I just can't really wrap my head around how to keep certain points married to a specific region or DisplayObject.
Any thoughts? Thank you...
Placing points inside another container is like putting marbles inside balloon; the points will move, but the boundaries of the balloon will stretch to accomodate the marbles. Unless this is the behavoir you're looking for, don't parent the points to your rectangles.
Assuming a specific layout of rectangles, your goal is to count the number of points overlapping each rectangle. While you could certainly go the route of Geometry/Trigonometry calculations to ascertain an overlap (if your geometry were more complex, such as triangles, or n-sided objects), you could probably just get away with a framestack using getObjectsUnderPoint() & Point object..
var point:Point = new Point(tuioX, tuioY);
var stack:Array = getObjectsUnderPoint(point);
Check the array for each of the 3 regions, and you'll have your answer. :)
Related
Theres 2 parts to my problem and they are related. I have a weird shape on my interface illustrated below, I am trying to randomly spawn MovieClips within its' boundaries but I am having some trouble finding a good way to do it.
Question 1: I can run an If condition to check with bitMapData.hitTest to see if the MovieClip has randomly spawn within this shape, if it doesn't simply retry with a new set of random coordinates. However, is there a better way? Like a way to only take into account coordinates within the shape? There will be plenty of MC spawned at one go so I am hoping to lessen the load, or at least find an efficient way to do this calculation.
Question 2: The MovieClips spawned within this shape will eventually have collision detection mechanics that will repel itself when interacted with. Is there a way to contain them within this shape via some kind of boundary detection?
If it was a square, we could easily have contained them with a quick check on all 4 edges, but not with this shape. Currently I am thinking of using bitMapData.hitTest again to detect for out-of-bounds after being repelled, but how do I know which Point() is the nearest 'edge' of this shape to return the MC to?
For question 1: I'm going to go on an assumption that you have some geometry data about the shape.
One method you can use to check if a point is within a shape is to take that point, then draw a line from that point to infinity (the edge of the screen) in one direction. Then count how many times that line intersects an edge of the shape. If it's odd, the point is within the shape (or on the edge) and if it's even, than that point is outside of the shape.
First link in google: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/how-to-check-if-a-given-point-lies-inside-a-polygon/
Or can also try a more simple method (at the cost of doing more work): if the above shape is generated with all squares and rectangles and you know the point and size of all of those: can just do a check for the point vs all the squares and rectangles that make up the shape.
For question 2: As Organis mentioned, I'd go with a library like Box2D to do this. You'll most likely spend tons of time (that you may not want to) if you try to implement this alone.
The big issue is how much cpu or gpu the code uses. You're trying to avoid using any collision detection. Collision detection is having code do calculations to determine the edges of an object. It should be the last option.
Most of the time you know there's no need for collision detection. You know where everything is and how big it is. Everything has a centerpoint and comparing simple number coordinates is the lightweight way to check if there's a need to check further.
When things get near each other, you only need to do a collision detection on the immediate area around an object. See how your shape fits in a box that is easy to check for collisions? That box should get a collision check before the actual jagged shape inside it.
Yes that collision detection box has to be drawn or mapped but it's done when the object is defined, not when the game is playing. If you are using sprite sheets, keep an xml of the boxes or circles around the shapes.
I'm currently trying to implement a "crouch" function in my game. I'm using WCK with Box2D.
I have something rather basic, I generate my main character as an extension of a shape. This means that collision is automatically generated from the getgo. This is wonderful for a lot of things, but not everything.
I have a crouch/roll function. The problem is that the hitbox for crouching and standing are the same, so if a box drops onto you while crouching it "levitates" ontop of you since the hitbox is still the standing hitbox.
How would I go about "refreshing" the shape collision? Is there a way to delete the collision and make Box2D recalculate?
It's possible to filter contacts and prevent them from happening (using a contact listener or iterating the world's contact list) but I think there are better ways to do what you want.
You could split the body in two parts, and connect them with a prismatic joint (limits and motor enabled, collideConnected disabled). Standing up you'd have the motor push the parts apart to the upper limit and when crouching you'd pull them together to the lower limit thus reducing the height.
If you need really different shapes (e.g. a rectangle when standing and a circle for rolling around metroid style) this might work: Add both shape's fixtures to the body and use mask filtering to prevent the one you don't need from colliding with anything.
I'm writing a game where a large number of objects will have "area effects" over a region of a tiled 2D map.
Required features:
Several of these area effects may overlap and affect the same tile
It must be possible to very efficiently access the list of effects for any given tile
The area effects can have arbitrary shapes but will usually be of the form "up to X tiles distance from the object causing the effect" where X is a small integer, typically 1-10
The area effects will change frequently, e.g. as objects are moved to different locations on the map
Maps could be potentially large (e.g. 1000*1000 tiles)
What data structure would work best for this?
Providing you really do have a lot of area effects happening simultaneously, and that they will have arbitrary shapes, I'd do it this way:
when a new effect is created, it is
stored in a global list of effects
(not necessarily a global variable,
just something that applies to the
whole game or the current game-map)
it calculates which tiles
it affects, and stores a list of those tiles against the effect
each of those tiles is
notified of the new effect, and
stores a reference back to it in a
per-tile list (in C++ I'd use a
std::vector for this, something with
contiguous storage, not a linked
list)
ending an effect is handled by iterating through
the interested tiles and removing references to it, before destroying it
moving it, or changing its shape, is handled by removing
the references as above, performing the change calculations,
then re-attaching references in the tiles now affected
you should also have a debug-only invariant check that iterates through
your entire map and verifies that the list of tiles in the effect
exactly matches the tiles in the map that reference it.
Usually it depends on density of your map.
If you know that every tile (or major part of tiles) contains at least one effect you should use regular grid – simple 2D array of tiles.
If your map is feebly filled and there are a lot of empty tiles it make sense to use some spatial indexes like quad-tree or R-tree or BSP-trees.
Usually BSP-Trees (or quadtrees or octrees).
Some brute force solutions that don't rely on fancy computer science:
1000 x 1000 isn't too large - just a meg. Computers have Gigs. You could have an 2d array. Each bit in the bytes could be a 'type of area'. The 'effected area' that's bigger could be another bit. If you have a reasonable amount of different types of areas you can still use a multi-byte bit mask. If that gets ridiculous you can make the array elements pointers to lists of overlapping area type objects. But then you lose efficiency.
You could also implement a sparse array - using a hashtable key'd off of the coords (e.g., key = 1000*x+y) - but this is many times slower.
If course if you don't mind coding the fancy computer science ways, they usually work much better!
If you have a known maximum range of each area effect, you could use a data structure of your choosing and store the actual sources, only, that's optimized for normal 2D Collision Testing.
Then, when checking for effects on a tile, simply check (collision detection style, optimized for your data structure) for all effect sources within the maximum range and then applying a defined test function (for example, if the area is a circle, check if the distance is less than a constant; if it's a square, check if the x and y distances are each within a constant).
If you have a small (<10) amount of effect "field" shapes, you can even do a unique collision detection for each effect field type, within their pre-computed maximum range.
I have an app that finds other users within a 20 mile radius on a google map and associates an icon with each of them. However, I do not want their exact points to be given but rather an approximation. I've wrestled with a few ideas on how to do this:
Only Geocode the Zip Code, make graphic icons for 1-99, use the icon to represent how many results are within the zip code, and use the info window to show hyperlinks to the individual results. The only problem is, I'd like each individual icon to be shown because it just looks a lot better.
Add/Subtract a random number to the lat/lng values stored with each user and add a translucent circle around the icon.
What do you guys suggest?
It depends on the level of privacy you want (the 1st option protects privacy better), but I'd be tempted to go with randomly moving the indicators because it's a more natural representation (people on a map, not groups of people on a map) without too much of a compromise in terms of usefulness.
That depends on how hard you think someone will try to defeat your system.
If you plan to track these positions over time, you give away more information over time than you do in a snapshot. For instance, if you choose a fixed-offset from the center of the circle, it may be possible to find this offset by mapping the path over time to the street map. On the other hand if you continually change the offset, the position may be discoverable by averaging.
Here's one possible scheme based on hysteresis. Leave the visible circle in place until the user exits an invisible bounding circle with a random radius. Then compute a new visible circle with a different random offset, and also set up a new invisible circle with a different random radius. This should generate a visible-circle movement that is almost impossible to reverse engineer, but also avoids lots of jittery movement.
I'm creating a space game in actionscript/flex 3 (flash). The world is infinitely big, because there are no maps. For this to work I need to dynamically (programatically) render the background, which has to look like open space.
To make the world feel real and to make certain places look different than others, I must be able to add filters such as colour differences and maybe even a misty kind of transformation - these would then be randomly added and changed.
The player is able to "scroll" the "map" by flying to the sides of the screen, so that a certain part of the world is only visible at once but the player is able to go anywhere. The scrolling works by moving all objects except for the player in the opposite direction, making it look like it was the player that moved into that direction. The background also needs to be moved, but has to be different on the new discovered terrain (dynamically created).
Now my question is how I would do something like this, what kind of things do I need to use and how do I implement them? Performance also needs to be taken into account, as many more objects will be in the game.
You should only have views for objects that are within the visible area. You might want to use a quad tree for that.
The background should maybe be composed of a set of tiles, that you can repeat more or less randomly (do you really need a background, actually? wouldn't having some particles be enough?). Use the same technique here you use for the objects.
So in the end, you wind up having a model for objects and tiles or particles (that you would generate in the beginning). This way, you will only add a few floats (you can achieve additional performance, if you do not calculate positions of objects, that are FAR away. The quad tree should help you with that, but I think this shouldn't be necessary) If an object having a view leaves the stage, free the view, and use the quad tree to check, if new objects appear.
If you use a lot of objects/particles, consider using an object pool. If objects only move, and are not rotated/scaled, consider using DisplayObject::cacheAsBitmap.