I am making an achtung die kurve-like game in AS3.0. So far I've done the movements of the 4 different players, and it works alright.
I am now to make collision detection, in order to test if a 'worm'-so to speak, is colliding with eachother or its own tail.
As I understand it, if I use hitTestObject(); it will use the registration area of the whole object, which would be a huge problem, seeing since this registration makes a 4-sided registration that contains all of the object. So if this is used, it will 'collide' just by entering this rectangle instead of hitting the actual worm. Is this correctly understood?
I've been looking through different methods of collision detection, and can't seem to find an optimal one for my project.
My thought were to check if the 'worms' are drawing their new sprites on a white background. if they aren't, then it must have hit something.
You can see how I used my code here: code in .as format linked to an .fla file
Sorry for my ill-formulated question, hope it makes somewhat sense.
Any help is greatly appreciated!!
Best regards - Jesper
Try this function if you want a Pixel Perfect Collision Detection with efficient CPU usage:
trace("Collided: " + (areaOfCollision(mc1, mc2) != null));
trace("Where: " + areaOfCollision(mc1, mc2));
function areaOfCollision(object1:DisplayObject, object2:DisplayObject, tolerance:int = 255):Rectangle {
if (object1.hitTestObject(object2)) {
var limits1:Rectangle = object1.getBounds(object1.parent);
var limits2:Rectangle = object2.getBounds(object2.parent);
var limits:Rectangle = limits1.intersection(limits2);
limits.x = Math.floor(limits.x);
limits.y = Math.floor(limits.y);
limits.width = Math.ceil(limits.width);
limits.height = Math.ceil(limits.height);
if (limits.width < 1 || limits.height < 1) return null;
var image:BitmapData = new BitmapData(limits.width, limits.height, false);
var matrix:Matrix = object1.transform.concatenatedMatrix;
matrix.translate(-limits.left, -limits.top);
image.draw(object1, matrix, new ColorTransform(1, 1, 1, 1, 255, -255, -255, tolerance));
matrix = object2.transform.concatenatedMatrix;
matrix.translate(-limits.left, -limits.top);
image.draw(object2, matrix, new ColorTransform(1, 1, 1, 1, 255, 255, 255, tolerance), BlendMode.DIFFERENCE);
var intersection:Rectangle = image.getColorBoundsRect(0xFFFFFFFF, 0xFF00FFFF);
if (intersection.width == 0) return null;
intersection.offset(limits.left, limits.top);
return intersection;
}
return null;
}
After a successful preliminary hitTestObject(), this function backgroundly takes a snapshot from the shapes of both objects painted with different colors each, then overlays them intersecting the colors on a new one, returning the Rectangle of the resulting shape. So cool.
To learn more about Pixel Perfect Collision Detection you can google Collision Detection followed by one of these names: "The ActionScript Man", "Troy Gilbert", "Boulevart (wim)", "Grant Skinner (gSkinner)" or "Senocular". Those guys are awesome AS3 references by the way.
The problem you discribe is a very common problem for collission detection because the object has a set width and height and therefor defines a rectangle as the object.
There is a solution however to make a colission detection system on pixel level I have found this on the official site and this made me able to make collission detection for bitmaps on pixel level.
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/ActionScript/3.0_ProgrammingAS3/WS5b3ccc516d4fbf351e63e3d118a9b90204-7d55.html
hope it helps you out in the same way.
Looking at the screenshots of that game, I think the best model would be to describe each worm as a chain of circles. Then divide the world/level in a grid with cells somewhat larger than the circle radii.
The collision check would then be:
clear grid
place each circle into the 1 or more grid cells it falls in
iterate over all cells, for each cell:
for each pair of circles (partially) in this cell, check if they intersect. If they do; collision.
Note that this may result in more than 1 collision occurrence between circle A and B, so you'd also need to check that to avoid duplicates.
Step 1 and 2 can be optimized by not clearing the grid, and instead of step 2, updating each circle's cell after it moves. If you size your cells like 5x the size of a circle, a circle can stay in the same cell for a few frames, avoiding excessive add/remove operations.
I'm doing something similar in a project of mine right now, except with space ships! My grid cells are currently 256x256 (too big for your project I think) and my units have radii of about 20.
Related
I'm working on a drawing app and the line quality seems to be very low and jagged compared to other drawing apps.
Or it might be that other apps are doing something different than I'm doing.
What I have done so far is use the graphics property to draw the lines. I also collect the mouse positions on the mouse move events for assigning to a path later on. Summarized it:
MouseDownHandler:
mouseDownPoint.x = event.stageX;
mouseDownPoint.y = event.stageY;
drawCommands.push(GraphicsPathCommand.MOVE_TO);
simplePath = "M " + mouseDownPoint.x + " " + mouseDownPoint.y;
MouseMoveHandler:
line.graphics.lineStyle(lineWeight, lineColor, lineAlpha, pixelHinting);
line.graphics.moveTo(previousPoint.x, previousPoint.y);
scaledPoint = new Point(localPoint.x/scaleX, localPoint.y/scaleY);
line.graphics.lineTo(scaledPoint.x, scaledPoint.y);
previousPoint.x = scaledPoint.x;
previousPoint.y = scaledPoint.y;
simplePath += " L " + scaledPoint.x + " " + scaledPoint.y;
MouseUpHandler:
myPath.data = simplePath;
As I draw I update the line (which is a UIComponent but could just as well be a Shape or Sprite - anything with a graphics property). At the same time I keep track of the mouse locations in the simplePath string.
When the mouse is up I clear the line graphics and show a path graphic element. The Path isn't important to this but I noticed it looks slightly cleaner than the line that had been drawn. That might be because it has pixel hinting (it's not much cleaner). Sometimes there are artifacts. And I'm including it in case I need to use a path for some reason.
Here is the screen shot:
The pixel hinted version looks crisper but it still is far below the quality of the line drawing in other apps and in some cases it makes it look more jagged. Is there something I'm missing?
Note: I included graphics2d and canvas2d because I believe this may not be related to the specific language or platform but might be related to drawing graphics in general.
The green line is produced by Graphics.cubicCurveTo(...) method. Initially you have a list of user-provided points A1,A2,A3...An. In order to use cubic curves you also need to figure 2 control points CFk (forward) and CBk (backward), for each Ak respectively, so you draw that big curve starting from A1 and every curve piece from Ak-1 to Ak will take arguments .cubicCurveTo(CFk-1, CBk, Ak);
For each Ak (except for A1 and An) you can calculate CFk and CBk as following:
(vector)AForward = (vector)(Ak+1 - Ak-1)
(vector)AForward.length = (vector)(Ak+1 - Ak).length / 3
CFk = Ak + (point)AForward
(vector)ABackward = (vector)(Ak-1 - Ak+1)
(vector)ABackward.length = (vector)(Ak-1 - Ak).length / 3
CBk = Ak + (point)ABackward
Then, there are A1 and An that are left out, but I am sure you can figure them on your own.
For vector math you can use ru.delimiter.math.Vector2D class (works with both Cartesian and Polar coordinates) from my small collection of useful things: https://bitbucket.org/thydmitry/ru.delimiter/src/9083fb46ce1c/classes/ru/delimiter/math/
P.S. Maybe you don't need to go that extreme and will be fine with the red line, that is a simple .curveTo(Ak, (Ak + Ak+1)/2);
UPD: a simple algorithm to inscribe a curve into zigzag provided by an array of points.
function middle(A:Point, B:Point):Point
{
return new Point((A.x + B.x) / 2, (A.y + B.y) / 2);
}
function drawTo(target:Point):void
{
graphics.lineTo(target.x, target.y);
}
function bendTo(control:Point, target:Point):void
{
graphics.curveTo(control.x, control.y, target.x, target.y);
}
// This should contain at least 2 points before you start drawing.
var PP:Vector.<Point>;
// Go to the start position.
graphics.lineStyle(0, 0xFF0000);
graphics.moveTo(PP[0].x, PP[0].y);
// Draw a straight line to the center of the first zigzag segment.
drawTo(middle(PP[0], PP[1]));
// For each 3 consequent points A,B and C, connect
// the middle of AB and the middle of BC with a curve.
for (var i:int = 2; i < PP.length; i++)
{
bendTo(PP[i - 1], middle(PP[i - 1], PP[i]));
}
// Connect the center of the last zigzag segment with the end point.
drawTo(PP[PP.length - 1]);
There are multiple reasons:
Stage quality. In Flash Player you can set the stage quality to LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH, BEST, 8x8, 8x8Linear, 16x16 and 16x16Linear. This affects if there is antialiasing applied on lines / paths and how many times it's applied. Increasing the quality helps but in 8x8 and higher quality there are bugs in the Flash Player (font size reduced by 25% on non-embedded fonts, graphics artifacts, gradient fills color count reduced).
Pixel snapping. If you have a 1px line that ends up positioned on a half pixel it is anti aliased over two lines. Normally antialiasing increases quality but in the case of an offset single pixel line it reduces quality. Setting pixel snapping helps.
Using curveTo and cubicCurveTo instead of line points as #Organis suggested. Not sure how to do this yet.
Will try to post images of the difference in each case when I get a chance.
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'm currently struggling on a problem that seems far beyond my maths capacities (been a long time since I've made some proper maths...) and I would appreciate some help on that.
Here's my setting :
I got some simple shapes (rectangles), and I "project" their bottom points on a line, coming from an Origin point.
Up to this point everything is fine.
But now I'd like to draw the original shape distorted as if it was projected with some perspective on a plane.
Please consider that I have nothing related to any rotation, isometric or any 3D or fake 2D perspective in my code, I'm only trying to draw some shapes using the graphics library to only have a feeling of something real.
Here's a quick drawing of what I'm trying to do :
What I know :
Origin point coordinates
the rect position & sizes
the red line position
the A & B points coordinates
What I want to determine is the coordinates of the C & D points, thing that could be easy if I wasn't struggling to find the "Origin bis" coordinates.
What I'm trying to do is to fake the projection of my rectangle on something that can be considered as a "floor" (related to the plane where my original rectangle is that can be seen as a wall).
Maybe I'm over-complicating the problem or maybe I fail to see any other easier way to do it, but I'm really not good anymore in any geometry or maths thing... :-(
Thanks a lot for your answers !
hmm i don't know if I undestood it correctly but I think you have too few input parameters:
you said the following information is given:
Origin point coordinates
the rect position & sizes
the red line position
the A & B points coordinates
I don't think it is possible to get your projected rectangle with this information alone.
Additionally, I think your green lines and the 'origin Bis' aren't helpful as well.
Perhaps, try this:
Supose, a blue line going through the points C & D is given as well.
Then you could find your projected rectangle by projecting the top of the rectangle onto that blue line.
So in summary:
You define an origin + two parallel lines, a red and a blue one.
Then you can project the top of the rect onto the blue line and the bottom of the rect onto the red line, yielding the points A,B,C,D
I hope this helps.
If I'm right, this code will show what you wanted to see.
First of all, I've ignored your initial setup of objects and information, and focused on the example situation itself; fake-projecting shadow for a "monolith" (any object is possible with the example below, even textured)
My reason was that it's really quite easy with the Matrix class of ActionScript, a handy tool worth learning.
Solution:
You can use the built-in Matrix class to do skew transform on DisplayObjects.
Try this example:
(The "useful" part lies in the _EF EnterFrame handler ;) )
import flash.display.MovieClip;
import flash.geom.Matrix;
import flash.events.Event;
import flash.display.BitmapData;
const PIP180:Number = Math.PI / 180;
const MAX_SHADOW_HEIGHT_MULTIPLIER:Number = 0.25; // you can also calculate this from an angle, like ... = Math.sin(angle * PIP180);
const ANIM_DEG_PER_FRAME:Number = 1.0 * PIP180; // the shadow creeps at a +1 degree per frame rate
var tx:BitmapData = new MonolithTexture(); // define this BitmapData in the library
var skew:Number = -10 * PIP180; // initial
var mono:MovieClip = new MovieClip();
mono.graphics.beginBitmapFill(tx);
// drawn that way the registration point is 0,0, so it's standing on the ground
mono.graphics.drawRect(0, -tx.height, tx.width, tx.height);
mono.graphics.endFill();
// align monolith to the "ground"
mono.x = stage.stageWidth / 2;
mono.y = stage.stageHeight - 100;
// make it be 100x300 pixel
mono.width = 100;
mono.height = 300;
var shad:MovieClip = new MovieClip();
// colored:
shad.graphics.beginFill(0x000000);
// or textured:
//shad.graphics.beginBitmapFill(tx);
shad.graphics.drawRect(0, -tx.height, tx.width, tx.height);
shad.graphics.endFill();
addChild(shad); // shadow first
addChild(mono); // then the caster object
addEventListener(Event.ENTER_FRAME, _EF);
function _EF(e:Event):void {
// animate skew on the positive half circle
skew = (skew + ANIM_DEG_PER_FRAME) % Math.PI;
// Matrix takes 6 parameters: a, b, c, d, x, y
// for this shadow trick, use them as follows:
// a = width scaling (as mono and shad are drawn in the same way, copy mono.scaleX for a perfect fit
// b = 0, because we don't want to project the vertical axis of transformation to the horizontal
// c = horizontal skew
// d = height scaling * skew * making it a bit flat using the constant
// x = mono.x, ...
// y = mono.y since originally mono and shad look alike, only the Matrix makes shad render differently
var mtx:Matrix = new Matrix(mono.scaleX, 0, Math.cos(skew), mono.scaleY * Math.sin(skew) * MAX_SHADOW_HEIGHT_MULTIPLIER, mono.x, mono.y);
shad.transform.matrix = mtx;
}
Now all you got to know to utilize this in your case, is the following N factors:
Q1: from what angle you want to project the shadow?
A1: horizontal factor is the skew variable itself, while vertical angle is stored as constant here, called MAX_SHADOW_HEIGHT_MULTIPLIER
Q2: do you want to project shadow only "upwards", or freely?
A2: if "upwards" is fine, keep skew in the positive range, otherwise let it take negative values as well for a "downward" shadow
P.S.: if you render the internals of the objects that they don't snap to 0 y as a base point, you can make them seem float/sink, or offset both objects vertically with a predefined value, with the opposite sign.
You face 1 very simple problem, as you said:
'What I want to determine is the coordinates of the C & D points, thing that could be easy if I wasn't struggling to find the "Origin bis" coordinates.'
But these co-ordinates relate to each other, so without one (or another value such as an angle) you cannot have the other. If you are to try this in 3D you are simply allowing the 3D engine to define 'Origin bis' and do your calculating for C and D itself.
So regardless you will need an 'Original bis', another value relating to the redline or your Rect for which to calculate the placement of C and D.
I remember making stuff like this and sometimes it's better to just stick with simple, you either make an 'Original bis' defines by yourself (it can be either stationary or move with the player/background) and get C and D the way you got A and B only that you use a lower line than the red line, or as I would of done, once you have A and B, simple skew/rotate your projection from those points down a bit further, and you get something the same as an 'Original bis' that follows the player. This works fine at simulating 'feeling of something real' but sadly as has been said, it looking real depends on what you are portraying. We do not know what the areas above or below the red line are (sky/ground, ground/water) and whether 'Origin' and 'Origin bis' is your light source, vanishing point, etc.
I'm using HTML5 lineTo but any stroke greater than 1 creates squarish looking corners on the lines (the stroke extends perpendicular to the path of the line you draw). I want to create a circular brush tip, similar to http://muro.deviantart.com.
Any ideas?
The corners can be rounded by setting the line cap.
ctx.lineCap = "round"
You can also apply a bezier curve to the overall line to create a smoother overall line, by, for each point in the line P'0, …, P'n + 1, applying the equation P'k = (k/(n+1))Pk-1+(1-(k/(n+1)))Pk [NB: You might do well to select which points to which you apply the smoothing of the bezier curve by setting a threshold, perhaps on the angle between Pn and Pn+1]
Combining these two techniques with a standard box blur to the line itself will give you a much smoother appearing line.
Edit
From what I can tell, there's actually a number of ways to do this – which you use is entirely up to you. I'll give you an example, and let you decide: Assume you have a path drawn from a beginning point pm (mousedown) to an endpoint (mouseup) pn. That path is made up of subpaths (the points joined by miters). We can draw the path to the context from p0 to p1 with lineTo() and stroke() as normal. Just from watching console output, the points at which the subpaths join is the mousemove event firing. Record these points in order in an array.
Of course if we draw this to the main context, we have a problem removing it, so this should be done to a buffer context (an additional canvas element, for instance). The buffer is cleared, and we use the points of the miters to calculate the curve. bezierCurveTo prints a cubic function (B(t) = (1-t)3P0+3(1-t)2P1+3(1-t)t2P2+t3P3, t ∈ [0,1]. Step through your array (think for loop) recalculating the line with those points, updating the curve from P0 to Pn-3. (Doing quick head-math. You might need to think over this endpoint. All of this is dependent upon which arcing equation you use).
So let me see if I can do something with this... I'm not testing it so I guarantee bugginess.
// Assume:
// bfr = buffer context.
// ctx = main context.
// md = boolean value for mousedown
// pts = []; <-- already contains lp (below) at pts[0];
// We've also recorded Pm in associative array lp [last point]
// Draw is fired on mousemove. Mousemove records a current point in associative array cp
draw = function() {
if(md) {
bfr.beginPath();
bfr.moveTo(lp.x-.5, lp.y-.5);
bfr.lineTo(cp.x-.5, cp.y-.5);
pts.push({cp.x, cp.y});
bfr.stroke();
}
}
// Optionally, you could make this function recursive.
// This assumes that you want to estimate the curve based on the whole line.
bezier = function(pts) {
ctx.beginPath();
ctx.moveTo(pts[0].x, pts[0].y);
for( var i = 0; i < pts.length - 3; i++ ) {
ctx.bezierCurveTo( pts[i+1].x, pts[i+1].y, pts[i+2].x, pts[i+2].y, pts[i+3].x, pts[i+3].y);
}
ctx.stroke();
}
Again, this is what I see – someone else may have an entirely different and I'm sure better interpretation. I'm trying to tear chunks of things I've done and put them together with some new code quickly to give you some idea.
I'm trying to position an image on top of another image based upon the make-up of the smaller image. The smaller image is a cut-out of a larger image and I need it to be positioned exactly on the larger image to make it look like a single image, but allow for separate filters and alphas to be applied. As the images are not simple rectangles or circles, but complex satellite images, I cannot simply redraw them in code. I have quite a few images and therefore do not feel like manually finding the position of each image every and hard setting them manually in actionscript. Is there any way for me to sample a small 5-10 sq. pixel area against the larger image and set the x and y values of the smaller image if a perfect match is found? All the images are in an array and iterating through them has already been set, I just need a way to sample and match pixels. My first guess was to loop the images pixel by pixel right and down, covering the whole bitmap and moving to the next child in the array once a match was found, leaving the matched child where it was when the perfect match was found.
I hope I understood your question correctly.
There may be an option that uses copypixels to achieve what you want. You can use the bitmapdata.rect value to determine the size of the sample you want, and loop through the bigger bitmap using thet rectangle and a moving point. Let's see if I can code this out...
function findBitmapInBitmap(tinyimg:BitmapData, largeimg:BitmapData):Point {
var rect:Rectangle = tinyimg.rect;
var xbound:uint = largeimg.rect.width;
var ybound:uint = largeimg.rect.height;
var imgtest:BitmapData = new BitmapData(tinyimg.rect.width, tinyimg.rect.height);
for (var ypos:uint = 0, y <= ybound, y++) {
for (var xpos:uint = 0, x <= xbound, x++) {
imgtest.copyPixels(largeimg, rect, new Point(xpos, ypos);
if (imgtest.compare(tinyimg) == 0) return new Point(xpos, ypos);
}
}
return new Point(-1,-1); // Dummy value, indicating no match.
}
Something along those lines should work - I'm sure there's room for code elegance and possible optimization. However, it seems like something like this method would be very slow, since you'd have to check each pixel for a match.
There is a better way. Split your big image into layers, and use the blitting technique to composite them at runtime. In your case, you could create a ground texture without satellites, and then create the satellites separately, and use the copyPixels method to place them whereever you want. Google "blitting in as3" to find some good tutorials. I'm currently working on a game project that uses this technique and it's a very good method.
Good luck!
Edit: Forgot to code in a default return statement. Using this method, you'd have to return an invalid point (like (-1,-1)) and check for it outside the function. Alternatively, you could just copy your small bitmap to the big one within the function, which would be much more logical, but I don't know your requirements.
You need to find pixel sequence in the big image. BitmapData.getPixel gives you pixel value. So get first pixel from small image, find it in big image, then continue comparing until you find full match. If you have trouble to code that, feel free to ask.
For the actual comparison, there's BitmapData.compare which returns the number 0 if the BitmapData objects are equivalent.