Search Results

Search found 2043 results on 82 pages for 'collision detection'.

Page 11/82 | < Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >

  • How can I get accurate collision resolution on the corners of rectangles?

    - by ssb
    I have a working collision system implemented, and it's based on minimum translation vectors. This works fine in most cases except when the minimum translation vector is not actually in the direction of the collision. For example: When a rectangle is on the far edge on any side of another rectangle, a force can be applied, in this example down, the pushes one rectangle into the other, particularly a static object like a wall or a floor. As in the picture, the collision is coming from above, but because it's on the very edge, it translates to the left instead of back up. I've searched for a while to find an approach but everything I can find deals with general corner collisions where my problem is only in this one limited case. Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Without using a pre-built physics engine, how can I implement 3-D collision detection from scratch?

    - by Andy Harglesis
    I want to tackle some basic 3-D collision detection and was wondering how engines handle this and give you a pretty interface and make it so easy ... I want to do it all myself, however. 2-D collision detection is extremely simple and can be done multiple ways that even beginner programmers could think up: 1.When the pixels touch; 2.when a rectangle range is exceeded; 3.when a pixel object is detected near another one in a pixel-based rendering engine. But 3-D is different with one dimension, but complex in many more so ... what are the general, basic understanding/examples on how 3-D collision detection can be implemented? Think two shaded, OpenGL cubes that are moved next to each other with a simple OpenGL rendering context and keyboard events.

    Read the article

  • Ball to Ball Collision - Detection and Handling

    - by Simucal
    With the help of the Stack Overflow community I've written a pretty basic-but fun physics simulator. You click and drag the mouse to launch a ball. It will bounce around and eventually stop on the "floor". My next big feature I want to add in is ball to ball collision. The ball's movement is broken up into a x and y speed vector. I have gravity (small reduction of the y vector each step), I have friction (small reduction of both vectors each collision with a wall). The balls honestly move around in a surprisingly realistic way. I guess my question has two parts: What is the best method to detect ball to ball collision? Do I just have an O(n^2) loop that iterates over each ball and checks every other ball to see if it's radius overlaps? What equations do I use to handle the ball to ball collisions? Physics 101 How does it effect the two balls speed x/y vectors? What is the resulting direction the two balls head off in? How do I apply this to each ball? Handling the collision detection of the "walls" and the resulting vector changes were easy but I see more complications with ball-ball collisions. With walls I simply had to take the negative of the appropriate x or y vector and off it would go in the correct direction. With balls I don't think it is that way. Some quick clarifications: for simplicity I'm ok with a perfectly elastic collision for now, also all my balls have the same mass right now, but I might change that in the future. In case anyone is interested in playing with the simulator I have made so far, I've uploaded the source here (EDIT: Check the updated source below). Edit: Resources I have found useful 2d Ball physics with vectors: 2-Dimensional Collisions Without Trigonometry.pdf 2d Ball collision detection example: Adding Collision Detection Success! I have the ball collision detection and response working great! Relevant code: Collision Detection: for (int i = 0; i < ballCount; i++) { for (int j = i + 1; j < ballCount; j++) { if (balls[i].colliding(balls[j])) { balls[i].resolveCollision(balls[j]); } } } This will check for collisions between every ball but skip redundant checks (if you have to check if ball 1 collides with ball 2 then you don't need to check if ball 2 collides with ball 1. Also, it skips checking for collisions with itself). Then, in my ball class I have my colliding() and resolveCollision() methods: public boolean colliding(Ball ball) { float xd = position.getX() - ball.position.getX(); float yd = position.getY() - ball.position.getY(); float sumRadius = getRadius() + ball.getRadius(); float sqrRadius = sumRadius * sumRadius; float distSqr = (xd * xd) + (yd * yd); if (distSqr <= sqrRadius) { return true; } return false; } public void resolveCollision(Ball ball) { // get the mtd Vector2d delta = (position.subtract(ball.position)); float d = delta.getLength(); // minimum translation distance to push balls apart after intersecting Vector2d mtd = delta.multiply(((getRadius() + ball.getRadius())-d)/d); // resolve intersection -- // inverse mass quantities float im1 = 1 / getMass(); float im2 = 1 / ball.getMass(); // push-pull them apart based off their mass position = position.add(mtd.multiply(im1 / (im1 + im2))); ball.position = ball.position.subtract(mtd.multiply(im2 / (im1 + im2))); // impact speed Vector2d v = (this.velocity.subtract(ball.velocity)); float vn = v.dot(mtd.normalize()); // sphere intersecting but moving away from each other already if (vn > 0.0f) return; // collision impulse float i = (-(1.0f + Constants.restitution) * vn) / (im1 + im2); Vector2d impulse = mtd.multiply(i); // change in momentum this.velocity = this.velocity.add(impulse.multiply(im1)); ball.velocity = ball.velocity.subtract(impulse.multiply(im2)); } Source Code: Complete source for ball to ball collider. Binary: Compiled binary in case you just want to try bouncing some balls around. If anyone has some suggestions for how to improve this basic physics simulator let me know! One thing I have yet to add is angular momentum so the balls will roll more realistically. Any other suggestions? Leave a comment!

    Read the article

  • Using CGRectIntersectsRect for collision detection

    - by user309030
    Hi guys, I've got a long rectangular image which is rotated at different kind of angles. However the frame of the rectangular image does not rotate along with the image and instead, the rotation causes the frame to to become larger to fit the rotated image. So when I used CGRectIntersectsRect, the collision detection is totally off because the other image colliding with the rectangular image will collide before it even reaches the visible area of the rect image. In case you don't really know what I'm talking about, have a look at the ascii drawing: normal rectangular image frame, O - pixels, |, – - frame |----------| |OOOOOOOOOO| |----------| after rotation |----------| |O | | O | | O | | O | | O | | O | | O | | O | | O | |----------| I've read through some of the collision articles but all of them are talking about collision with a normal straight rectangle and what I really want is collision with a slanted image, preferably pixel collision detection. TIA for any suggestions made.

    Read the article

  • I need help with 2D collision response (of stacking rotating polygons, with friction and gravity, for a game)

    - by Register Sole
    Hi I am looking for suggestions on how to write a collision response for game programming purpose (so not a scientific simulation). I am dealing with 2D polygons that are rotating, and I want them to be able to stack. I also want friction and gravity. I have a detection mechanism that returns the separating axis, how long the polygons are overlapping, and up to 2 points of contact. For the response, I am currently using an impulse-based response, which main idea is: find the separating axis, length of overlap, and the point of contact (if there are two, pick a random point between to simulate averaged force. i believe there are better ways than this) separate the object (modifying their positions, taking into account of their masses. i do not separate them completely though, to keep track that they are colliding to reduce jitter) calculate normal force based on the coefficient of restitution as if there is no friction. calculate friction, as if there is no normal force. I also assume that the direction of the friction is the same throughout the collision. apply the two forces (which result in a rather inaccurate result, since each force is calculated as if the other is not present. for non-rotating bodies though, this method is exact) I am aware that this method requires the coefficient of friction to be sufficiently small due to the assumption that the direction of friction stays the same in a collision. Also, the result is visually satisfying if gravity is not present. However, when there is gravity, objects on ground jitter and drift (even with zero coefficient of restitution)! It also happens for stacking objects. Larger coefficient of restitution and gravity increase the jittering. I hope you can help me with this. Some things i would like to know more about is how to handle collision with two point of contacts (how to end up having an object sitting still on the ground?), how to reduce, and prevent if possible, jitter and drift (do people use the most accurate method possible, or is there a trick to overcome this?), and how to handle multiple objects collision (for example, in the case of stacking objects, how do I check collisions between all of them and keep them all stable at every frame so they don't jitter?). A total reformulation of my algorithm is also welcomed, as long as it works. Another thing to note is that I am not making a Physics game, so I only need a visually satisfying response (though a realistic response is preferable, if it is not performance-heavy). But surely jittering and drifting objects on flat ground are not at all acceptable. In addition, I am a Physics student, so feel free to talk about impulse and whatever needed. Finally, I'm sorry for the long post. I tried to be as concise as I can. Thank you for reading it! EDIT It seems what I didn't manage to come up all this time is to separate resting contact as a class of its own and how to solve them. Currently reading the paper suggested by Jedediah. More suggestions on the topic are welcome :) CASE CLOSED After reading various papers referenced in the paper, successfully implemented simultaneous impulse method (referring to the original paper by Erin Catto, [Catt05]). Thanks maaaan!! The paper is wonderful. The current system is visibly much better than the previous. Still haven't separated resting contact as a class of its own though, which brings me to my next question. Love you all! Haha (sorry, I'm just so happy thanks to you).

    Read the article

  • Need help with implementing collision detection using the Separating Axis Theorem

    - by Eddie Ringle
    So, after hours of Googling and reading, I've found that the basic process of detecting a collision using SAT is: for each edge of poly A project A and B onto the normal for this edge if intervals do not overlap, return false end for for each edge of poly B project A and B onto the normal for this edge if intervals do not overlap, return false end for However, as many ways as I try to implement this in code, I just cannot get it to detect the collision. My current code is as follows: for (unsigned int i = 0; i < asteroids.size(); i++) { if (asteroids.valid(i)) { asteroids[i]->Update(); // Player-Asteroid collision detection bool collision = true; SDL_Rect asteroidBox = asteroids[i]->boundingBox; // Bullet-Asteroid collision detection for (unsigned int j = 0; j < player.bullets.size(); j++) { if (player.bullets.valid(j)) { Bullet b = player.bullets[j]; collision = true; if (b.x + (b.w / 2.0f) < asteroidBox.x - (asteroidBox.w / 2.0f)) collision = false; if (b.x - (b.w / 2.0f) > asteroidBox.x + (asteroidBox.w / 2.0f)) collision = false; if (b.y - (b.h / 2.0f) > asteroidBox.y + (asteroidBox.h / 2.0f)) collision = false; if (b.y + (b.h / 2.0f) < asteroidBox.y - (asteroidBox.h / 2.0f)) collision = false; if (collision) { bool realCollision = false; float min1, max1, min2, max2; // Create a list of vertices for the bullet CrissCross::Data::LList<Vector2D *> bullVerts; bullVerts.insert(new Vector2D(b.x - b.w / 2.0f, b.y + b.h / 2.0f)); bullVerts.insert(new Vector2D(b.x - b.w / 2.0f, b.y - b.h / 2.0f)); bullVerts.insert(new Vector2D(b.x + b.w / 2.0f, b.y - b.h / 2.0f)); bullVerts.insert(new Vector2D(b.x + b.w / 2.0f, b.y + b.h / 2.0f)); // Create a list of vectors of the edges of the bullet and the asteroid CrissCross::Data::LList<Vector2D *> bullEdges; CrissCross::Data::LList<Vector2D *> asteroidEdges; for (int k = 0; k < 4; k++) { int n = (k == 3) ? 0 : k + 1; bullEdges.insert(new Vector2D(bullVerts[k]->x - bullVerts[n]->x, bullVerts[k]->y - bullVerts[n]->y)); asteroidEdges.insert(new Vector2D(asteroids[i]->vertices[k]->x - asteroids[i]->vertices[n]->x, asteroids[i]->vertices[k]->y - asteroids[i]->vertices[n]->y)); } for (unsigned int k = 0; k < asteroidEdges.size(); k++) { Vector2D *axis = asteroidEdges[k]->getPerpendicular(); min1 = max1 = axis->dotProduct(asteroids[i]->vertices[0]); for (unsigned int l = 1; l < asteroids[i]->vertices.size(); l++) { float test = axis->dotProduct(asteroids[i]->vertices[l]); min1 = (test < min1) ? test : min1; max1 = (test > max1) ? test : max1; } min2 = max2 = axis->dotProduct(bullVerts[0]); for (unsigned int l = 1; l < bullVerts.size(); l++) { float test = axis->dotProduct(bullVerts[l]); min2 = (test < min2) ? test : min2; max2 = (test > max2) ? test : max2; } delete axis; axis = NULL; if ( (min1 - max2) > 0 || (min2 - max1) > 0 ) { realCollision = false; break; } else { realCollision = true; } } if (realCollision == false) { for (unsigned int k = 0; k < bullEdges.size(); k++) { Vector2D *axis = bullEdges[k]->getPerpendicular(); min1 = max1 = axis->dotProduct(asteroids[i]->vertices[0]); for (unsigned int l = 1; l < asteroids[i]->vertices.size(); l++) { float test = axis->dotProduct(asteroids[i]->vertices[l]); min1 = (test < min1) ? test : min1; max1 = (test > max1) ? test : max1; } min2 = max2 = axis->dotProduct(bullVerts[0]); for (unsigned int l = 1; l < bullVerts.size(); l++) { float test = axis->dotProduct(bullVerts[l]); min2 = (test < min2) ? test : min2; max2 = (test > max2) ? test : max2; } delete axis; axis = NULL; if ( (min1 - max2) > 0 || (min2 - max1) > 0 ) { realCollision = false; break; } else { realCollision = true; } } } if (realCollision) { player.bullets.remove(j); int numAsteroids; float newDegree; srand ( j + asteroidBox.x ); if ( asteroids[i]->degree == 90.0f ) { if ( rand() % 2 == 1 ) { numAsteroids = 3; newDegree = 30.0f; } else { numAsteroids = 2; newDegree = 45.0f; } for ( int k = 0; k < numAsteroids; k++) asteroids.insert(new Asteroid(asteroidBox.x + (10 * k), asteroidBox.y + (10 * k), newDegree)); } delete asteroids[i]; asteroids.remove(i); } while (bullVerts.size()) { delete bullVerts[0]; bullVerts.remove(0); } while (bullEdges.size()) { delete bullEdges[0]; bullEdges.remove(0); } while (asteroidEdges.size()) { delete asteroidEdges[0]; asteroidEdges.remove(0); } } } } } } bullEdges is a list of vectors of the edges of a bullet, asteroidEdges is similar, and bullVerts and asteroids[i].vertices are, obviously, lists of vectors of each vertex for the respective bullet or asteroid. Honestly, I'm not looking for code corrections, just a fresh set of eyes.

    Read the article

  • 2D Platformer Collision Problems With Both Axes

    - by AusGat
    I'm working on a little 2D platformer/fighting game with C++ and SDL, and I'm having quite a bit of trouble with the collision detection. The levels are made up of an array of tiles, and I use a for loop to go through each one (I know it may not be the best way to do it, and I may need help with that too). For each side of the character, I move it one pixel in that direction and check for a collision (I also check to see if the character is moving in that direction). If there is a collision, I set the velocity to 0 and move the player to the edge of the tile. My problem is that if I check for horizontal collisions first, and the player moves vertically at more than one pixel per frame, it handles the horizontal collision and moves the character to the side of the tile even if the tile is below (or above) the character. If I handle vertical collision first, it does the same, except it does it for the horizontal axis. How can I handle collisions on both axes without having those problems? Is there any better way to handle collision than how I'm doing it?

    Read the article

  • How do I implement collision detection with a sprite walking up a rocky-terrain hill?

    - by detectivecalcite
    I'm working in SDL and have bounding rectangles for collisions set up for each frame of the sprite's animation. However, I recently stumbled upon the issue of putting together collisions for characters walking up and down hills/slopes with irregularly curved or rocky terrain - what's a good way to do collisions for that type of situation? Per-pixel? Loading up the points of the incline and doing player-line collision checking? Should I use bounding rectangles in general or circle collision detection?

    Read the article

  • Normal vector of a face loaded from an FBX model during collision?

    - by Corey Ogburn
    I'm loading a simple 6 sided cube from a UV-mapped FBX model and I'm using a BoundingBox to test for collisions. Once I determine there's a collision, I want to use the normal vector of the collided surface to correct the movement of whatever collided with the cube. I suppose this is a two-part question: 1) How can I determine which face of the cube was collided with in a collision? 2) How can I get the normal vector of that surface?

    Read the article

  • IPhone sdk, more accurate collision detection and set the frame/bounds of UIImageView...

    - by Harry
    Hey, Im having a big problem with my app at the moment, its all too inaccurate. I have a image of a ballooon, https://dl.dropbox.com/u/2578642/Balloonedit.png And i have a dart which if it collides into the balloon the game ends. At the moment i am populating the image of the balloon with 8 UIImageViews. and i am detecting if the dart hits them, this was suppose to make it really accurate but its not, the dart pretty much passes through the balloon when its meant to collide, so i have a plan, is there any way to detect when the dart hits the actual image of the balloon not the UIImageView, or is there any way to draw a border around the balloon and detect if it hits that? currently i am using this code to detect the collision: if (CGRectIntersectsRect(pinend.frame, balloonbit1.frame)){ [maintimer invalidate]; accelManeger.delegate = nil; [ball setImage:img]; [UIImageView beginAnimations:nil context:NULL]; [UIImageView setAnimationDuration:0.3]; ball.transform = CGAffineTransformMakeScale(2, 2); [UIImageView commitAnimations]; } So in one method there are 40 of these bits of code and as you can imagine it is not very accurate/fast to respond. So like i said is there a way to draw a border or something around the balloon and detect the collision between the border and dart? Because then i would imagine it would run a lot smother because it would only have to process 5 bits of code. Thanks for any help. This is a big Question so if you can answer it i will buy your app :) Cheers, Harry :/

    Read the article

  • How can I perform 2D side-scroller collision checks in a tile-based map?

    - by bill
    I am trying to create a game where you have a player that can move horizontally and jump. It's kind of like Mario but it isn't a side scroller. I'm using a 2D array to implement a tile map. My problem is that I don't understand how to check for collisions using this implementation. After spending about two weeks thinking about it, I've got two possible solutions, but both of them have some problems. Let's say that my map is defined by the following tiles: 0 = sky 1 = player 2 = ground The data for the map itself might look like: 00000 10002 22022 For solution 1, I'd move the player (the 1) a complete tile and update the map directly. This make the collision easy because you can check if the player is touching the ground simply by looking at the tile directly below the player: // x and y are the tile coordinates of the player. The tile origin is the upper-left. if (grid[x][y+1] == 2){ // The player is standing on top of a ground tile. } The problem with this approach is that the player moves in discrete tile steps, so the animation isn't smooth. For solution 2, I thought about moving the player via pixel coordinates and not updating the tile map. This will make the animation much smoother because I have a smaller movement unit per frame. However, this means I can't really accurately store the player in the tile map because sometimes he would logically be between two tiles. But the bigger problem here is that I think the only way to check for collision is to use Java's intersection method, which means the player would need to be at least a single pixel "into" the ground to register collision, and that won't look good. How can I solve this problem?

    Read the article

  • Collision detection of huge number of circles

    - by Tomek Tarczynski
    What is the best way to check collision of huge number of circles? It's very easy to detect collision between two circles, but if we check every combination then it is O(n^2) which definitely not an optimal solution. We can assume that circle object has following properties: -Coordinates -Radius -Velocity -Direction Velocity is constant, but direction can change. I've come up with two solutions, but maybe there are some better solutions. Solution 1 Divide whole space into overlapping squares and check for collision only with circles that are in the same square. Squares needs to overlap so there won't be a problem when circle moves from one square to another. Solution 2 At the beginning distances between every pair of circles need to be calculated. If the distance is small then these pair is stored in some list, and we need to check for collision in every update. If the distance is big then we store after which update there can be a collision (it can be calculated because we know the distance and velocitites). It needs to be stored in some kind of priority queue. After previously calculated number of updates distance needs to be checked again and then we do the same procedure - put it on the list or again in the priority queue.

    Read the article

  • Sliding Response after a Point-Square Collision

    - by mars
    In general terms and pseudo-code, what would be the best way to have a collision response of sliding along a wall if the wall is actually just a part of an entire square that a point is colliding into? The collision test method used is a test to see if the point lies in the square. Should I divide the square into four lines and just calculate the shortest distance to the line and then move the point back that distance?If so, then how can I determine which edge of the square the point is closest to after collision?

    Read the article

  • Collision problems with drag-n-drop puzzle game.

    - by Amplify91
    I am working on an Android game similar to the Rush Hour/Traffic Jam/Blocked puzzle games. The board is a square containing rectangular pieces. Long pieces may only move horizontally, and tall pieces may only move vertically. The object is to free the red piece and move it out of the board. This game is only my second ever programming project in any language, so any tips or best practices would be appreciated along with your answer. I have a class for the game pieces called Pieces that describes how they are sized and drawn to the screen, gives them drag-and-drop functionality, and detects and handles collisions. I then have an activity class called GameView which creates my layout and creates Pieces objects to add to a RelativeLayout called Board. I have considered making Board its own class, but haven't needed to yet. Here's what my work in progress looks like: My Question: Most of this works perfectly fine except for my collision handling. It seems to be detecting collisions well but instead of pushing the pieces outside of each other when there is a collision, it frantically snaps back and forth between (what seems to be) where the piece is being dragged to and where it should be. It looks something like this: Another oddity: when the dragged piece collides with a piece to its left, the collision handling seems to work perfectly. Only piece above, below, and to the right cause problems. Here's the collision code: @Override public boolean onTouchEvent(MotionEvent event){ float eventX = event.getX(); float eventY = event.getY(); switch (event.getAction()) { case MotionEvent.ACTION_DOWN: //check if touch is on piece if (eventX > x && eventX < (x+width) && eventY > y && eventY < (y+height)){ initialX=x; initialY=y; break; }else{ return false; } case MotionEvent.ACTION_MOVE: //determine if piece should move horizontally or vertically if(width>height){ for (Pieces piece : aPieces) { //if object equals itself in array, skip to next object if(piece==this){ continue; } //if next to another piece, //do not allow to move any further towards said piece if(eventX<x&&(x==piece.right+1)){ return false; }else if(eventX>x&&(x==piece.x-width-1)){ return false; } //move normally if no collision //if collision, do not allow to move through other piece if(collides(this,piece)==false){ x = (eventX-(width/2)); }else if(collidesLeft(this,piece)){ x = piece.right+1; break; }else if(collidesRight(this,piece)){ x = piece.x-width-1; break; } } break; }else if(height>width){ for (Pieces piece : aPieces) { if(piece==this){ continue; }else if(collides(this,piece)==false){ y = (eventY-(height/2)); }else if(collidesUp(this,piece)){ y = piece.bottom+1; break; }else if(collidesDown(this,piece)){ y = piece.y-height-1; break; } } } invalidate(); break; case MotionEvent.ACTION_UP: // end move if(this.moves()){ GameView.counter++; } initialX=x; initialY=y; break; } // parse puzzle invalidate(); return true; } This takes place during onDraw: width = sizedBitmap.getWidth(); height = sizedBitmap.getHeight(); right = x+width; bottom = y+height; My collision-test methods look like this with different math for each: private boolean collidesDown(Pieces piece1, Pieces piece2){ float x1 = piece1.x; float y1 = piece1.y; float r1 = piece1.right; float b1 = piece1.bottom; float x2 = piece2.x; float y2 = piece2.y; float r2 = piece2.right; float b2 = piece2.bottom; if((y1<y2)&&(y1<b2)&&(b1>=y2)&&(b1<b2)&&((x1>=x2&&x1<=r2)||(r1>=x2&&x1<=r2))){ return true; }else{ return false; } } private boolean collides(Pieces piece1, Pieces piece2){ if(collidesLeft(piece1,piece2)){ return true; }else if(collidesRight(piece1,piece2)){ return true; }else if(collidesUp(piece1,piece2)){ return true; }else if(collidesDown(piece1,piece2)){ return true; }else{ return false; } } As a second question, should my x,y,right,bottom,width,height variables be ints instead of floats like they are now? Also, any suggestions on how to implement things better would be greatly appreciated, even if not relevant to the question! Thanks in advance for the help and for sitting through such a long question! Update: I have gotten it working almost perfectly with the following code (this doesn't include the code for vertical pieces): @Override public boolean onTouchEvent(MotionEvent event){ float eventX = event.getX(); float eventY = event.getY(); switch (event.getAction()) { case MotionEvent.ACTION_DOWN: //check if touch is on piece if (eventX > x && eventX < (x+width) && eventY > y && eventY < (y+height)){ initialX=x; initialY=y; break; }else{ return false; } case MotionEvent.ACTION_MOVE: //determine if piece should move horizontally or vertically if(width>height){ for (Pieces piece : aPieces) { //if object equals itself in array, skip to next object if(piece==this){ continue; } //check if there the possibility for a horizontal collision if(this.isAllignedHorizontallyWith(piece)){ //check for and handle collisions while moving left if(this.isRightOf(piece)){ if(eventX>piece.right+(width/2)){ x = (int)(eventX-(width/2)); //move normally }else{ x = piece.right+1; } } //check for and handle collisions while moving right if(this.isLeftOf(piece)){ if(eventX<piece.x-(width/2)){ x = (int)(eventX-(width/2)); }else{ x = piece.x-width-1; } } break; }else{ x = (int)(eventX-(width/2)); } The only problem with this code is that it only detects collisions between the moving piece and one other (with preference to one on the left). If there is a piece to collide with on the left and another on the right, it will only detect collisions with the one on the left. I think this is because once it finds a possible collision, it handles it without finishing looping through the array holding all the pieces. How do I get it to check for multiple possible collisions at the same time?

    Read the article

  • What datastructure would you use for a collision-detection in a tilemap?

    - by Solom
    Currently I save those blocks in my map that could be colliding with the player in a HashMap (Vector2, Block). So the Vector2 represents the coordinates of the blog. Whenever the player moves I then iterate over all these Blocks (that are in a specific range around the player) and check if a collision happened. This was my first rough idea on how to implement the collision-detection. Currently if the player moves I put more and more blocks in the HashMap until a specific "upper bound", then I clear it and start over. I was fully aware that it was not the brightest solution for the problem, but as said, it was a rough first implementation (I'm still learning a lot about game-design and the data-structure). What data-structure would you use to save the Blocks? I thought about a Queue or even a Stack, but I'm not sure, hence I ask.

    Read the article

  • 2D SAT How to find collision center or point or area?

    - by Felipe Cypriano
    I've just implemented collision detection using SAT and this article as reference to my implementation. The detection is working as expected but I need to know where both rectangles are colliding. I need to find the center of the intersection, the black point on the image above. I've found some articles about this but they all involve avoiding the overlap or some kind of velocity, I don't need this. I just need to put a image on top of it. Like two cars crashed so I put an image on top of the collision. Any ideas? ## Update The information I've about the rectangles are the four points that represents them, the upper right, upper left, lower right and lower left coordinates. I'm trying to find an algorithm that can give me the intersection of these points.

    Read the article

  • How was collision detection handled in The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past?

    - by Restart
    I would like to know how the collision detection was done in The Legend of Zelda: A Link To The Past. The game is 16x16 tile based, so how did they do the tiles where only a quarter or half of the tile is occupied? Did they use a smaller grid for collision detection like 8x8 tiles, so four of them make one 16x16 tile of the texture grid? But then, they also have true half tiles which are diagonally cut and the corners of the tiles seem to be round or something. If Link walks into tiles corner he can keep on walking and automatically moves around it's corner. How is that done? I hope someone can help me out here.

    Read the article

  • How was collision detection handled in The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past?

    - by Restart
    I would like to know how the collision detection was done in The Legend of Zelda: A Link To The Past. The game is 16x16 tile based, so how did they do the tiles where only a quarter or half of the tile is occupied? Did they use a smaller grid for collision detection like 8x8 tiles, so four of them make one 16x16 tile of the texture grid? But then, they also have true half tiles which are diagonally cut and the corners of the tiles seem to be round or something. If Link walks into tiles corner he can keep on walking and automatically moves around it's corner. How is that done? I hope someone can help me out here.

    Read the article

  • Would it be more efficient to handle 2D collision detection with polygons, rather than both squares/polygons?

    - by KleptoKat
    I'm working on a 2D game engine and I'm trying to get collision detection as efficient as possible. One thing I've noted is that I have a Rectangle Collision collider, a Shape (polygon) collider and a circle collider. Would it be more efficient (either dev-time wise or runtime wise) to have just one shape collider, rather than have that and everything else? I feel it would optimize my code in the back end, but how much would it affect my game at runtime? Should I be concerned with this at all, as 3D games generally have tens of thousands of polygons?

    Read the article

  • Opinions on collision detection objects with a moving scene

    - by Evan Teran
    So my question is simple, and I guess it boils down to how anal you want to be about collision detection. To keep things simple, lets assume we're talking about 2D sprites defined by a bounding box. In addition, let's assume that my sprite object has a function to detect collisions like this: S.collidesWith(other); Finally the scene is moving and "walls" in the scene can move, an object may not touch a wall. So a simple implementation might look like this (psuedo code): moveWalls(); moveSprite(); foreach(wall as w) { if(s.collidesWith(w)) { gameover(); } } The problem with this is that if the sprite and wall move towards each other, depending on the circumstances (such as diagonal moment). They may pass though each other (unlikely but could happen). So I may do this instead. moveWalls(); foreach(wall as w) { if(s.collidesWith(w)) { gameover(); } } moveSprite(); foreach(wall as w) { if(s.collidesWith(w)) { gameover(); } } This takes care of the passing through each other issue, but another rare issue comes up. If they are adjacent to each other (literally the next pixel) and both the wall and the sprite are moving left, then I will get an invalid collision since the wall moves, checks for collision (hit) then the sprite is moved. Which seems unfair. In addition, to that, the redundant collision detection feels very inefficient. I could give the player movement priority alleviating the first issue but it is still checking twice. moveSprite(); foreach(wall as w) { if(s.collidesWith(w)) { gameover(); } } moveWalls(); foreach(wall as w) { if(s.collidesWith(w)) { gameover(); } } Am I simply over thinking this issue, should this just be chalked up to "it'll happen rare enough that no one will care"? Certainly looking at old sprite based games, I often find situations where the collision detection has subtle flaws, but I figure by now we can do better :-P. What are people's thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Collision Attacks, Message Digests and a Possible solution

    - by Dominar
    I've been doing some preliminary research in the area of message digests. Specifically collision attacks of cryptographic hash functions such as MD5 and SHA-1, such as the Postscript example and X.509 certificate duplicate. From what I can tell in the case of the postscript attack, specific data was generated and embedded within the header of the postscript (which is ignored during rendering) which brought about the internal state of the md5 to a state such that the modified wording of the document would lead to a final MD equivalent to the original. The X.509 took a similar approach where by data was injected within the comment/whitespace of the certificate. Ok so here is my question, and I can't seem to find anyone asking this question: Why isn't the length of ONLY the data being consumed added as a final block to the MD calculation? In the case of X.509 - Why is the whitespace and comments being taken into account as part of the MD? Wouldn't a simple processes such as one of the following be enough to resolve the proposed collision attacks: MD(M + |M|) = xyz MD(M + |M| + |M| * magicseed_0 +...+ |M| * magicseed_n) = xyz where : M : is the message |M| : size of the message MD : is the message digest function (eg: md5, sha, whirlpool etc) xyz : is the acutal message digest value for the message M magicseed_{i}: Is a set random values generated with seed based on the internal-state prior to the size being added. This technqiue should work, as to date all such collision attacks rely on adding more data to the original message. In short, the level of difficulty involved in generating a collision message such that: It not only generates the same MD But is also comprehensible/parsible/compliant and is also the same size as the original message, is immensely difficult if not near impossible. Has this approach ever been discussed? Any links to papers etc would be nice.

    Read the article

  • How could I implement 3D player collision with rotation in LWJGL?

    - by Tinfoilboy
    I have a problem with my current collision implementation. Currently for player collision, I just use an AABB where I check if another AABB is in the way of the player, as shown in this code. (The code below is a sample of checking for collisions in the Z axis) for (int z = (int) (this.position.getZ()); z > this.position.getZ() - moveSpeed - boundingBoxDepth; z--) { // The maximum Z you can get. int maxZ = (int) (this.position.getZ() - moveSpeed - boundingBoxDepth) + 1; AxisAlignedBoundingBox aabb = WarmupWeekend.getInstance().currentLevel.getAxisAlignedBoundingBoxAt(new Vector3f(this.position.getX(), this.position.getY(), z)); AxisAlignedBoundingBox potentialCameraBB = new AxisAlignedBoundingBox(this, "collider", new Vector3f(this.position.getX(), this.position.getY(), z), boundingBoxWidth, boundingBoxHeight, boundingBoxDepth); if (aabb != null) { if (potentialCameraBB.colliding(aabb) && aabb.COLLIDER_TYPE.equalsIgnoreCase("collider")) { break; } else if (!potentialCameraBB.colliding(aabb) && z == maxZ) { if (this.grounded) { playFootstep(); } this.position.z -= moveSpeed; break; } } else if (z == maxZ) { if (this.grounded) { playFootstep(); } this.position.z -= moveSpeed; break; } } Now, when I tried to implement rotation to this method, everything broke. I'm wondering how I could implement rotation to this block (and as all other checks in each axis are the same) and others. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • No Gentle Galaxy Collision

    - by Akemi Iwaya
    It is hard to imagine a more cataclysmic event than the collision of two galaxies and the effect such an event has on each one as they are ripped apart. See the destructive power of collision at work in this video showing the latest Hubble imagery of Arp 142, a.k.a. the collision of NGC 2936 and NGC 2937. Note: The video also shows stunning imagery of other colliding galaxies. No Gentle Galaxy Collision [YouTube]     

    Read the article

  • Why doesn't Unity's OnCollisionEnter give me surface normals, and what's the most reliable way to get them?

    - by michael.bartnett
    Unity's on collision event gives you a Collision object that gives you some information about the collision that happened (including a list of ContactPoints with hit normals). But what you don't get is surface normals for the collider that you hit. Here's a screenshot to illustrate. The red line is from ContactPoint.normal and the blue line is from RaycastHit.normal. Is this an instance of Unity hiding information to provide a simplified API? Or do standard 3D realtime collision detection techniques just not collect this information? And for the second part of the question, what's a surefire and relatively efficient way to get a surface normal for a collision? I know that raycasting gives you surface normals, but it seems I need to do several raycasts to accomplish this for all scenarios (maybe a contact point/normal combination misses the collider on the first cast, or maybe you need to do some average of all the contact points' normals to get the best result). My current method: Back up the Collision.contacts[0].point along its hit normal Raycast down the negated hit normal for float.MaxValue, on Collision.collider If that fails, repeat steps 1 and 2 with the non-negated normal If that fails, try steps 1 to 3 with Collision.contacts[1] Repeat 4 until successful or until all contact points exhausted. Give up, return Vector3.zero. This seems to catch everything, but all those raycasts make me queasy, and I'm not sure how to test that this works for enough cases. Is there a better way?

    Read the article

  • Collision Detection - Java - Rectangle

    - by Trizicus
    I would like to know if this is a good idea that conforms to best practices that does not lead to obscenely confusing code or major performance hit(s): Make my own Collision detection class that extends Rectangle class. Then when instantiating that object doing something such as Collision col = new Rectangle(); <- Should I do that or is that something that should be avoided? I am aware that I 'can' but should I? I want to extend Rectangle class because of the contains() and intersects() methods; should I be doing that or should I be doing something else for 2D collision detection in Java?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >