Search Results

Search found 3988 results on 160 pages for 'collision resolution'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 17/160 | < Previous Page | 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • How to add video / monitor resolution in Ubuntu 10.4

    - by lexu
    I picked up an ASUS EEE 1101HA with Windows 7 and installed UBUNTU 10.4 Netbook Remix (dual boot). Ubuntu runs fine, but it doesn't recognize that the notebook LCD is 1388x768 and thus only offers 1024x768 and 800x600 as monitor resolution. So .. how can I tell it about that higher resolution? (Have root pwd & vi, una-bash-ed to use both.. )

    Read the article

  • Forcing specific resolution on a specific monitor on Mac OS X

    - by ufk
    I have Snow Leopard (Mac OS X 10.6) installed with 2 monitors. Main: a 24 inch Dell monitor that Mac OS X detects and displays on 1920x1200 Secondary: a 19 inch Chimei monitor that supports resolution 1440x900 but Mac OS X detects it as 1344x1008. How can I force a 1400x900 resolution on my secondary monitor?

    Read the article

  • Increasing resolution in FreeNX headless server

    - by syrenity
    Hi. I'm running a FreeNX server on headless CentOS machine, and the resolution seems to be locked on 800 x 600. I tried editing the xorg.conf file, but without success so far. Has anyone succeed of running the FreeNX remote under 1280 x 1024 resolution, and can post a working configuration? Thanks! P.S.: Here is the pastebin of my current xorg.cof file: http://pastie.org/835308

    Read the article

  • How to add higher video resolution in Ubuntu 10.4 (UNR on EEE1101HA)

    - by lexu
    I picked up an ASUS EEE 1101HA with Windows 7 and installed UBUNTU 10.4 Netbook Remix (dual boot). Ubuntu runs fine, but it doesn't recognize that the notebook LCD is 1388x768 and thus only offers 1024x768 and 800x600 as monitor resolution. So .. how can I tell it about that higher resolution? (Have root pwd & vi, una-bash-ed to use both.. )

    Read the article

  • How to change resolution in ubuntu

    - by Daziplqa
    I am trying to change resolution in ubuntu 10.04 ( as I am used to do in ealier versions) but It didn't works for me! my /etc/X11/xorg.conf contains the following: Section "Device" Identifier "Configured Video Device" EndSection Section "Monitor" Identifier "Monitor0" EndSection Section "Screen" Identifier "Screen0" Device "Videocard0" DefaultDepth 32 SubSection "Display" Viewport 0 0 Depth 32 Modes "1024x768" EndSubSection EndSection Section "ServerLayout" Identifier "Default Layout" Screen "Default Screen" InputDevice "Synaptics Touchpad" EndSection I want to change the resolution to be 1024x768 !! please help

    Read the article

  • Bad resolution from Displayport converter on third of three screens

    - by Carl
    I am currently using three screens at the same time with my ATI 5770 & an active Displayport converter. The thing is that the third screen (the one using the active Displayport converter) is showing terrible resolution compared to my other two screens. The third screen is a Samsung Syncmaster P23. Two of my screens have a max resolution of 1920x1080, meanwhile the third on is only capable of 1600x1200. Do any of you know a solution to this problem?

    Read the article

  • High resolution on small screen

    - by Andrew Cetinick
    I just purchased a new ultrabook (Asus UX32VD). Awesome laptop, but I am having trouble using it with its native resolution being 1920 x 1080. Text is so small and hard to read. I have increased the text size in the display options but it don't really improve it for all scenarios, especially in webpages. I am wondering if there is a possible solution to this? Simply lowering the resolution makes everything look pixelated.

    Read the article

  • Not getting native resolution of external monitor in Ubuntu

    - by darthvader
    Since there us a defect in my laptop screen, I am using an external Dell 1600x1000 monitor. Windows was recognizing the native resolution correctly. But when I installed Ubuntu 10.10, I get only up to 1024x768 in the Monitor preferences. I had a look at this and tried to add resolution by running xrandr --addmode VGA 1600×1000 but I am getting the error xrandr: cannot find output "VGA" What is the way out.

    Read the article

  • Resolution independence - resize on the fly or ship all sizes?

    - by RecursiveCall
    My game relies heavily on textures of various sizes with some being full-screen. The game is targeted for multiple resolutions. I found that resizing textures (downsizing) works quite well for this game’s art type (it’s not Pixel Art or anything like that). I asked my artist to ensure that all textures at the edges of the screen to be created in such a way that they can safely “overflow” off screen; this means that aspect ratio is not an issue. So with no aspect ratio issues, I figured that I would simply ask my artist to create assets in very high resolution, and then resize them down to the appropriate screen resolution. The question is, when and how do I do that? Do I pre-resize everything to common resolutions in Photoshop and package all assets in the final product (increasing the size download that the user has to deal with) and then select the appropriate asset based on the detected resolution? Or do I ship with the largest set of Textures, detect the resolution on load, set a render target and draw all downsized assets to it and use that? Or for the latter, do I use some sort of a CPU-sided algorithm to resize on game load?

    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

  • Eee PC Seashell series netbook screen is cut off at bottom no matter the resolution

    - by Yzmir Ramirez
    I have an Eee PC 1015PE Seashell netbook running Windows 7 Home Premium with an Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 3150 (8.14.10.2230) with a "Generic Non-PnP Monitor" detected. I tried: Changing the resolution (Control Panel = Appearance and Personalization = Display = Screen Resolution) to 1024x768 Updating the video driver (to 8.14.10.2230) Uninstalling the driver and rebooting Pressing the Windows Key + "-" (magnifier) Pressing Ctrl + Mouse Scroll only resizes the desktop items Pressing Fn + F4 shows 1024x600 (which I think is what I should be using, but nothing happens) EDIT: Changed from Landscape to Portrait and it works Attached an External Monitor and when I extend or set as desktop it works only on the External Monitor (shows up as "Generic PnP Monitor in Device Manager) Basically the bottom inch of my desktop is off-screen hiding my start bar, but my wigets are in their proper position (the start bar is not hidden). Pressing Ctrl + Esc shows the start menu but its cut-off. I'm pretty sure I should be using 1024x600 resolution, any advice? What's odd is that this only started happening recently. EDIT2: Here are some screenshots showing the problem: Resized Window to fit: Opened Start Menu - notice it cut off: Maximized window and then scrolled down - notice no Start Menu: I downgraded my graphic driver I downloaded from the Intel Download Center for the Graphic Media Accelerator 3150 (now: 8.14.10.1972) and now my "Generic non-PnP Montior" detects as "Digital Flat Panel (1024x768 60Hz)".

    Read the article

  • Vista Screen resolution Changes when Switching Users

    - by Benjol
    I regularly have a problem when switching between users in Vista - the screen resolution drops down to 800x600. If I try to set the resolution back to the maximum, it says nothing, but just keeps it at 800x600. I can set it back to an intermediate value. Otherwise I have to either restart the PC, or sometimes if I log off one of the users, I can then set the resolution back to max. Might it also have something to do with using sleep mode instead of performing regular shutdowns? I thought it might be related to the desktop background image taking up too much space, but even with plain colours, the problem still occurs. There is an enormous thread on this here, but not really any answers. From what I can gather from that thread, it isn't related to any particular applications, nor limited to a particular make of graphics card or monitor, so I don't think that including hardware details is useful. This is a very annoying problem, as it screws up my desktop and screen layout every single time. Has anyone here experienced this problem or found a solution? I've noticed that Windows Update has tried to install nVidia updates and apparently they've failed on several occasions. Not sure if that is of any relevance or not. UPDATE The last post on the thread: FWIW - I had this problem for about 2 years and wrote a number of posts in this thread in the past. It survived OS reinstallation, change of practically all of my hardware piece by piece (mobo, cpu, monitor, graphics card, memory, power supply...) I used to be affected by this annoying problem at least once every 24-48 hours. About 1.5 months ago I wiped out my 32 bit vista ultimate installation and installed Windows7 ultimate 64 bit from scratch and never saw this problem again. GOOD RIDDANCE. Vista was a pathetic piece of __ that felt like a flashback to the old [horrible] NT4/Windows95 days. I was seriously considering switching over to Apple/Mac OSX if this problem persisted.

    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

  • Connecting PC to TV via HDMI/DVI: Windows XP doesn't allow the appropriate screen resolution

    - by Jørgen
    I have a computer that is connected to the living room TV (a Panasonic) via HDMI. There is no other monitor connected. My problem is that the computer, which is running Windows XP, does not allow me to set the proper resolution for the TV. Both the graphics adapter and the TV should support the 1280x720 resolution, but it cannot be selected - the only available options are 1280x600 and 800x600, both in the "native" Windows dialog box and the custom Intel graphics options dialog box. Do anyone have a suggestion for a solution for this? Things I've thought of: Setting the resolution directly in the registry (where?) Installing some "custom" monitor driver (the TV manufacturer does not appear to provide any, currently the "generic" one is used) Details on the setup: Connection: DVI output on the computer via a passive DVI-HDMI adapter to the HDMI input on the TV, audio is run on a separate link, the TV is able to combine video and audio without any problem, the problem is there regardless of whether or not the audio is connected. The connection is several meters long through some walls, for this reason using a VGA cable instead is not an option. Note that the report explicitly says that the TV supports 1280x720. Still, I am not allowed to select it in Graphics Options, only 1280x600 and 800x600 is available. For 800x600, there's a lot of black around the edges; for 1280x600, the screen is "zoomed" so the edges of the monitor image (like the taskbar) is not visible. Other: The computer is running Windows XP. More recent versions of Windows are not an option (I have no licence). Linux is probably not an option (some of the video streaming sites I plan to use do not support it, I think) I wrote the rest of the details below. Thanks for any help!! TV: Panasonic TX-L32X10Y, European version; a 720p 32" quite "regular" LCD TV. Allowed resolutions according to manual: Signal name: 640x480 @60HZ Horizontal frequency: 31.47 kHz Vertical frequency: 60Hz Signal name: 750/720) /60p Horizontal frequency: 45.00 kHz Vertical frequency: 60Hz Signal name: 1,125 (1,080) / 60p Horizontal frequency: 67.50 kHz Vertical frequency: 60Hz (this is exactly how the manual presents it. PC via D-SUB (VGA cable) and "regular" HDMI have more alternatives.) Messing with the "zoom" settings on the TV does not affect the available resolution options on the computer. Computer: The following is a printout from one of the graphics adapter option pages. I think it covers most of it. The computer is a Dell. INTEL(R) EXTREME GRAPHICS 2 REPORT Report Date: 04/17/2011 Report Time[hr:mm:ss]: 20:18:02 Driver Version: 6.14.10.4396 Operating System: Windows XP* Professional, Service Pack 3 (5.1.2600) Default Language: English DirectX* Version: 9.0 Physical Memory: 1021 MB Minimum Graphics Memory: 1 MB Maximum Graphics Memory: 96 MB Graphics Memory in Use: 6 MB Processor: x86 Processor Speed: 2593 MHZ Vendor ID: 8086 Device ID: 2572 Device Revision: 02 * Accelerator Information * Accelerator in Use: Intel(R) 82865G Graphics Controller Video BIOS: 2972 Current Graphics Mode: 1280 by 600 True Color (60 Hz) * Devices Connected to the Graphics Accelerator * Active Digital Displays: 1 * Digital Display * Monitor Name: Plug and Play Monitor Display Type: Digital Gamma Value: 2.20 DDC2 Protocol: Supported Maximum Image Size: Horizontal: Not Available Vertical: Not Available Monitor Supported Modes: 1280 by 720 (50 Hz) 1280 by 720 (60 Hz) Display Power Management Support: Standby Mode: Not Supported Suspend Mode: Not Supported Active Off Mode: Not Supported (disclaimer: this question was also asked at the Wikipedia Reference Desk some time ago and might show up in a Google search. I got no useful answers there.)

    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

  • How do I set a custom resolution in 12.04 with a nVidia video card (9600 GSO)?

    - by Aaron Agarunov
    I have 32 bit 12.04 and my video card drivers are up to date at "304.64" yet my resolution appears capped at 1920x1080. I am trying to get the resolution to 2560x1440 or even higher, as I am running this machine on a 42" LCD through HDMI and the 1920x1080 resolution will not stretch to fit the screen and is therefore fairly zoomed in. The 9600 GSO supports up to 2560x1600, so this should be no problem for the card itself. I have tried using xrandr, which successfully creates the 2560x1440 60 hertz mode but does not allow me to --addmode or --output it in. I have tried working with the xorg.conf, but I actually can not find a way to create the file since when I try to, I am given an error message stating that the # of monitors I have does not match the # of screens I have. Can anyone provide some help or insight?

    Read the article

  • How can I set the display resolution to 800x480?

    - by Oswaldo Barceló
    I have just installed Ubuntu 12.04 and I have a problem with it. My mini-laptop has a display resolution of 800x480, however Ubuntu seems to support only a resolution of 800x600. I have looked for a solution, but I have found nothing which works. So, how can I set the display resolution to 800x480? hey, hola a todos! Acabo de instalar Ubuntu 12.04 y en verdad me gusta mucho. pero aunque me guste bastante, tengo un pequeño gran problema, LA RESOLUCION DE MI PANTALLA!!! mi mini-laptop tiene una resolución de 800x480, pero Ubuntu viene con una por defecto de 800x600. en verdad me gustaria que me pudieran ayudar. llevo rato buscando una solucion, pero NADA!!! espero que me puedan ayudar!!! gracias de antemano!!! SALUDOS

    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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  | Next Page >