Search Results

Search found 10978 results on 440 pages for 'collision testing'.

Page 1/440 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Automated unit testing, integration testing or acceptance testing

    - by bjarkef
    TDD and unit testing seems to be the big rave at the moment. But it is really that useful compared to other forms of automated testing? Intuitively I would guess that automated integration testing is way more useful than unit testing. In my experience the most bugs seems to be in the interaction between modules, and not so much the actual (usual limited) logic of each unit. Also regressions often happened because of changing interfaces between modules (and changed pre and post-conditions.) Am I misunderstanding something, or why are unit testing getting so much focus compared to integration testing? It is simply because it is assumed that integration testing is something you have, and unit testing is the next thing we need to learn to apply as developers? Or maybe unit testing simply yields the highest gain compared to the complexity of automating it? What are you experience with automated unit testing, automated integration testing, and automated acceptance testing, and in your experience what has yielded the highest ROI? and why? If you had to pick just one form of testing to be automated on your next project, which would it be? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Collision Detection, player correction

    - by DoomStone
    I am having some problems with collision detection, I have 2 types of objects excluding the player. Tiles and what I call MapObjects. The tiles are all 16x16, where the MapObjects can be any size, but in my case they are all 16x16. When my player runs along the mapobjects or tiles, it get verry jaggy. The player is unable to move right, and will get warped forward when moving left. I have found the problem, and that is my collision detection will move the player left/right if colliding the object from the side, and up/down if collision from up/down. Now imagine that my player is sitting on 2 tiles, at (10,12) and (11,12), and the player is mostly standing on the (11,12) tile. The collision detection will first run on then (10,12) tile, it calculates the collision depth, and finds that is is a collision from the side, and therefore move the object to the right. After, it will do the collision detection with (11,12) and it will move the character up. So the player will not fall down, but are unable to move right. And when moving left, the same problem will make the player warp forward. This problem have been bugging me for a few days now, and I just can't find a solution! Here is my code that does the collision detection. public void ApplyObjectCollision(IPhysicsObject obj, List<IComponent> mapObjects, TileMap map) { PhysicsVariables physicsVars = GetPhysicsVariables(); Rectangle bounds = ((IComponent)obj).GetBound(); int leftTile = (int)Math.Floor((float)bounds.Left / map.GetTileSize()); int rightTile = (int)Math.Ceiling(((float)bounds.Right / map.GetTileSize())) - 1; int topTile = (int)Math.Floor((float)bounds.Top / map.GetTileSize()); int bottomTile = (int)Math.Ceiling(((float)bounds.Bottom / map.GetTileSize())) - 1; // Reset flag to search for ground collision. obj.IsOnGround = false; // For each potentially colliding tile, for (int y = topTile; y <= bottomTile; ++y) { for (int x = leftTile; x <= rightTile; ++x) { IComponent tile = map.Get(x, y); if (tile != null) { bounds = HandelCollision(obj, tile, bounds, physicsVars); } } } // Handel collision for all Moving objects foreach (IComponent mo in mapObjects) { if (mo == obj) continue; if (mo.GetBound().Intersects(((IComponent)obj).GetBound())) { bounds = HandelCollision(obj, mo, bounds, physicsVars); } } } private Rectangle HandelCollision(IPhysicsObject obj, IComponent objb, Rectangle bounds, PhysicsVaraibales physicsVars) { // If this tile is collidable, SpriteCollision collision = ((IComponent)objb).GetCollisionType(); if (collision != SpriteCollision.Passable) { // Determine collision depth (with direction) and magnitude. Rectangle tileBounds = ((IComponent)objb).GetBound(); Vector2 depth = bounds.GetIntersectionDepth(tileBounds); if (depth != Vector2.Zero) { float absDepthX = Math.Abs(depth.X); float absDepthY = Math.Abs(depth.Y); // Resolve the collision along the shallow axis. if (absDepthY <= absDepthX || collision == SpriteCollision.Platform) { // If we crossed the top of a tile, we are on the ground. if (obj.PreviousBound.Bottom <= tileBounds.Top) obj.IsOnGround = true; // Ignore platforms, unless we are on the ground. if (collision == SpriteCollision.Impassable || obj.IsOnGround) { // Resolve the collision along the Y axis. ((IComponent)obj).Position = new Vector2(((IComponent)obj).Position.X, ((IComponent)obj).Position.Y + depth.Y); // If we hit something about us, remove all velosity upwards if (depth.Y > 0 && obj.IsJumping) { obj.Velocity = new Vector2(obj.Velocity.X, 0); obj.JumpTime = physicsVars.MaxJumpTime; } // Perform further collisions with the new bounds. return ((IComponent)obj).GetBound(); } } else if (collision == SpriteCollision.Impassable) // Ignore platforms. { // Resolve the collision along the X axis. ((IComponent)obj).Position = new Vector2(((IComponent)obj).Position.X + depth.X, ((IComponent)obj).Position.Y); // Perform further collisions with the new bounds. return ((IComponent)obj).GetBound(); } } } return bounds; } Update: I have uploaded the source code, if you want to look that through. I think that my general approach might be wrong when i am working with small tiles, I have also be unable to find any good information on physics and collision detection in Platform games. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3181816/Sogaard.Games.SuperMario.rar

    Read the article

  • Collision Detection algorithms with early Collision exit

    - by Grieverheart
    I'm using collision detection in Monte Carlo simulations and at the moment I'm using GJK which is quite fast. I can't help to think it could be done even faster though. In the simulations, about 70% of the time GJK is run, it detects a collision. Thus collisions are more than non-collisions in my case. Most collision detection algorithms I know have an early non-collision exit test. Are there any collision detection algorithms that have an early collision detect instead of non-collision and could be potentially faster than GJK in case of collision?

    Read the article

  • Need some advice regarding collision detection with the sprite changing its width and height

    - by Frank Scott
    So I'm messing around with collision detection in my tile-based game and everything works fine and dandy using this method. However, now I am trying to implement sprite sheets so my character can have a walking and jumping animation. For one, I'd like to to be able to have each frame of variable size, I think. I want collision detection to be accurate and during a jumping animation the sprite's height will be shorter (because of the calves meeting the hamstrings). Again, this also works fine at the moment. I can get the character to animate properly each frame and cycle through animations. The problems arise when the width and height of the character change. Often times its position will be corrected by the collision detection system and the character will be rubber-banded to random parts of the map or even go outside the map bounds. For some reason with the linked collision detection algorithm, when the width or height of the sprite is changed on the fly, the entire algorithm breaks down. The solution I found so far is to have a single width and height of the sprite that remains constant, and only adjust the source rectangle for drawing. However, I'm not sure exactly what to set as the sprite's constant bounding box because it varies so much with the different animations. So now I'm not sure what to do. I'm toying with the idea of pixel-perfect collision detection but I'm not sure if it would really be worth it. Does anyone know how Braid does their collision detection? My game is also a 2D sidescroller and I was quite impressed with how it was handled in that game. Thanks for reading.

    Read the article

  • Collision detection with multiple polygons simultaneously

    - by Craig Innes
    I've written a collision system which detects/resolves collisions between a rectangular player and a convex polygon world using the Separating Axis Theorem. This scheme works fine when the player is colliding with a single polygon, but when I try to create a level made up of combinations of these shapes, the player gets "stuck" between shapes when trying to move from one polygon to the other. The reason for this seems to be that collisions are detected after the player has been pushed through the shape by its movement or gravity. When the system resolves the collision, it resolves them in an order that doesn't make sense (for example, when the player is moving from one flat rectangle to another, gravity pushes them below the ground, but the collision with the left hand side of the second block is resolved before the collision with the top of the block, meaning the player is pushed back left before being pushed back up). Other similar posts have resolved this problem by having a strict rule on which axes to resolve first. For example, always resolve the collision on the y axis, then if the object is still colliding with things, resolve on the x axis. This solution only works in the case of a completely axis oriented box world, and doesn't solve the problem if the player is stuck moving along a series of angled shapes or sliding down a wall. Does any one have any ideas of how I could alter my collision system to prevent these situations from happening?

    Read the article

  • Unit testing best practices for a unit testing newbie

    - by wilhil
    In recent years, I have only written small components for people in larger projects or small tools. I have never written a unit test and it always seems like learning how to write them and actually making one takes a lot longer than simply firing up the program and testing for real. I am just about to start a fairly large scale project that could take a few months to complete and whilst I will try to test elements as I write them (like always), I am wondering if unit testing could save me time. I was just wondering if anyone could give good advice: Should I be looking at unit testing at the start of the project and possibly adopt a TDD approach. Should I just write tests as I go along, after each section is complete. Should I complete the project and then write unit tests at the end.

    Read the article

  • Collision Detection and Resolution in Three.js

    - by androidmaster
    So at the moment am making a simple game using three.js and three.firstpersonControls.js but with the current Three.js r66, they apparently removed checkWallCollision and then in the r67 firstpersonControls removed support for that collision. SO my question is how would i go about checking collision in 3D using three.js and then resolution to that collision. (Pushing player out of the block) Note I used a 2D array to generate the world so it's only cubes that I have to check collision with.... if this is a bad question or am lacking something please tell me before you -rep me, am just not sure how to do this and google doesn't want to help

    Read the article

  • Should programmers itemize testing in testing? [on hold]

    - by Patton77
    I recently hired a programming team to do a port of my iPad app to the iPhone and Android platforms. Now, in a separate contract, I am asking them to implement a bunch of tips on how to play the app, similar like you would find in Candy Crush or Cut the Rope. They want to charge 12 hours @ $35/hr for the "Testing all of the Tips", telling me that normally it would take them more than 25 hours but that they will 'bear the difference'. I am not familiar with this level of itemization, but maybe it's a new practice? I am used to devs doing their own quality control, and then having a testing/acceptance period. They are using Cocos 2D-X, and they say that the tips going to multiple platforms makes all of the hours jack up. I feel like they might be overcharging, and it's difficult for me to know because it's kind of like with a mechanic. "It took us 5 hours to replace the radiator". How can you dispute that? It seems to me that most of you would charge for the work but NOT for hours that you are 'testing'. Am I missing something? Thanks for any help and advice you can give!

    Read the article

  • Collision in PyGame for spinning rectangular object.touching circles

    - by OverAchiever
    I'm creating a variation of Pong. One of the differences is that I use a rectangular structure as the object which is being bounced around, and I use circles as paddles. So far, all the collision handling I've worked with was using simple math (I wasn't using the collision "feature" in PyGame). The game is contained within a 2-dimensional continuous space. The idea is that the rectangular structure will spin at different speed depending on how far from the center you touch it with the circle. Also, any extremity of the rectangular structure should be able to touch any extremity of the circle. So I need to keep track of where it has been touched on both the circle and the rectangle to figure out the direction it will be bounced to. I intend to have basically 8 possible directions (Up, down, left, right and the half points between each one of those). I can work out the calculation of how the objected will be dislocated once I get the direction it will be dislocated to based on where it has been touch. I also need to keep track of where it has been touched to decide if the rectangular structure will spin clockwise or counter-clockwise after it collided. Before I started coding, I read the resources available at the PyGame website on the collision class they have (And its respective functions). I tried to work out the logic of what I was trying to achieve based on those resources and how the game will function. The only thing I could figure out that I could do was to make each one of these objects as a group of rectangular objects, and depending on which rectangle was touched the other would behave accordingly and give the illusion it is a single object. However, not only I don't know if this will work, but I also don't know if it is gonna look convincing based on how PyGame redraws the objects. Is there a way I can use PyGame to handle these collision detections by still having a single object? Can I figure out the point of collision on both objects using functions within PyGame precisely enough to achieve what I'm looking for? P.s: I hope the question was specific and clear enough. I apologize if there were any grammar mistakes, English is not my native language.

    Read the article

  • Sensor based vs. AABB based collision

    - by Hillel
    I'm trying to write a simple collision system, which will probably be primarily used for 2D platformers, and I've been planning out an AABB system for a few weeks now, which will work seamlessly with my grid data structure optimization. I picked AABB because I want a simple system, but I also want it to be perfect. Now, I've been hearing a lot lately about a different method to handle collision, using sensors, which are placed in the important parts of the entity. I understand it's a good way to handle slopes, better than AABB collision. The thing is, I can't find a basic explanation of how it works, let alone a comparison of it and the AABB method. If someone could explain it to me, or point me to a good tutorial, I'd very much appreciate it, and also a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of the two techniques would be nice.

    Read the article

  • Circle-Rectangle collision in a tile map game

    - by furiousd
    I am making a 2D tile map based putt-putt game. I have collision detection working between the ball and the walls of the map, although when the ball collides at the meeting point between 2 tiles I offset it by 0.5 so that it doesn't get stuck in the wall. This aint a huge issue though. if(y % 20 == 0) { y+=0.5; } if(x % 20 == 0) { x+=0.5; } Collisions work as follows Find the closest point between each tile and the center of the ball If distance(ball_x, ball_y, close_x, close_y) <= ball_radius and the closest point belongs to a solid object, collision has occured Invert X/Y speed according to side of object collided with The next thing I tried to do was implement floating blocks in the middle of the map for the ball to bounce off of. When a ball collides with a corner of the block, it gets stuck in it. So I changed my determineRebound() function to treat corners as if they were circles. Here's that functon: `i and j are indexes of the solid object in the 2d map array. x & y are centre point of ball.` void determineRebound(int _i, int _j) { if(y > _i*tile_w && y < _i*tile_w + tile_w) { //Not a corner xs*=-1; } else if(x > _j*tile_w && x < _j*tile_w + tile_w) { //Not a corner ys*=-1; } else { //Corner float nx = x - close_x; float ny = y - close_y; float len = sqrt(nx * nx + ny * ny); nx /= len; ny /= len; float projection = xs * nx + ys * ny; xs -= 2 * projection * nx; ys -= 2 * projection * ny; } } This is where things have gotten messy. Collisions with 'floating' corners work fine, but now when the ball collides near the meeting point of 2 tiles, it detects a corner collision and does not rebound as expected. I'm a bit in over my head at this point. I guess I'm wondering if I'm going about making this sort of game in the right way. Is a 2d tile map the way to go? If so, is there a problem with my collision logic and where am I going wrong? Any advice/feedback would be great.

    Read the article

  • Confusion with floats converted into ints during collision detection

    - by TheBroodian
    So in designing a 2D platformer, I decided that I should be using a Vector2 to track the world location of my world objects to retain some sub-pixel precision for slow-moving objects and other such subtle nuances, yet representing their bodies with Rectangles, because as far as collision detection and resolution is concerned, I don't need sub-pixel precision. I thought that the following line of thought would work smoothly... Vector2 wrldLocation; Point WorldLocation; Rectangle collisionRectangle; public void Update(GameTime gameTime) { Vector2 moveAmount = velocity * (float)gameTime.ElapsedGameTime.TotalSeconds wrldLocation += moveAmount; WorldLocation = new Point((int)wrldLocation.X, (int)wrldLocation.Y); collisionRectangle = new Rectangle(WorldLocation.X, WorldLocation.Y, genericWidth, genericHeight); } and I guess in theory it sort of works, until I try to use it in conjunction with my collision detection, which works by using Rectangle.Offset() to project where collisionRectangle would supposedly end up after applying moveAmount to it, and if a collision is found, finding the intersection and subtracting the difference between the two intersecting sides to the given moveAmount, which would theoretically give a corrected moveAmount to apply to the object's world location that would prevent it from passing through walls and such. The issue here is that Rectangle.Offset() only accepts ints, and so I'm not really receiving an accurate adjustment to moveAmount for a Vector2. If I leave out wrldLocation from my previous example, and just use WorldLocation to keep track of my object's location, everything works smoothly, but then obviously if my object is being given velocities less than 1 pixel per update, then the velocity value may as well be 0, which I feel further down the line I may regret. Does anybody have any suggestions about how I might go about resolving this?

    Read the article

  • Manual testing Vs Automated testing

    - by mgj
    Respected all, As many know testing can be mainly classified into manual and automated testing. With regard to this certain questions come to mind. Hope you can help... They include: What is the basic difference between the two types of testing? What are the elements of challenges involved in both manual and automated testing? What are the different skill sets required by a software tester for manual and automated testing respectively? What are the different job prospects and growth opportunities among software testers who do manual testing automated testing respectively? Is manual testing under rated to automated testing in anyway(s)? If yes, kindly specify the way. How differently are the manual testers treated in comparison to automated testers in the corporate world?( If they truly are differentiated in any terms as such ) I hope you can share your knowledge in answering these questions.. Thank you for your time..:)

    Read the article

  • Circle vs Edge collision detection / resolution

    - by topheman
    I made a javascript class Ball.js that handles physics interactions betweens balls as well as painting. In the v1.0, the ball vs ball collision detection and resolution is well handled. In the next version (v2), I'm trying to add edgeCollision handling. I'm having some problems, maybe you will be able to help me. All the v2 branch source code is on github repository : https://github.com/topheman/Ball.js/tree/v2 The v2 demos (where you can see the bug I will be talking about) : http://labs.topheman.com/Ball-v2/#help As you will see on the demo, I have two major problems that I'm having a really hard time to solve on Ball.js : method resolveEdgeCollision : bounce angle is inconsistent method checkEdgeCollision : if the ball's velocity (the length that it runs each frame) is higher than its diameter, eventually, it will pass through an edge, without triggering any collision Any Ideas ?...

    Read the article

  • Project collision shapes to plane for 2.5D collision detection

    - by Jkh2
    I am working on a top down 2.5D game. In the game anything that overlaps on the screen should be 'colliding' with each other regardless of whether they are on the same plane in the 3D world. This is illustrated below from a side-ways view: The orange and green circles are spheres floating in the 3D world. They are projected onto a plane parallel to the viewport plane (y = 0 in the image) and if they overlap there is a collision event between them. These spheres are attached to other meshes to represent the sphere bounding boxes for collisions. The way I plan to implement this at the moment is the following: Get the 3D world position at the center of the sphere. Use Camera.WorldToViewportPoint to project the point to the viewport plane. Move a Sphere Collider with the radius of the sphere to that point. Test for collisions using unity colliders. My question is how to extend this to work for rotated cuboids. For instance if I have two rotated cuboids, if I follow the logic above it would not work as intended as the cuboids may not collide but they could still be intersected on the view plane. An example is below: Is there a way to project a cuboid that would be aligned with the plane? Would it be a valid cuboid for all rotations if I did this?

    Read the article

  • Collision and Graphics integration

    - by Shlomi Atia
    I'm a little confused about the integration between collision and graphics. They both need to share the same position in the world. The most obvious choice is the center of the entity, which is good for bounding volumes and fixed sized sprites. However, for characters with variable height size sprites like this: http://gamemedia.wcgame.ru/data/2011-07-17/game-sprite-sheet.jpg This is no longer good. The character won't align to the ground if I'll draw it from the center. I can just make the sprites the same height, but it will be a waste of memory (the largest sprite is 4 times larger then the smallest one). Even then, this is not an option at all with skeletal sprites like this one: http://user-generated-content.java-gaming.org/img-vault/212a171fc1ebb27ab77608fb9b2dd9bd9205361ce6300b21a7f8d06d025fbbd8.png It seems that the graphics need to be drawn from the ground for characters, but not for other images such as scenery and obstacles. The only solution I could think of was having another position called draw-position, which is the entity center for images, and is the the bottom of the collision volume for characters. Then when I draw relative to that position, it should work properly. I haven't found any references for something like that, so I'm kinda insecure about it. Does anyone knows of a better approach for this problem? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Collision resolution - Character walking on ascendent ground

    - by marcg11
    I don't know if the solution to this problem is quite straight-foward but I really don't know how to handle collision resolution on a game where the player walks on an ascendent floor which is not flat. How can the player position itself on the y axis depend on the ground x and z (opengl coords)? What if the floor's slope is too much and the player can't go up, how do you handle that? I don't need any code, just a simple explanation would be great.

    Read the article

  • Collision Detection Game Design and Architecture

    - by Chompas
    I've reading some articles about collision detection. My question here is about ideas on the design for it. Baically I have a C++ game that has a main loop with entities with an update method. Based on keyboard input, these characters updates their positions. My question is not about how to detect collisions, it's about getting ideas in which is the best way to implement this. The game has a main character but also enemies that have to collide between them, so I'm not sure where to make all the iterations for checking collisions and if the right way is to check everything against everything. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • 2D OBB collision detection, resolving collisions?

    - by Milo
    I currently use OBBs and I have a vehicle that is a rigid body and some buildings. Here is my update() private void update() { camera.setPosition((vehicle.getPosition().x * camera.getScale()) - ((getWidth() ) / 2.0f), (vehicle.getPosition().y * camera.getScale()) - ((getHeight() ) / 2.0f)); //camera.move(input.getAnalogStick().getStickValueX() * 15.0f, input.getAnalogStick().getStickValueY() * 15.0f); if(input.isPressed(ControlButton.BUTTON_GAS)) { vehicle.setThrottle(1.0f, false); } if(input.isPressed(ControlButton.BUTTON_BRAKE)) { vehicle.setBrakes(1.0f); } vehicle.setSteering(input.getAnalogStick().getStickValueX()); vehicle.update(16.6666f / 1000.0f); ArrayList<Building> buildings = city.getBuildings(); for(Building b : buildings) { if(vehicle.getRect().overlaps(b.getRect())) { vehicle.update(-17.0f / 1000.0f); break; } } } The collision detection works well. What doesn't is how they are dealt with. My goal is simple. If the vehicle hits a building, it should stop, and never go into the building. When I apply negative torque to reverse the car should not feel buggy and move away from the building. I don't want this to look buggy. This is my rigid body class: class RigidBody extends Entity { //linear private Vector2D velocity = new Vector2D(); private Vector2D forces = new Vector2D(); private float mass; //angular private float angularVelocity; private float torque; private float inertia; //graphical private Vector2D halfSize = new Vector2D(); private Bitmap image; public RigidBody() { //set these defaults so we don't get divide by zeros mass = 1.0f; inertia = 1.0f; } //intialize out parameters public void initialize(Vector2D halfSize, float mass, Bitmap bitmap) { //store physical parameters this.halfSize = halfSize; this.mass = mass; image = bitmap; inertia = (1.0f / 20.0f) * (halfSize.x * halfSize.x) * (halfSize.y * halfSize.y) * mass; RectF rect = new RectF(); float scalar = 10.0f; rect.left = (int)-halfSize.x * scalar; rect.top = (int)-halfSize.y * scalar; rect.right = rect.left + (int)(halfSize.x * 2.0f * scalar); rect.bottom = rect.top + (int)(halfSize.y * 2.0f * scalar); setRect(rect); } public void setLocation(Vector2D position, float angle) { getRect().set(position, getWidth(), getHeight(), angle); } public Vector2D getPosition() { return getRect().getCenter(); } @Override public void update(float timeStep) { //integrate physics //linear Vector2D acceleration = Vector2D.scalarDivide(forces, mass); velocity = Vector2D.add(velocity, Vector2D.scalarMultiply(acceleration, timeStep)); Vector2D c = getRect().getCenter(); c = Vector2D.add(getRect().getCenter(), Vector2D.scalarMultiply(velocity , timeStep)); setCenter(c.x, c.y); forces = new Vector2D(0,0); //clear forces //angular float angAcc = torque / inertia; angularVelocity += angAcc * timeStep; setAngle(getAngle() + angularVelocity * timeStep); torque = 0; //clear torque } //take a relative Vector2D and make it a world Vector2D public Vector2D relativeToWorld(Vector2D relative) { Matrix mat = new Matrix(); float[] Vector2Ds = new float[2]; Vector2Ds[0] = relative.x; Vector2Ds[1] = relative.y; mat.postRotate(JMath.radToDeg(getAngle())); mat.mapVectors(Vector2Ds); return new Vector2D(Vector2Ds[0], Vector2Ds[1]); } //take a world Vector2D and make it a relative Vector2D public Vector2D worldToRelative(Vector2D world) { Matrix mat = new Matrix(); float[] Vectors = new float[2]; Vectors[0] = world.x; Vectors[1] = world.y; mat.postRotate(JMath.radToDeg(-getAngle())); mat.mapVectors(Vectors); return new Vector2D(Vectors[0], Vectors[1]); } //velocity of a point on body public Vector2D pointVelocity(Vector2D worldOffset) { Vector2D tangent = new Vector2D(-worldOffset.y, worldOffset.x); return Vector2D.add( Vector2D.scalarMultiply(tangent, angularVelocity) , velocity); } public void applyForce(Vector2D worldForce, Vector2D worldOffset) { //add linear force forces = Vector2D.add(forces ,worldForce); //add associated torque torque += Vector2D.cross(worldOffset, worldForce); } @Override public void draw( GraphicsContext c) { c.drawRotatedScaledBitmap(image, getPosition().x, getPosition().y, getWidth(), getHeight(), getAngle()); } } Essentially, when any rigid body hits a building it should exhibit the same behavior. How is collision solving usually done? Thanks

    Read the article

  • AABB > AABB collision response?

    - by Levi
    I'm really confused about how to fix this in 3d? I want it so that I can slide along cubes but without getting caught if there's 2 adjacent cubes. I've gotten it so that I can do x collision, with sliding, and y, and z, but I can't do them together, probably because I don't know how to resolve it correctly. e.g. [] [] []^ []O [] O is the player, ^ is the direction the player is moving, with the methods which I was trying I would get stuck between the cubes because the z axis was responding and kicking me out :/. I don't know how to resolve this in all 3 direction, like how would I go about telling which direction I have to resolve in. My previous methods involved me checking 4 points in a axis aligned square around the player, I was checking if these points where inside the cubes and if they where fixing my position, but I couldn't get it working correctly. Help is appreciated. edit: pretend all the blocks are touching.

    Read the article

  • Typical collision detection

    - by marcg11
    I would like to know how is the typical collision detection of most games. For example, you control a character which can move in 2 dimensional directions (except up and down). Now lets asume he walks into a wall, most of the games depending on character angle and the BB normal face will only stop the player in one axis, but will continue moving in the other along the wall axis. How is that done? I've only managed to stop the character from going through the wall by seting the position to the last one in the past frame if the new position colllisions the bounding box. But this just makes the player stop sharply and unrealisticly.

    Read the article

  • Sliding collision response

    - by dbostream
    I have been reading plenty of tutorials about sliding collision responses yet I am not able to implement it properly in my project. What I want to do is make a puck slide along the rounded corner boards of a hockey rink. In my latest attempt the puck does slide along the boards but there are some strange velocity behaviors. First of all the puck slows down a lot pretty much right away and then it slides for awhile and stops before exiting the corner. Even if I double the speed I get a similar behavior and the puck does not make it out of the corner. I used some ideas from this document http://www.peroxide.dk/papers/collision/collision.pdf. This is what I have: Update method called from the game loop when it is time to update the puck (I removed some irrelevant parts). I use two states (current, previous) which are used to interpolate the position during rendering. public override void Update(double fixedTimeStep) { /* Acceleration is set to 0 for now. */ Acceleration.Zero(); PreviousState = CurrentState; _collisionRecursionDepth = 0; CurrentState.Position = SlidingCollision(CurrentState.Position, CurrentState.Velocity * fixedTimeStep + 0.5 * Acceleration * fixedTimeStep * fixedTimeStep); /* Should not this be affected by a sliding collision? and not only the position. */ CurrentState.Velocity = CurrentState.Velocity + Acceleration * fixedTimeStep; Heading = Vector2.NormalizeRet(CurrentState.Velocity); } private Vector2 SlidingCollision(Vector2 position, Vector2 velocity) { if(_collisionRecursionDepth > 5) return position; bool collisionFound = false; Vector2 futurePosition = position + velocity; Vector2 intersectionPoint = new Vector2(); Vector2 intersectionPointNormal = new Vector2(); /* I did not include the collision detection code, if a collision is detected the intersection point and normal in that point is returned. */ if(!collisionFound) return futurePosition; /* If no collision was detected it is safe to move to the future position. */ /* It is not exactly the intersection point, but slightly before. */ Vector2 newPosition = intersectionPoint; /* oldVelocity is set to the distance from the newPosition(intersection point) to the position it had moved to had it not collided. */ Vector2 oldVelocity = futurePosition - newPosition; /* Project the distance left to move along the intersection normal. */ Vector2 newVelocity = oldVelocity - intersectionPointNormal * oldVelocity.DotProduct(intersectionPointNormal); if(newVelocity.LengthSq() < 0.001) return newPosition; /* If almost no speed, no need to continue. */ _collisionRecursionDepth++; return SlidingCollision(newPosition, newVelocity); } What am I doing wrong with the velocity? I have been staring at this for very long so I have gone blind. I have tried different values of recursion depth but it does not seem to make it better. Let me know if you need more information. I appreciate any help. EDIT: A combination of Patrick Hughes' and teodron's answers solved the velocity problem (I think), thanks a lot! This is the new code: I decided to use a separate recursion method now too since I don't want to recalculate the acceleration in each recursion. public override void Update(double fixedTimeStep) { Acceleration.Zero();// = CalculateAcceleration(fixedTimeStep); PreviousState = new MovingEntityState(CurrentState.Position, CurrentState.Velocity); CurrentState = SlidingCollision(CurrentState, fixedTimeStep); Heading = Vector2.NormalizeRet(CurrentState.Velocity); } private MovingEntityState SlidingCollision(MovingEntityState state, double timeStep) { bool collisionFound = false; /* Calculate the next position given no detected collision. */ Vector2 futurePosition = state.Position + state.Velocity * timeStep; Vector2 intersectionPoint = new Vector2(); Vector2 intersectionPointNormal = new Vector2(); /* I did not include the collision detection code, if a collision is detected the intersection point and normal in that point is returned. */ /* If no collision was detected it is safe to move to the future position. */ if (!collisionFound) return new MovingEntityState(futurePosition, state.Velocity); /* Set new position to the intersection point (slightly before). */ Vector2 newPosition = intersectionPoint; /* Project the new velocity along the intersection normal. */ Vector2 newVelocity = state.Velocity - 1.90 * intersectionPointNormal * state.Velocity.DotProduct(intersectionPointNormal); /* Calculate the time of collision. */ double timeOfCollision = Math.Sqrt((newPosition - state.Position).LengthSq() / (futurePosition - state.Position).LengthSq()); /* Calculate new time step, remaining time of full step after the collision * current time step. */ double newTimeStep = timeStep * (1 - timeOfCollision); return SlidingCollision(new MovingEntityState(newPosition, newVelocity), newTimeStep); } Even though the code above seems to slide the puck correctly please have a look at it. I have a few questions, if I don't multiply by 1.90 in the newVelocity calculation it doesn't work (I get a stack overflow when the puck enters the corner because the timeStep decreases very slowly - a collision is found early in every recursion), why is that? what does 1.90 really do and why 1.90? Also I have a new problem, the puck does not move parallell to the short side after exiting the curve; to be more exact it moves outside the rink (I am not checking for any collisions with the short side at the moment). When I perform the collision detection I first check that the puck is in the correct quadrant. For example bottom-right corner is quadrant four i.e. circleCenter.X < puck.X && circleCenter.Y puck.Y is this a problem? or should the short side of the rink be the one to make the puck go parallell to it and not the last collision in the corner? EDIT2: This is the code I use for collision detection, maybe it has something to do with the fact that I can't make the puck slide (-1.0) but only reflect (-2.0): /* Point is the current position (not the predicted one) and quadrant is 4 for the bottom-right corner for example. */ if (GeometryHelper.PointInCircleQuadrant(circleCenter, circleRadius, state.Position, quadrant)) { /* The line is: from = state.Position, to = futurePosition. So a collision is detected when from is inside the circle and to is outside. */ if (GeometryHelper.LineCircleIntersection2d(state.Position, futurePosition, circleCenter, circleRadius, intersectionPoint, quadrant)) { collisionFound = true; /* Set the intersection point to slightly before the real intersection point (I read somewhere this was good to do because of floting point precision, not sure exactly how much though). */ intersectionPoint = intersectionPoint - Vector2.NormalizeRet(state.Velocity) * 0.001; /* Normal at the intersection point. */ intersectionPointNormal = Vector2.NormalizeRet(circleCenter - intersectionPoint) } } When I set the intersection point, if I for example use 0.1 instead of 0.001 the puck travels further before it gets stuck, but for all values I have tried (including 0 - the real intersection point) it gets stuck somewhere (but I necessarily not get a stack overflow). Can something in this part be the cause of my problem? I can see why I get the stack overflow when using -1.0 when calculating the new velocity vector; but not how to solve it. I traced the time steps used in the recursion (initial time step is always 1/60 ~ 0.01666): Recursion depth Time step next recursive call [Start recursion, time step ~ 0.016666] 0 0,000985806527246773 [No collision, stop recursion] [Start recursion, time step ~ 0.016666] 0 0,0149596704364629 1 0,0144883449376379 2 0,0143155612984837 3 0,014224925727213 4 0,0141673917461608 5 0,0141265435314026 6 0,0140953966184117 7 0,0140704653746625 ...and so on. As you can see the collision is detected early in every recursive call which means the next time step decreases very slowly thus the recursion depth gets very big - stack overflow.

    Read the article

  • Tiled Editor: How is this Map Handling Collision?

    - by user2736286
    BrowserQuest map in question. From what I understand, with tiled, there are two main ways to specify collision: Create an object layer, and interpret the shapes in the engine as collision objects. Create a tiled layer, and make all tiles in the layer have a collision property, and interpret all tiles in the layer as collision objects. I'm using BrowserQuest as a big source of inspiration for my project, and I want to know how they handled collision on the level editing side. I've checked through all their layers, expecting an object layer to be handling cliff collision like: But there are no such object layers to be found. Furthermore, the tile layers containing the tiles for such cliffs have no properties at all, meaning that they didn't just specify "collision" for such tile layers. I especially need to know how they handled less rectangular shapes like: I could imagine that they are not using explicit collision layers, but instead determining collision in the actual engine, based off the presence of specific tile layer sprites. Only because BrowserQuest has whole-tile movement, and it wouldn't look too odd if a small apple, taking up only a fraction of the tile size, prevents movement over that entire tile. But I'm creating a game with more precise movement, so collision has to be tight to the apple, and I really want to know how BrowserQuest approached collision defining. If anyone knowledgeable with Tiled could take a quick look at the map, I'd appreciate it! I'm tearing my hair out here :). Thanks

    Read the article

  • In rails, what defines unit testing as opposed to other kinds of testing

    - by junky
    Initially I thought this was simple: unit testing for models with other testing such as integration for controller and browser testing for views. But more recently I've seen a lot of references to unit testing that doesn't seem to exactly follow this format. Is it possible to have a unit test of a controller? Does that mean that just one method is called? What's the distinction? What does unit testing really means in my rails world?

    Read the article

  • Is unit testing development or testing?

    - by Rubio
    I had a discussion with a testing manager about the role of unit and integration testing. She requested that developers report what they have unit and integration tested and how. My perspective is that unit and integration testing are part of the development process, not the testing process. Beyond semantics what I mean is that unit and integration tests should not be included in the testing reports and systems testers should not be concerned about them. My reasoning is based on two things. Unit and integration tests are planned and performed against an interface and a contract, always. Regardless of whether you use formalized contracts you still test what e.g. a method is supposed to do, i.e. a contract. In integration testing you test the interface between two distinct modules. The interface and the contract determine when the test passes. But you always test a limited part of the whole system. Systems testing on the other hand is planned and performed against the system specifications. The spec determines when the test passes. I don't see any value in communicating the breadth and depth of unit and integration tests to the (systems) tester. Suppose I write a report that lists what kind of unit tests are performed on a particular business layer class. What is he/she supposed to take away from that? Judging what should and shouldn't be tested from that is a false conclusion because the system may still not function the way the specs require even though all unit and integration tests pass. This might seem like useless academic discussion but if you work in a strictly formal environment as I do, it's actually important in determining how we do things. Anyway, am I totally wrong? (Sorry for the long post.)

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >