Search Results

Search found 1066 results on 43 pages for 'collision avoidance'.

Page 11/43 | < Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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 for Actionscript 3

    - by M28
    Well, I was searching for a simple collision detection function for as3, I found Collision Detection Kit, but it is too complicated, I just want a damn function that I give 2 objects as paramenters and that's it. I would like to know where can I find a pixel-perfect collision detection function (The faster, the better)

    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

  • How can I convert a 2D bitmap (Used for terrain) to a 2D polygon mesh for collision?

    - by Megadanxzero
    So I'm making an artillery type game, sort of similar to Worms with all the usual stuff like destructible terrain etc... and while I could use per-pixel collision that doesn't give me collision normals or anything like that. Converting it all to a mesh would also mean I could use an existing physics library, which would be better than anything I can make by myself. I've seen people mention doing this by using Marching Squares to get contours in the bitmap, but I can't find anything which mentions how to turn these into a mesh (Unless it refers to a 3D mesh with contour lines defining different heights, which is NOT what I want). At the moment I can get a basic Marching Squares contour which looks something like this (Where the grid-like lines in the background would be the Marching Squares 'cells'): That needs to be interpolated to get a smoother, more accurate result but that's the general idea. I had a couple ideas for how to turn this into a mesh, but many of them wouldn't work in certain cases, and the one which I thought would work perfectly has turned out to be very slow and I've not even finished it yet! Ideally I'd like whatever I end up using to be fast enough to do every frame for cases such as rapidly-firing weapons, or digging tools. I'm thinking there must be some kind of existing algorithm/technique for turning something like this into a mesh, but I can't seem to find anything. I've looked at some things like Delaunay Triangulation, but as far as I can tell that won't correctly handle concave shapes like the above example, and also wouldn't account for holes within the terrain. I'll go through the technique I came up with for comparison and I guess I'll see if anyone has a better idea. First of all interpolate the Marching Squares contour lines, creating vertices from the line ends, and getting vertices where lines cross cell edges (Important). Then, for each cell containing vertices create polygons by using 2 vertices, and a cell corner as the 3rd vertex (Probably the closest corner). Do this for each cell and I think you should have a mesh which accurately represents the original bitmap (Though there will only be polygons at the edges of the bitmap, and large filled in areas in between will be empty). The only problem with this is that it involves lopping through every pixel once for the initial Marching Squares, then looping through every cell (image height + 1 x image width + 1) at least twice, which ends up being really slow for any decently sized image...

    Read the article

  • Physics Engine [Collision Response, 2-dimensional] experts, help!! My stack is unstable!

    - by Register Sole
    Previously, I struggle with the sequential impulse-based method I developed. Thanks to jedediah referring me to this paper, I managed to rebuild the codes and implement the simultaneous impulse based method with Projected-Gauss-Seidel (PGS) iterative solver as described by Erin Catto (mentioned in the reference of the paper as [Catt05]). So here's how it currently is: The simulation handles 2-dimensional rotating convex polygons. Detection is using separating-axis test, with a SKIN, meaning closest points between two polygons is detected and determined if their distance is less than SKIN. To resolve collision, simultaneous impulse-based method is used. It is solved using iterative solver (PGS-solver) as in Erin Catto's paper. Error-correction is implemented using Baumgarte's stabilization (you can refer to either paper for this) using J V = beta/dt*overlap, J is the Jacobian for the constraints, V the matrix containing the velocities of the bodies, beta an error-correction parameter that is better be < 1, dt the time-step taken by the engine, and overlap, the overlap between the bodies (true overlap, so SKIN is ignored). However, it is still less stable than I expected :s I tried to stack hexagons (or squares, doesn't really matter), and even with only 4 to 5 of them, they hardly stand still! Also note that I am not looking for a sleeping scheme. But I would settle if you have any explicit scheme to handle resting contacts. That said, I would be more than happy if you have a way of treating it generally (as continuous collision, instead of explicitly as a special state). Ideas I have: I would try adding a damping term (proportional to velocity) to the Baumgarte. Is this a good idea in general? If not I would not want to waste my time trying to tune the parameter hoping it magically works. Ideas I have tried: Using simultaneous position based error correction as described in the paper in section 5.3.2, turned out to be worse than the current scheme. If you want to know the parameters I used: Hexagons, side 50 (pixels) gravity 2400 (pixels/sec^2) time-step 1/60 (sec) beta 0.1 restitution 0 to 0.2 coeff. of friction 0.2 PGS iteration 10 initial separation 10 (pixels) mass 1 (unit is irrelevant for now, i modified velocity directly<-impulse method) inertia 1/1000 Thanks in advance! I really appreciate any help from you guys!! :)

    Read the article

  • collision detection in cocos2d.

    - by seenu
    i want to detect collision detection two times in same row. for example:-(see the below image) the ellipse and rectangle or detcted. after that my ellipse will travelling in the straight line path to down and detect the another rectangle. first one is( travelled in trajectory path ) working fine. second one i want to pass in straight line to down for collision detection. how to do this process.

    Read the article

  • Java2D Distance Collision Detection

    - by Trizicus
    My current setup is only useful once collision has been made; obviously there has to be something better than this? public boolean CollisionCheck(Rectangle rect1, Rectangle rect2) { if(rect1.intersects(rect2)) { return true; } return false; } How can I do preemptive collision detection?

    Read the article

  • Sprite to Line Collision

    - by Alu
    If I have a sprite, how would I check collision between two points? For example, in a game I am making, I would like to draw multiple lines that my sprite collides against. I'm thinking that this is more flexible than other collision systems if I had a lot of platforms.

    Read the article

  • Language-independent sources on collision detection

    - by Phazyck
    While making a Pong clone with a friend, we had to implement some collision detection. For research purposes, my friend dug up a book called "AdvancED Game Design with Flash" by Rex Van Der Spuy. This book was clearly targeted at implementing collision detection in ActionScript, and I also have some problems with how the concepts are presented, e.g. presenting one method as better than another, without explaining that decision. Can anyone recommend some good material on collision detection? I'd prefer it if kept the implementation details as language-independent as possible, e.g. by implementing the concepts in pseudo-code. Language-specific materials are not completely unwelcome though, though I'd prefer those to be in either Java, C#, F# or Python or similar languages, as those are the ones I'm most familiar with. :-) Lastly, is there perhaps widely known and used book on collision detection that most people should know about, like a 'the book on collision detection'?

    Read the article

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