Search Results

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

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

  • Differences between software testing processes and techniques?

    - by Aptos
    I get confused between these terms. For examples, should Unit testing be listed as a software testing process or technique? I think unit testing is a software testing technique. And how about Test driven development? Can you give me some examples for software testing processes and techniques? In my opinion, software testing process is a part of the software development life cycle. For example, if we use V-Model, the software testing process will be System test, Acceptance test, Integration Test... Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Is it dangerous to substitute unit tests for user testing? [closed]

    - by MushinNoShin
    Is it dangerous to substitute unit tests for user testing? A co-worker believes we can reduce the manual user testing we need to do by adding more unit tests. Is this dangerous? Unit tests seem to have a very different purpose than user testing. Aren't unit tests to inform design and allow breaking changes to be caught early? Isn't that fundamentally different than determining if an aspect of the system is correct as a whole of the system? Is this a case of substituting apples for oranges?

    Read the article

  • Physics System ignores collision in some rare cases

    - by Gajoo
    I've been developing a simple physics engine for my game. since the game physics is very simple I've decided to increase accuracy a little bit. Instead of formal integration methods like fourier or RK4, I'm directly computing the results after delta time "dt". based on the very first laws of physics : dx = 0.5 * a * dt^2 + v0 * dt dv = a * dt where a is acceleration and v0 is object's previous velocity. Also to handle collisions I've used a method which is somehow different from those I've seen so far. I'm detecting all the collision in the given time frame, stepping the world forward to the nearest collision, resolving it and again check for possible collisions. As I said the world consist of very simple objects, so I'm not loosing any performance due to multiple collision checking. First I'm checking if the ball collides with any walls around it (which is working perfectly) and then I'm checking if it collides with the edges of the walls (yellow points in the picture). the algorithm seems to work without any problem except some rare cases, in which the collision with points are ignored. I've tested everything and all the variables seem to be what they should but after leaving the system work for a minute or two the system the ball passes through one of those points. Here is collision portion of my code, hopefully one of you guys can give me a hint where to look for a potential bug! void PhysicalWorld::checkForPointCollision(Vec2 acceleration, PhysicsComponent& ball, Vec2& collisionNormal, float& collisionTime, Vec2 target) { // this function checks if there will be any collision between a circle and a point // ball contains informations about the circle (it's current velocity, position and radius) // collisionNormal is an output variable // collisionTime is also an output varialbe // target is the point I want to check for collisions Vec2 V = ball.mVelocity; Vec2 A = acceleration; Vec2 P = ball.mPosition - target; float wallWidth = mMap->getWallWidth() / (mMap->getWallWidth() + mMap->getHallWidth()) / 2; float r = ball.mRadius / (mMap->getWallWidth() + mMap->getHallWidth()); // r is ball radius scaled to match actual rendered object. if (A.any()) // todo : I need to first correctly solve the collisions in case there is no acceleration return; if (V.any()) // if object is not moving there will be no collisions! { float D = P.x * V.y - P.y * V.x; float Delta = r*r*V.length2() - D*D; if(Delta < eps) return; Delta = sqrt(Delta); float sgnvy = V.y > 0 ? 1: (V.y < 0?-1:0); Vec2 c1(( D*V.y+sgnvy*V.x*Delta) / V.length2(), (-D*V.x+fabs(V.y)*Delta) / V.length2()); Vec2 c2(( D*V.y-sgnvy*V.x*Delta) / V.length2(), (-D*V.x-fabs(V.y)*Delta) / V.length2()); float t1 = (c1.x - P.x) / V.x; float t2 = (c2.x - P.x) / V.x; if(t1 > eps && t1 <= collisionTime) { collisionTime = t1; collisionNormal = c1; } if(t2 > eps && t2 <= collisionTime) { collisionTime = t2; collisionNormal = c2; } } } // this function should step the world forward by dt. it doesn't check for collision of any two balls (components) // it just checks if there is a collision between the current component and 4 points forming a rectangle around it. void PhysicalWorld::step(float dt) { for (unsigned i=0;i<mObjects.size();i++) { PhysicsComponent &current = *mObjects[i]; Vec2 acceleration = current.mForces * current.mInvMass; float rt=dt; // stores how much more the world should advance while(rt > eps) { float collisionTime = rt; Vec2 collisionNormal = Vec2(0,0); float halfWallWidth = mMap->getWallWidth() / (mMap->getWallWidth() + mMap->getHallWidth()) / 2; // we check if there is any collision with any of those 4 points around the ball // if there is a collision both collisionNormal and collisionTime variables will change // after these functions collisionTime will be exactly the value of nearest collision (if any) // and if there was, collisionNormal will report in which direction the ball should return. checkForPointCollision(acceleration,current,collisionNormal,collisionTime,Vec2(floor(current.mPosition.x) + halfWallWidth,floor(current.mPosition.y) + halfWallWidth)); checkForPointCollision(acceleration,current,collisionNormal,collisionTime,Vec2(floor(current.mPosition.x) + halfWallWidth, ceil(current.mPosition.y) - halfWallWidth)); checkForPointCollision(acceleration,current,collisionNormal,collisionTime,Vec2( ceil(current.mPosition.x) - halfWallWidth,floor(current.mPosition.y) + halfWallWidth)); checkForPointCollision(acceleration,current,collisionNormal,collisionTime,Vec2( ceil(current.mPosition.x) - halfWallWidth, ceil(current.mPosition.y) - halfWallWidth)); // either if there is a collision or if there is not we step the forward since we are sure there will be no collision before collisionTime current.mPosition += collisionTime * (collisionTime * acceleration * 0.5 + current.mVelocity); current.mVelocity += collisionTime * acceleration; // if the ball collided with anything collisionNormal should be at least none zero in one of it's axis if (collisionNormal.any()) { collisionNormal *= Dot(collisionNormal, current.mVelocity) / collisionNormal.length2(); current.mVelocity -= 2 * collisionNormal; // simply reverse velocity along collision normal direction } rt -= collisionTime; } // reset all forces for current object so it'll be ready for later game event current.mForces.zero(); } }

    Read the article

  • How a "Collision System" should be implemented?

    - by nathan
    My game is written using a entity system approach using Artemis Framework. Right know my collision detection is called from the Movement System but i'm wondering if it's a proper way to do collision detection using such an approach. Right know i'm thinking of a new system dedicated to collision detection that would proceed all the solid entities to check if they are in collision with another one. I'm wondering if it's a correct way to handle collision detection with an entity system approach? Also, how should i implement this collision system? I though of an IntervalEntitySystem that would check every 200ms (this value is chosen regarding the Artemis documentation) if some entities are colliding. protected void processEntities(ImmutableBag<Entity> ib) { for (int i = 0; i < ib.size(); i++) { Entity e = ib.get(i); //check of collision with other entities here } }

    Read the article

  • How can I move along an angled collision at a constant speed?

    - by Raven Dreamer
    I have, for all intents and purposes, a Triangle class that objects in my scene can collide with (In actuality, the right side of a parallelogram). My collision detection and resolution code works fine for the purposes of preventing a gameobject from entering into the space of the Triangle, instead directing the movement along the edge. The trouble is, the maximum speed along the x and y axis is not equivalent in my game, and moving along the Y axis (up or down) should take twice as long as an equivalent distance along the X axis (left or right). Unfortunately, these speeds apply to the collision resolution too, and movement along the blue path above progresses twice as fast. What can I do in my collision resolution to make sure that the speedlimit for Y axis movement is obeyed in the latter case? Collision Resolution for this case below (vecInput and velocity are the position and velocity vectors of the game object): // y = mx+c lowY = 2*vecInput.x + parag.rightYIntercept ; ... else { // y = mx+c // vecInput.y = 2(x) + RightYIntercept // (vecInput.y - RightYIntercept) / 2 = x; //if velocity.Y (positive) greater than velocity.X (negative) //pushing from bottom, so push right. if(velocity.y > -1*velocity.x) { vecInput = new Vector2((vecInput.y - parag.rightYIntercept)/2, vecInput.y); Debug.Log("adjusted rightwards"); } else { vecInput = new Vector2( vecInput.x, lowY); Debug.Log("adjusted downwards"); } }

    Read the article

  • Optimizing collision engine bottleneck

    - by Vittorio Romeo
    Foreword: I'm aware that optimizing this bottleneck is not a necessity - the engine is already very fast. I, however, for fun and educational purposes, would love to find a way to make the engine even faster. I'm creating a general-purpose C++ 2D collision detection/response engine, with an emphasis on flexibility and speed. Here's a very basic diagram of its architecture: Basically, the main class is World, which owns (manages memory) of a ResolverBase*, a SpatialBase* and a vector<Body*>. SpatialBase is a pure virtual class which deals with broad-phase collision detection. ResolverBase is a pure virtual class which deals with collision resolution. The bodies communicate to the World::SpatialBase* with SpatialInfo objects, owned by the bodies themselves. There currenly is one spatial class: Grid : SpatialBase, which is a basic fixed 2D grid. It has it's own info class, GridInfo : SpatialInfo. Here's how its architecture looks: The Grid class owns a 2D array of Cell*. The Cell class contains two collection of (not owned) Body*: a vector<Body*> which contains all the bodies that are in the cell, and a map<int, vector<Body*>> which contains all the bodies that are in the cell, divided in groups. Bodies, in fact, have a groupId int that is used for collision groups. GridInfo objects also contain non-owning pointers to the cells the body is in. As I previously said, the engine is based on groups. Body::getGroups() returns a vector<int> of all the groups the body is part of. Body::getGroupsToCheck() returns a vector<int> of all the groups the body has to check collision against. Bodies can occupy more than a single cell. GridInfo always stores non-owning pointers to the occupied cells. After the bodies move, collision detection happens. We assume that all bodies are axis-aligned bounding boxes. How broad-phase collision detection works: Part 1: spatial info update For each Body body: Top-leftmost occupied cell and bottom-rightmost occupied cells are calculated. If they differ from the previous cells, body.gridInfo.cells is cleared, and filled with all the cells the body occupies (2D for loop from the top-leftmost cell to the bottom-rightmost cell). body is now guaranteed to know what cells it occupies. For a performance boost, it stores a pointer to every map<int, vector<Body*>> of every cell it occupies where the int is a group of body->getGroupsToCheck(). These pointers get stored in gridInfo->queries, which is simply a vector<map<int, vector<Body*>>*>. body is now guaranteed to have a pointer to every vector<Body*> of bodies of groups it needs to check collision against. These pointers are stored in gridInfo->queries. Part 2: actual collision checks For each Body body: body clears and fills a vector<Body*> bodiesToCheck, which contains all the bodies it needs to check against. Duplicates are avoided (bodies can belong to more than one group) by checking if bodiesToCheck already contains the body we're trying to add. const vector<Body*>& GridInfo::getBodiesToCheck() { bodiesToCheck.clear(); for(const auto& q : queries) for(const auto& b : *q) if(!contains(bodiesToCheck, b)) bodiesToCheck.push_back(b); return bodiesToCheck; } The GridInfo::getBodiesToCheck() method IS THE BOTTLENECK. The bodiesToCheck vector must be filled for every body update because bodies could have moved meanwhile. It also needs to prevent duplicate collision checks. The contains function simply checks if the vector already contains a body with std::find. Collision is checked and resolved for every body in bodiesToCheck. That's it. So, I've been trying to optimize this broad-phase collision detection for quite a while now. Every time I try something else than the current architecture/setup, something doesn't go as planned or I make assumption about the simulation that later are proven to be false. My question is: how can I optimize the broad-phase of my collision engine maintaining the grouped bodies approach? Is there some kind of magic C++ optimization that can be applied here? Can the architecture be redesigned in order to allow for more performance? Actual implementation: SSVSCollsion Body.h, Body.cpp World.h, World.cpp Grid.h, Grid.cpp Cell.h, Cell.cpp GridInfo.h, GridInfo.cpp

    Read the article

  • Platformer Starter Kit - Collision Issues

    - by Cyral
    I'm having trouble with my game that is based off the XNA Platformer starter kit. My game uses smaller tiles (16x16) then the original (32x40) which I'm thinking may be having an effect on collision (Being it needs to be more precise). Standing on the edge of a tile and jumping causes the player to move off the the tile when he lands. And 80% of the time, when the player lands, he goes flying though SOLID tiles in a diagonal fashion. This is very annoying as it is almost impossible to test other features, when spawning and jumping will result in the player landing in another part of the level or falling off the edge completely. The code is as follows: /// <summary> /// Updates the player's velocity and position based on input, gravity, etc. /// </summary> public void ApplyPhysics(GameTime gameTime) { float elapsed = (float)gameTime.ElapsedGameTime.TotalSeconds; Vector2 previousPosition = Position; // Base velocity is a combination of horizontal movement control and // acceleration downward due to gravity. velocity.X += movement * MoveAcceleration * elapsed; velocity.Y = MathHelper.Clamp(velocity.Y + GravityAcceleration * elapsed, -MaxFallSpeed, MaxFallSpeed); velocity.Y = DoJump(velocity.Y, gameTime); // Apply pseudo-drag horizontally. if (IsOnGround) velocity.X *= GroundDragFactor; else velocity.X *= AirDragFactor; // Prevent the player from running faster than his top speed. velocity.X = MathHelper.Clamp(velocity.X, -MaxMoveSpeed, MaxMoveSpeed); // Apply velocity. Position += velocity * elapsed; Position = new Vector2((float)Math.Round(Position.X), (float)Math.Round(Position.Y)); // If the player is now colliding with the level, separate them. HandleCollisions(); // If the collision stopped us from moving, reset the velocity to zero. if (Position.X == previousPosition.X) velocity.X = 0; if (Position.Y == previousPosition.Y) velocity.Y = 0; } /// <summary> /// Detects and resolves all collisions between the player and his neighboring /// tiles. When a collision is detected, the player is pushed away along one /// axis to prevent overlapping. There is some special logic for the Y axis to /// handle platforms which behave differently depending on direction of movement. /// </summary> private void HandleCollisions() { // Get the player's bounding rectangle and find neighboring tiles. Rectangle bounds = BoundingRectangle; int leftTile = (int)Math.Floor((float)bounds.Left / Tile.Width); int rightTile = (int)Math.Ceiling(((float)bounds.Right / Tile.Width)) - 1; int topTile = (int)Math.Floor((float)bounds.Top / Tile.Height); int bottomTile = (int)Math.Ceiling(((float)bounds.Bottom / Tile.Height)) - 1; // Reset flag to search for ground collision. isOnGround = false; // For each potentially colliding tile, for (int y = topTile; y <= bottomTile; ++y) { for (int x = leftTile; x <= rightTile; ++x) { // If this tile is collidable, ItemCollision collision = Level.GetCollision(x, y); if (collision != ItemCollision.Passable) { // Determine collision depth (with direction) and magnitude. Rectangle tileBounds = Level.GetBounds(x, y); Vector2 depth = RectangleExtensions.GetIntersectionDepth(bounds, 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 == ItemCollision.Platform) { // If we crossed the top of a tile, we are on the ground. if (previousBottom <= tileBounds.Top) isOnGround = true; // Ignore platforms, unless we are on the ground. if (collision == ItemCollision.Impassable || IsOnGround) { // Resolve the collision along the Y axis. Position = new Vector2(Position.X, Position.Y + depth.Y); // Perform further collisions with the new bounds. bounds = BoundingRectangle; } } else if (collision == ItemCollision.Impassable) // Ignore platforms. { // Resolve the collision along the X axis. Position = new Vector2(Position.X + depth.X, Position.Y); // Perform further collisions with the new bounds. bounds = BoundingRectangle; } } } } } // Save the new bounds bottom. previousBottom = bounds.Bottom; } It also tends to jitter a little bit sometimes, I'm solved some of this with some fixes I found here on stackexchange, But Ive only seen one other case of the flying though blocks problem. This question seems to have a similar problem in the video, but mine is more crazy. Again this is a very annoying bug! Any help would be greatly appreciated! EDIT: Speed stuff // Constants for controling horizontal movement private const float MoveAcceleration = 13000.0f; private const float MaxMoveSpeed = 1750.0f; private const float GroundDragFactor = 0.48f; private const float AirDragFactor = 0.58f; // Constants for controlling vertical movement private const float MaxJumpTime = 0.35f; private const float JumpLaunchVelocity = -3500.0f; private const float GravityAcceleration = 3400.0f; private const float MaxFallSpeed = 550.0f; private const float JumpControlPower = 0.14f;

    Read the article

  • Movement and Collision with AABB

    - by Jeremy Giberson
    I'm having a little difficulty figuring out the following scenarios. http://i.stack.imgur.com/8lM6i.png In scenario A, the moving entity has fallen to (and slightly into the floor). The current position represents the projected position that will occur if I apply the acceleration & velocity as usual without worrying about collision. The Next position, represents the corrected projection position after collision check. The resulting end position is the falling entity now rests ON the floor--that is, in a consistent state of collision by sharing it's bottom X axis with the floor's top X axis. My current update loop looks like the following: // figure out forces & accelerations and project an objects next position // check collision occurrence from current position -> projected position // if a collision occurs, adjust projection position Which seems to be working for the scenario of my object falling to the floor. However, the situation becomes sticky when trying to figure out scenario's B & C. In scenario B, I'm attempt to move along the floor on the X axis (player is pressing right direction button) additionally, gravity is pulling the object into the floor. The problem is, when the object attempts to move the collision detection code is going to recognize that the object is already colliding with the floor to begin with, and auto correct any movement back to where it was before. In scenario C, I'm attempting to jump off the floor. Again, because the object is already in a constant collision with the floor, when the collision routine checks to make sure moving from current position to projected position doesn't result in a collision, it will fail because at the beginning of the motion, the object is already colliding. How do you allow movement along the edge of an object? How do you allow movement away from an object you are already colliding with. Extra Info My collision routine is based on AABB sweeping test from an old gamasutra article, http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3383/simple_intersection_tests_for_games.php?page=3 My bounding box implementation is based on top left/bottom right instead of midpoint/extents, so my min/max functions are adjusted. Otherwise, here is my bounding box class with collision routines: public class BoundingBox { public XYZ topLeft; public XYZ bottomRight; public BoundingBox(float x, float y, float z, float w, float h, float d) { topLeft = new XYZ(); bottomRight = new XYZ(); topLeft.x = x; topLeft.y = y; topLeft.z = z; bottomRight.x = x+w; bottomRight.y = y+h; bottomRight.z = z+d; } public BoundingBox(XYZ position, XYZ dimensions, boolean centered) { topLeft = new XYZ(); bottomRight = new XYZ(); topLeft.x = position.x; topLeft.y = position.y; topLeft.z = position.z; bottomRight.x = position.x + (centered ? dimensions.x/2 : dimensions.x); bottomRight.y = position.y + (centered ? dimensions.y/2 : dimensions.y); bottomRight.z = position.z + (centered ? dimensions.z/2 : dimensions.z); } /** * Check if a point lies inside a bounding box * @param box * @param point * @return */ public static boolean isPointInside(BoundingBox box, XYZ point) { if(box.topLeft.x <= point.x && point.x <= box.bottomRight.x && box.topLeft.y <= point.y && point.y <= box.bottomRight.y && box.topLeft.z <= point.z && point.z <= box.bottomRight.z) return true; return false; } /** * Check for overlap between two bounding boxes using separating axis theorem * if two boxes are separated on any axis, they cannot be overlapping * @param a * @param b * @return */ public static boolean isOverlapping(BoundingBox a, BoundingBox b) { XYZ dxyz = new XYZ(b.topLeft.x - a.topLeft.x, b.topLeft.y - a.topLeft.y, b.topLeft.z - a.topLeft.z); // if b - a is positive, a is first on the axis and we should use its extent // if b -a is negative, b is first on the axis and we should use its extent // check for x axis separation if ((dxyz.x >= 0 && a.bottomRight.x-a.topLeft.x < dxyz.x) // negative scale, reverse extent sum, flip equality ||(dxyz.x < 0 && b.topLeft.x-b.bottomRight.x > dxyz.x)) return false; // check for y axis separation if ((dxyz.y >= 0 && a.bottomRight.y-a.topLeft.y < dxyz.y) // negative scale, reverse extent sum, flip equality ||(dxyz.y < 0 && b.topLeft.y-b.bottomRight.y > dxyz.y)) return false; // check for z axis separation if ((dxyz.z >= 0 && a.bottomRight.z-a.topLeft.z < dxyz.z) // negative scale, reverse extent sum, flip equality ||(dxyz.z < 0 && b.topLeft.z-b.bottomRight.z > dxyz.z)) return false; // not separated on any axis, overlapping return true; } public static boolean isContactEdge(int xyzAxis, BoundingBox a, BoundingBox b) { switch(xyzAxis) { case XYZ.XCOORD: if(a.topLeft.x == b.bottomRight.x || a.bottomRight.x == b.topLeft.x) return true; return false; case XYZ.YCOORD: if(a.topLeft.y == b.bottomRight.y || a.bottomRight.y == b.topLeft.y) return true; return false; case XYZ.ZCOORD: if(a.topLeft.z == b.bottomRight.z || a.bottomRight.z == b.topLeft.z) return true; return false; } return false; } /** * Sweep test min extent value * @param box * @param xyzCoord * @return */ public static float min(BoundingBox box, int xyzCoord) { switch(xyzCoord) { case XYZ.XCOORD: return box.topLeft.x; case XYZ.YCOORD: return box.topLeft.y; case XYZ.ZCOORD: return box.topLeft.z; default: return 0f; } } /** * Sweep test max extent value * @param box * @param xyzCoord * @return */ public static float max(BoundingBox box, int xyzCoord) { switch(xyzCoord) { case XYZ.XCOORD: return box.bottomRight.x; case XYZ.YCOORD: return box.bottomRight.y; case XYZ.ZCOORD: return box.bottomRight.z; default: return 0f; } } /** * Test if bounding box A will overlap bounding box B at any point * when box A moves from position 0 to position 1 and box B moves from position 0 to position 1 * Note, sweep test assumes bounding boxes A and B's dimensions do not change * * @param a0 box a starting position * @param a1 box a ending position * @param b0 box b starting position * @param b1 box b ending position * @param aCollisionOut xyz of box a's position when/if a collision occurs * @param bCollisionOut xyz of box b's position when/if a collision occurs * @return */ public static boolean sweepTest(BoundingBox a0, BoundingBox a1, BoundingBox b0, BoundingBox b1, XYZ aCollisionOut, XYZ bCollisionOut) { // solve in reference to A XYZ va = new XYZ(a1.topLeft.x-a0.topLeft.x, a1.topLeft.y-a0.topLeft.y, a1.topLeft.z-a0.topLeft.z); XYZ vb = new XYZ(b1.topLeft.x-b0.topLeft.x, b1.topLeft.y-b0.topLeft.y, b1.topLeft.z-b0.topLeft.z); XYZ v = new XYZ(vb.x-va.x, vb.y-va.y, vb.z-va.z); // check for initial overlap if(BoundingBox.isOverlapping(a0, b0)) { // java pass by ref/value gotcha, have to modify value can't reassign it aCollisionOut.x = a0.topLeft.x; aCollisionOut.y = a0.topLeft.y; aCollisionOut.z = a0.topLeft.z; bCollisionOut.x = b0.topLeft.x; bCollisionOut.y = b0.topLeft.y; bCollisionOut.z = b0.topLeft.z; return true; } // overlap min/maxs XYZ u0 = new XYZ(); XYZ u1 = new XYZ(1,1,1); float t0, t1; // iterate axis and find overlaps times (x=0, y=1, z=2) for(int i = 0; i < 3; i++) { float aMax = max(a0, i); float aMin = min(a0, i); float bMax = max(b0, i); float bMin = min(b0, i); float vi = XYZ.getCoord(v, i); if(aMax < bMax && vi < 0) XYZ.setCoord(u0, i, (aMax-bMin)/vi); else if(bMax < aMin && vi > 0) XYZ.setCoord(u0, i, (aMin-bMax)/vi); if(bMax > aMin && vi < 0) XYZ.setCoord(u1, i, (aMin-bMax)/vi); else if(aMax > bMin && vi > 0) XYZ.setCoord(u1, i, (aMax-bMin)/vi); } // get times of collision t0 = Math.max(u0.x, Math.max(u0.y, u0.z)); t1 = Math.min(u1.x, Math.min(u1.y, u1.z)); // collision only occurs if t0 < t1 if(t0 <= t1 && t0 != 0) // not t0 because we already tested it! { // t0 is the normalized time of the collision // then the position of the bounding boxes would // be their original position + velocity*time aCollisionOut.x = a0.topLeft.x + va.x*t0; aCollisionOut.y = a0.topLeft.y + va.y*t0; aCollisionOut.z = a0.topLeft.z + va.z*t0; bCollisionOut.x = b0.topLeft.x + vb.x*t0; bCollisionOut.y = b0.topLeft.y + vb.y*t0; bCollisionOut.z = b0.topLeft.z + vb.z*t0; return true; } else return false; } }

    Read the article

  • Collision planes confusion

    - by Jeffrey
    I'm following this tutorial by thecplusplusguy and in the linked video he explain that for example for the world basement and walls we need to create the actual rendered (shown to the player) walls and then duplicate them, place them in the same coordinates as the rendered walls and call them collision (by defining their material to collision). Then it defines in the Object loader function that those objects with material == collision are collision planes and should not be rendered but just used to check collision. Now I'm pretty confused. Why would we add this kind of complexity to a problem that can easily be solved by a simple loadObject(string plane_object, bool check_collision);: Creating only the walls object (by loading .obj file in plane_object) Define them also as collision planes whenever the check_collision is set to true In this case we have lowered the complexity of his method and make it more flexible and faster to develop (faster because we don't always have to make a copy for each plane and flexible because we don't hardcode the Object loader). The only case in which this method could not work is when we need hidden collision planes, and for that we could modify the loadObject() function like this: loadObject(string plane_object, bool check_collision = true, bool hide_object = false); Creating only the walls object (by loading .obj file in plane_object) Define them also as collision planes whenever the check_collision is set to true And add the ability to actually show the object or hide it based on hide_object. The final question is: am I right? What would the possible problem encountered with my solution versus his?

    Read the article

  • Point line collision reaction

    - by user4523
    I am trying to program point line segment collision detection and reaction. I am doing this for fun and to learn. The point moves (it has a velocity, and can be controlled by the user), whilst the lines are strait and stationary. The lines are not axis aligned. Everything is in 2D. It is quite straight forward to work out if a collision has occurred. For each frame, the point moves from A to B. AB is a line, and if it crosses the line segment, a collision has occurred (or will occur) and I am able to work out the point of intersection (poi). The problem I am having is with the reaction. Ideally I would like the point to be prevented from moving across the line. In one frame, I can move the point back to the poi (or only alow it to move as far as the poi), and alter the velocity. The problem I am having with this approach (I think) is that, next frame the user may try to cross the line again. Although the point is on the poi, the point may not be exactly on the line. Since it is not axis aligned, I think there is always some subtle rounding issue (A float representation of a point on a line might be rounded to a point that is slightly on one side or the other). Because of this, next frame the path might not intersect the line (because it can start on the other side and move away from it) and the point is effectively allowed to cross the line. Firstly, does the analysis sound correct? Having accepted (maybe) that I cannot always exactly position the point on the line, I tried to move the point away from the line slightly (either along the normal to the line, or along the path vector). I then get a problem at edges. Attempting to fix one collision by moving the point away from the line (even slightly) can cause it to cross another line (one shape I am dealing with is a star, with sharp corners). This can mean that the solution to one collision inadvertently creates another collision, which is ignored. Again, does this sound correct? Anyway, whatever I try, I am having difficulty with edges, and the point is occasionally able to penetrate the polygons and cross lines, which is undesirable. Whilst I can find a lot of information about collision detection on the web (and on this site) I can find precious little information on collision reaction. Does any one know of any good point line collision reaction tutorials? Or is my approach too flawed/over complicated?

    Read the article

  • 2D Collision masks for handling slopes

    - by JiminyCricket
    I've been looking at the example at: http://create.msdn.com/en-US/education/catalog/tutorial/collision_2d_perpixel and am trying to figure out how to adjust the sprite once a collision has been detected. As David suggested at XNA 4.0 2D sidescroller variable terrain heightmap for walking/collision, I made a few sensor points (feet, sides, bottom center, etc.) and can easily detect when these points actually collide with non-transparent portions of a second texture (simple slope). I'm having trouble with the algorithm of how I would actually adjust the sprite position based on a collision. Say I detect a collision with the slope at the sprite's right foot. How can I scan the slope texture data to find the Y position to place the sprite's foot so it is no longer inside the slope? The way it is stored as a 1D array in the example is a bit confusing, should I try to store the data as a 2D array instead? For test purposes, I'm thinking of just using the slope texture alpha itself as a primitive and easy collision mask (no grass bits or anything besides a simple non-linear slope). Then, as in the example, I find the coordinates of any collisions between the slope texture and the sprite's sensors and mark these special sensor collisions as having occurred. Finally, in the case of moving up a slope, I would scan for the first transparent pixel above (in the texture's Ys at that X) the right foot collision point and set that as the new height of the sprite. I'm a little unclear also on when I should make these adjustments. Collisions are checked on every game.update() so would I quickly change the position of the sprite before the next update is called? I also noticed several people mention that it's best to separate collision checks horizontally and vertically, why is that exactly? Open to any suggestions if this is an inefficient or inaccurate way of handling this. I wish MSDN had provided an example of something like this, I didn't know it would be so much more complex than NES Mario style pure box platforming!

    Read the article

  • Detecting collision between ball (circle) and brick(rectangle)?

    - by James Harrison
    Ok so this is for a small uni project. My lecturer provided me with a framework for a simple brickbreaker game. I am currently trying to overcome to problem of detecting a collision between the two game objects. One object is always the ball and the other objects can either be the bricks or the bat. public Collision hitBy( GameObject obj ) { //obj is the bat or the bricks //the current object is the ball // if ball hits top of object if(topX + width >= obj.topX && topX <= obj.topX + obj.width && topY + height >= obj.topY - 2 && topY + height <= obj.topY){ return Collision.HITY; } //if ball hits left hand side else if(topY + height >= obj.topY && topY <= obj.topY + obj.height && topX + width >= obj.topX -2 && topX + width <= obj.topX){ return Collision.HITX; } else return Collision.NO_HIT; } So far I have a method that is used to detect this collision. The the current obj is a ball and the obj passed into the method is the the bricks. At the moment I have only added statement to check for left and top collisions but do not want to continue as I have a few problems. The ball reacts perfectly if it hits the top of the bricks or bat but when it hits the ball often does not change directing. It seems that it is happening toward the top of the left hand edge but I cannot figure out why. I would like to know if there is another way of approaching this or if people know where I'm going wrong. Lastly the collision.HITX calls another method later on the changes the x direction likewise with y.

    Read the article

  • Java : 2D Collision Detection

    - by neko
    I'm been working on 2D rectangle collision for weeks and still cannot get this problem fixed. The problem I'm having is how to adjust a player to obstacles when it collides. I'm referencing this link. The player sometime does not get adjusted to obstacles. Also, it sometimes stuck in obstacle guy after colliding. Here, the player and the obstacle are inheriting super class Sprite I can detect collision between the two rectangles and the point by ; public Point getSpriteCollision(Sprite sprite, double newX, double newY) { // set each rectangle Rectangle spriteRectA = new Rectangle( (int)getPosX(), (int)getPosY(), getWidth(), getHeight()); Rectangle spriteRectB = new Rectangle( (int)sprite.getPosX(), (int)sprite.getPosY(), sprite.getWidth(), sprite.getHeight()); // if a sprite is colliding with the other sprite if (spriteRectA.intersects(spriteRectB)){ System.out.println("Colliding"); return new Point((int)getPosX(), (int)getPosY()); } return null; } and to adjust sprites after a collision: // Update the sprite's conditions public void update() { // only the player is moving for simplicity // collision detection on x-axis (just x-axis collision detection at this moment) double newX = x + vx; // calculate the x-coordinate of sprite move Point sprite = getSpriteCollision(map.getSprite().get(1), newX, y);// collision coordinates (x,y) if (sprite == null) { // if the player is no colliding with obstacle guy x = newX; // move } else { // if collided if (vx > 0) { // if the player was moving from left to right x = (sprite.x - vx); // this works but a bit strange } else if (vx < 0) { x = (sprite.x + vx); // there's something wrong with this too } } vx=0; y+=vy; vy=0; } I think there is something wrong in update() but cannot fix it. Now I only have a collision with the player and an obstacle guy but in future, I'm planning to have more of them and making them all collide with each other. What would be a good way to do it? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Unit and Integration testing: How can it become a reflex

    - by LordOfThePigs
    All the programmers in my team are familiar with unit testing and integration testing. We have all worked with it. We have all written tests with it. Some of us even have felt an improved sense of trust in his/her own code. However, for some reason, writing unit/integration tests has not become a reflex for any of the members of the team. None of us actually feel bad when not writing unit tests at the same time as the actual code. As a result, our codebase is mostly uncovered by unit tests, and projects enter production untested. The problem with that, of course is that once your projects are in production and are already working well, it is virtually impossible to obtain time and/or budget to add unit/integration testing. The members of my team and myself are already familiar with the value of unit testing (1, 2) but it doesn't seem to help bringing unit testing into our natural workflow. In my experience making unit tests and/or a target coverage mandatory just results in poor quality tests and slows down team members simply because there is no self-generated motivation to produce these tests. Also as soon as pressure eases, unit tests are not written any more. My question is the following: Is there any methods that you have experimented with that helps build a dynamic/momentum inside the team, leading to people naturally wanting to create and maintain those tests?

    Read the article

  • Box2D: How to get the Exact Collision Point and ignore the collision (from 2 "ghost bodies")

    - by Moritz
    I have a very basic problem with Box2D. For a arenatype game where you can throw scriptable "missiles" at other players I decided to use Box2D for the collision detection between the players and the missiles. Players and missiles have their own circular shape with a specific size (varying). But I don´t want to use dynamic bodies because the missiles need to move themselve in any way they want to (defined in the script) and shouldnt be resolved unless the script wants it. The behavior I look for is as following (for each time step): velocity of missiles is set by the specific missile script each missile is moved according to that velocity if a collision accurs now, I want to get the exact position of impact, and now I need a mechanism to decide if the missile should just ignore the collision (for example collision between two fireballs which shouldnt interact) or take it (so they are resolved and dont overlap anymore) So is there a way in Box2D to create Ghost bodies and listen to collisions from them, then deciding if they should ignore the collision or should take them and resolve their position? I hope I was clear enough and would be happy about any help!

    Read the article

  • How to get the Exact Collision Point and ignore the collision (from 2 "ghost bodies")

    - by Moritz
    I have a very basic problem with Box2D. For a arenatype game where you can throw scriptable "missiles" at other players I decided to use Box2D for the collision detection between the players and the missiles. Players and missiles have their own circular shape with a specific size (varying). But I don´t want to use dynamic bodies because the missiles need to move themselve in any way they want to (defined in the script) and shouldnt be resolved unless the script wants it. The behavior I look for is as following (for each time step): velocity of missiles is set by the specific missile script each missile is moved according to that velocity if a collision accurs now, I want to get the exact position of impact, and now I need a mechanism to decide if the missile should just ignore the collision (for example collision between two fireballs which shouldnt interact) or take it (so they are resolved and dont overlap anymore) So is there a way in Box2D to create Ghost bodies and listen to collisions from them, then deciding if they should ignore the collision or should take them and resolve their position? I hope I was clear enough and would be happy about any help!

    Read the article

  • Collision detection with curves

    - by paldepind
    I'm working on a 2D game in which I would like to do collision detection between a moving circle and some kind of static curves (maybe Bezier curves). Currently my game features only straight lines as the static geometry and I'm doing the collision detection by calculating the distance from the circle to the lines, and projecting the circle out of the line in case the distance is less than the circles radius. How can I do this kind of collision detection in a relative straightforward way? I know for instance that Box2D features collision detection with Bezier curves. I don't need a full featured collision detection mechanism, just something that can do what I've described.

    Read the article

  • Box2d too much for Circle/Circle collision detection?

    - by Joey Green
    I'm using cocos2d to program a game and am using box2d for collision detection. Everything in my game is a circle and for some reason I'm having a problem with some times things are not being detected as a collision when they should be. I'm thinking of rolling up my own collision detection since I don't think it would be too hard. Questions are: Would this approach work for collision detection between circles? a. get radius of circle A and circle B. b. get distance of the center of circle A and circle B c. if the distance is greater than or equal to the sum of circle A radius and circle B radius then we have a hit Should box2d be used for such simple collision detection? There are no physics in this game.

    Read the article

  • How does a collision engine work?

    - by JXPheonix
    Original question: Click me How exactly does a collision engine work? This is an extremely broad question. What code keeps things bouncing against each other, what code makes the player walk into a wall instead of walk through the wall? How does the code constantly refresh the players position and objects position to keep gravity and collision working as it should? If you don't know what a collision engine is, basically it's generally used in platform games to make the player acutally hit walls and the like. There's the 2D type and the 3D type, but they all accomplish the same thing: collision. So, what keeps a collision engine ticking?

    Read the article

  • Get collision details from Rectangle.Intersects()

    - by Daniel Ribeiro
    I have a Breakout game in which, at some point, I detect the collision between the ball and the paddle with something like this: // Ball class rectangle.Intersects(paddle.Rectangle); Is there any way I can get the exact coordinates of the collision, or any details about it, with the current XNA API? I thought of doing some basic calculations, such as comparing the exact coordinates of each object on the moment of the collision. It would look something like this: // Ball class if((rectangle.X - paddle.Rectangle.X) < (paddle.Rectangle.Width / 2)) // Collision happened on the left side else // Collision happened on the right side But I'm not sure this is the correct way to do it. Do you guys have any tips on maybe an engine I might have to use to achieve that? Or even good coding practices using this method?

    Read the article

  • Resolving a collision between point and moving line

    - by Conundrumer
    I am designing a 2d physics engine that uses Verlet integration for moving points (velocities mentioned below can be derived), constraints to represent moving line segments, and continuous collision detection to resolve collisions between moving points and static lines, and collisions between moving/static points and moving lines. I already know how to calculate the Time of Impact for both types of collision events, and how to resolve moving point static line collisions. However, I can't figure out how to resolve moving/static point moving line collisions. Here are the initial conditions in a point and moving line collision event. We have a line segment joined by two points, A and B. At this instant, point P is touching/colliding with line AB. These points have unit mass and some might have an initial velocity, unless point P is static. The line is massless and has no explicit rotational component, since points A and B could freely move around, extending or contracting the line as a result (which will be fixed later by the constraint solver). Collision is inelastic. What are the final velocities of the points after collision?

    Read the article

  • most efficient AABB vs Ray collision algorithms

    - by Asher Einhorn
    Is there a known 'most efficient' algorithm for AABB vs Ray collision detection? I recently stumbled accross Arvo's AABB vs Sphere collision algorithm, and I am wondering if there is a similarly noteworthy algorithm for this. One must have condition for this algorithm is that I need to have the option of querying the result for the distance from the ray's origin to the point of collision. having said this, if there is another, faster algorithm which does not return distance, then in addition to posting one that does, also posting that algorithm would be very helpful indeed. Please also state what the function's return argument is, and how you use it to return distance or a 'no-collision' case. For example, does it have an out parameter for the distance as well as a bool return value? or does it simply return a float with the distance, vs a value of -1 for no collision? (For those that don't know: AABB = Axis Aligned Bounding Box)

    Read the article

  • How and when to use UNIT testing properly

    - by Zebs
    I am an iOS developer. I have read about unit testing and how it is used to test specific pieces of your code. A very quick example has to do with processing JSON data onto a database. The unit test reads a file from the project bundle and executes the method that is in charge of processing JSON data. But I dont get how this is different from actually running the app and testing with the server. So my question might be a bit general, but I honestly dont understand the proper use of unit testing, or even how it is useful; I hope the experienced programmers that surf around StackOverflow can help me. Any help is very much appreciated!

    Read the article

  • Collision detection on a 2D hexagonal grid

    - by SundayMonday
    I'm making a casual grid-based 2D iPhone game using Cocos2D. The grid is a "staggered" hex-like grid consisting of uniformly sized and spaced discs. It looks something like this. I've stored the grid in a 2D array. Also I have a concept of "surrounding" grid cells. Namely the six grid cells surrounding a particular cell (except those on the boundries which can have less than six). Anyways I'm testing some collision detection and it's not working out as well as I had planned. Here's how I currently do collision detection for a moving disc that's approaching the stationary group of discs: Calculate ij-coordinates of grid cell closest to moving cell using moving cell's xy-position Get list of surrounding grid cells using ij-coordinates Examine the surrounding cells. If they're all empty then no collision If we have some non-empty surrounding cells then compare the distance between the disc centers to some minimum distance required for a collision If there's a collision then place the moving disc in grid cell ij So this works but not too well. I've considered a potentially simpler brute force approach where I just compare the moving disc to all stationary discs at each step of the game loop. This is probably feasible in terms of performance since the stationary disc count is 300 max. If not then some space-partitioning data structure could be used however that feels too complex. What are some common approaches and best practices to collision detection in a game like this?

    Read the article

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