Basically i want to do CTRL+R in between the edges that are in orange1 but when i do CTRL+R it creates the edge to the whole plane2 how can i make it so it only creates the edges in the area i want? I tried to change the vertices that are created in the new edges but it messes the whole plane and also I tried to delete them but as there are so many and it also deletes the faces it's not very efficient.
The loop cut tool will cut through a quad and all quads connected to its target sides.
To stop the loop cut, you want the cuts to run into a non-quad face. In the example you show, you have an ngon at the end of of the face you want to cut, I would change that so that the two faces on either side of the target face are ngons.
See that the top example will cut through connected faces, while the lower one stops in the one face.
Another option, that doesn't provide the multiple parallel cuts is the knife tool, this allows you to cut between the points you specify and doesn't continue through any other areas. You can also use the knife tool to turn the sides next to your target into ngons so that the loop cut will stop there.
To remove the extra edges that you don't want, use X->Dissolve Edges, or if that makes things collapse, use X->Limited Dissolve
Related
Let's say you have an image such as this...
... and you want to quickly and easily scatter it around to create foliage. How would you achieve this aside from using a pattern fill or pattern stamp tool? (Both of which have the problem of abrupt edges.)
This is the sort of result I'm looking for, where none of the instances have cut-off edges, but in a way that doesn't involve me manually copying, scaling, and rotating each and every one.
If there is a way to either paint this with a brush, or even simply click to stamp these where each click results in a single instance of the image randomly scaled and rotated, that would be amazing.
After having used PS my whole life, this is the first time I've needed to do this, and I am baffled that it doesn't seem to exist.
I'm trying to build a descending graph in Cytoscape. I've got the majority done quite well, but now I'm stuck on the edge types. I'd like to use something like the 'segments' curve-style, where my edges have points.
However, instead of being zig-zags, I would like the edges to be constrained to horizontal/vertical lines.
My graph is pretty constrained and the user cannot manipulate the positions. I would like the edges to start at the 'parent' element, go straight down a set amount, then hit a point, turn, head horizontally to the same X as the child, then straight down to the child element.
Right now, the lines go straight, and I can add segments easily, but they aren't constrained and are based on percentages that I won't have access to without doing a bunch of math, which I guess isn't terrible.
Current:
Desired:
If you want specific absolute positions on segments edges, you'll need to convert the absolute co-ordinates to the relative co-ordinates that you specify for segments edges.
If you want a different type of edges for your usecase, feel free to propose it in the issue tracker.
Im am creating a game where the character will be able to run about a prison only able to see walls and characters within its line of sight. The following screenshot is the desired effect.
Desired effect
However I have a problem where some walls are covered up due to the top corner not being visible as seen here.
Bottom right corner wall is covered
I am using the following code
checkPlayersx = x
checkPlayersy = y
if(!collision_line(checkPlayersx,checkPlayersy,obj_player.x,obj_player.y,obj_wall,1,0)
When looking at the bottom right block, the field of view is obstructed by the top and left tiles. You may have to find an other way to trigger this block.
You might encounter this issue with some other angular blocks too. What you could do is create a new object, that would have as parent the standard wall bloc, but it would take the ID of the adjacent blocks and light up if one of the adjacent blocks it lit up.
To detect the adjacent blocks during creation, it will be essential to create this block after it's neighbors. You can use the instance_nearest() function to detect them.
But the technique I would use is slightly different. I would create a cross-shaped sprite that would, when put in place of the block, cover the centers of the adjacent blocks, and use precise collision checking. At the creation of the wall, I would replace the wall sprite by the cross, and detect collisions with the adjacent walls. All adjacent walls IDs would be stored and checked every step for lighting in order to trigger the lighting of the wall. Then I would go back to the normal wall sprite, and voilà !
Hoping this helps.
I am in the process of making my 2D engine for a Beat'em Up game (Castle Crashers is what I call Beat'em Up or Brawler kind of game ).
I will support 2D sprites and 2D particle emitters. This is all done in the engine now. But I have come to an issue that I would like to ask for advice:
It's about "space" management, what I thought was to do something as this image shows:
alt text http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/9162/spacingprototype1.png
My idea is to make a grid ( Spatial Hash or Grid ), of the ground where my Particle Emitters / 2D sprites will live. In my picture, I have enumerated this slots from 1 to N, (don't have to be 35, it's just for showing purposes ). My idea is to draw the "GameElements" (Sprites/Emitters) in order from 0 to N , ( going from bucket 0 to bucket N ) , so then I will get them to display correctly overlapped on screen (back to forward).
I know this could be done by just comparing the lower Y axis of each Element and performing a "quicksort" too, but having the Grid could allow me to perform Collision Detection in a better way , and if I do something like A* to implement some kind of AI, it could help me too.
If you want to have some sort of optimization for the number of objects you need to test against each other, you might want to think about using a Quadtree
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadtree
The idea is to divide the screen up in 4 nodes, placing all items in the node they belong, then divide the nodes you just created up in another 4 if there are sprites/items/whatever in there that need to be tested. Keep doing this until a certain size or amount of items in a node has been reached.
You can then ask the top-node if it contains the item you want to test. This node will then ask the child-nodes if it contains the item, which in their turn will ask their children. This way a large part of the screen can be skipped already (if it's located in child 00, you can skip child 01, 10 and 11). Then you get a list of items you perform more specific collision detection on when it's desired to do so.
If you were to make it visual, it would look a bit like this:
alt text http://geodata.ethz.ch/geovite/tutorials/L2GeodataStructuresAndDataModels/en/images/quadtree.gif
Fire them out to the Z buffer and let that worry about it.
If you find that in the future it is too slow (via profiling obviously) then look at optimizing it.
Take the simplest solution and move on.
Your method fails if you have two sprites occupying the same box in the grid. Suppose you have two enemies both standing in the same box. One stands slightly in front of the other. Which do you draw first? You would need two algorithms - one which divides the sprites into the grid, and the second which looks at the z co-ordinates of all the sprites in a given grid box and draws them based on that value.
A far simpler method is to have a single collection of all sprites. It should store all sprites sorted by their z co-ordinates (from the back of the screen at the head of the list to the front of the screen at the back). Loop through the collection and draw each sprite as it appears. When a sprite moves into or out of the screen (ie. its z co-ordinate changes) you can perform a very simple sort to move that single sprite within the collection. Keep swapping it with the next sprite in the list until the next sprite's z co-ordinate is greater than/less than (as appropriate) the changed sprite's co-ordinate.
Well, i was thinking of making a Tetravex solving program in order to practice my code writing skills (language will propably be Visual Basic) and I need help finding an algorithm for solving it. For those that don't know what tetravex is see this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TetraVex . The only algorithm I can come up with is the brute force way, place a tile randomly in one corner and try every possible tile next to it and continue the same process, if it reaches a dead end revert to a previous state and place a different tile. So can anyone come up with a better algorithm? Thank you for your time.
here some ideas.
A vanilla brute force algorithm would try to fill out the grid recursively by enumerating the grid positions in a fixed order (e.g. row major) and always trying to fit every possible piece in the current position and then recursing. This is what you mentioned and it is very inefficient.
An improvement is to always count for every free position the number of pieces that fit there, and then recurse on the position that has least fits; if one has zero fitting pieces, backtrack immediately; if there is one where only one piece fits fill that and continue (no branch created); otherwise select the one that has least fitting pieces (≥ 2) and continue from there.
Once you have this algorithm in place, the next question is how you can prune the search space more. If have, say, A pieces with "1" on the top position and B pieces with "1" on the bottom position, and A > B, then you know that at least A - B of the "1 at top position" pieces must be actually placed on the top row, so you can exclude them from any other position. This helps to reduce the branching factor and to spot dead-ends earlier.
You should also check at every recursion step that every piece has at least one spot where it fits (do this check after verifying that there is no piece that fits in only one place for speed). If there is a piece that doesn't fit anywhere you need to backtrack immediately. You can extend this to checking that every pair of pieces fits for a potentially better earlier dead-lock checking capability.
There is a also a strategy called "non-chronological backtracking" or "backjumping" which originates from research into SAT solving. This helps you to backtrack more than one level at a time when you reach a dead-end; if you want, you can google for these terms to find more, but you need to do some mental work to map the concept into your problem space.
A first improvement would be counting how many matching pairs of numbers there are, and if, say, there are 5 "1"'s on the top of squares, but only 4 on the bottom, then there must be a "1" pointing off the top of the grid.
At any given partly solved board I would
look for a place where none of the remaining tiles could be played. If found, the board must be unwound to the last place a tile was played randomly.
Look for a place where only 1 of the remaining tiles can legally be played. If found, place that tile.
Place a tile randomly at the spot on the board where the fewest number of remaining tiles can legally be played. Remember this board layout before I lay the tile, I may want to unwind back to this board and play a different tile.
In pseudocode it would be
top:
evaluate # of tiles that match at each empty square
if any square has 0 matches, unwind to <prev>
if any square has 1 match, lay tile, goto top
save current board as <prev>
play randomly at square with minimum number of matches, goto top
As an optimization, you can ignore evaluating squares that don't touch any squares that have tiles, since they will always allow all remaining tiles.
It looks like Tetravex is a Constraint Satisfaction Problem, so you want to limit your options as quickly as possible. It should be possible to do better than random placement. How about?:
Create links between all tile faces with their possible matches.
Any tile with an unlinked face must be an edge tile.
Any tile with two adjacent unlinked faces must be a corner tile.
Center tiles must have four active links.
Now, place a tile in a valid location and invalidate links that are used. If any un-placed tile contains three unlinked faces or unlinked faces on opposite sides, the move is invalid and you can backtrack.
You should be able to use tile face links to look for the next possible tile versus searching through all tiles. If there isn't one, backtrack.
I wrote a solver for Tetravex and used a different approach and it seems very efficient. I built up possible valid relationships increasing the size. So each iteration gives me larger puzzle pieces to work with while reducing the number of puzzle of pieces, so to speak.
I start by creating a list of all possible connections between tiles from bottom to top and a list of all possible connections between tiles from right to left.
From these two lists, I build a list of all possible valid 2x2 combinations.
Using the 2x2 list, I build a list of all possible valid 3x3 combinations.
From there I can go 4x4 by using the 2x2 and 3x3 lists, or do 5x5 by just using the 3x3 list.
Right now my code does each iteration separately, but should be able to be cleaned up to handle each iteration with the same code which would allow for larger grid sizes.
This also seems like a great situation for using a neural net, and I might give that a try next.