After many tutorials I am still having trouble understanding viewports and how exactly do they relate to cameras. What exactly do the numbers you put in for example
viewport = new ExtendViewport(10,10,camera)
actually mean? I was using ShapeRenderer and a Texture to see if changing numbers have any effect on how the Rectangle moves around. I used keyDown method of InputProcessor with the implementation like this:
if(keycode== Input.Keys.X){
xRect-=10;
}
No matter what the numbers were in viewport instantiation, the Rectangle always moved for the same amount. Also, the Texture was always drawn at the same place at the same aspect ratio. So what does these numbers actually mean?
Related
Suppose there there is a scene as follows:
There is a scene with the same size as the frame of the device. The scene has a red ball, which is able to move throughout the 'world'. This world is defined by black and white areas, where the ball is ONLY able to move in the area that is white. Here is a picture to help explain:
Parts of the black area can be erased, as if the user is drawing with white color over the scene. This would mean that the area in which the ball can be moved is constantly changing. Now, how would one go about implementing a physicsBody for the an edge between the white and black areas?
I tried redefining the physicsBody every time it is changed, but once the shape becomes complex enough, this isn't a viable solution at all. I tried creating a two-dimensional array of 'boxes' that are invisible and specify whether most of the area within each box is white or black, and if the ball touched a box that was black, it would be pushed back. However, this required heavy rendering and iterating over the array too much. Since my original array contained boxes a little bigger than a pixel, I tried making these boxes bigger to smooth the motion a little, but this eventually caused part of the ball to be stopped by white areas and appear to be inside the black area. This was undesired, since the user could feel invisible barriers that they seemed to be hitting.
I tried searching for other methods to implement this 'destructible terrain' type scene, but the solutions that I found and tried were using other game engines. To further clarify, I am using Objective-C and Apple's SpriteKit framework; and I am not looking for a detailed class full of code, but rather some pseudo-code or implementation ideas that would lead me to a solution.
Thank you.
If your deployment target is iOS 8, this may be what you're looking for...
+ bodyWithTexture:alphaThreshold:size:
Here's a description from Apple's documentation
Creates a physics body from the contents of a texture. Only texels
that exceed a certain transparency value are included in the physics
body.
where a texel is a texture element. You will need to convert an image to the texture before creating the SKPhysicsBody.
I'm not sure if it will allow for a hole in the middle like your drawing. If not, I suspect you can connect two physics bodies, a left half and a right half, to form the hole.
I have a layer with a sprite of a simple black donut. I want the user to be able to draw on the sprite in a different color (which I've managed to do without any problem using CCRenderTexture).
My question is how I can calculate whether the image has been traced at least 95% (meaning, find out when 95% of the black pixels are now the new color). I've tried methods like taking a screenshot of the layer and counting the number of black pixels, but it hasn't worked that well (using this solution: https://stackoverflow.com/a/1262893/1577738).
It would be even better if I could just change the color of each pixel as it's touched (to avoid issues with coloring out of the lines). I could theoretically just split the donut into like 10 sprites and change that section's color if the user touches it, but that seems ridiculous if I give the user options to use a bunch of different colors.
Am I going about this the wrong way? Your suggestions are much appreciated!
Reading pixel colors will be rather inaccurate and slow. I suggest dividing the area into smaller rectangles (ie 8x8 or 4x4) and then flag each as "visited" when the user draws on it. If most rectangle areas are flagged, the user has drawn on most parts of the texture.
I would really love if someone could tell me how to tell whether 2 objects have touched (An image or a button) I know how to make them draggable but not how to tell if they have touched and to do something when they touch!
Thanks!
If you never rotate the objects, you can use CoreGraphics functions.
BOOL objectsTouch = CGRectIntersectsRect(object1.frame, object2.frame);
This requires of course that the two objects are in the same superview. Otherwise you have to transform the frames using functions of the NSView.
The classical approach is to calculate a minimal circle that encompasses each object, then calculate the distance between circle centers (Pythagorean theorem) and see if it's less than R(object1 circle) + R(object2 circle). If less then you have to get down and dirty with bit mapping or some other scheme, but if greater then you can assume the objects don't touch.
Ok, it's a relatively simple problem, I want to know where, in screen space, a particular mesh was just drawn. I plan on then storing that information in a data store of some kind so that when I interact with something in screen space, I can lookup in the register and find the object, i.e, click on the spaceship drawn on the screen and then select target etc.
I can't find any way of finding out which pixels the mesh was drawn to though...
Alternatively, if I'm missing something obvious regarding what it is that I Want to do, please let me know!
There is no easy way to do that. But you can use another texture as render target and render those meshes with unique colors.
So for example you give #FF0000 to your mesh A and draw it also to your second render target with that color. Now when you select a pixel from 2nd render target and look at that color, if it is #FF0000 you can understand that, the pixel is a part of mesh A. Thus you can easily pick the mesh drawn on a certain pixel when you click one of those pixels.
Why dont you Unproject your screen space coords into 3D space? The only complication I had was the fact that I'd be left with a plane, I could check if a Mesh intersected with that plane but I often had multiple candidates for 'picking'.
Check out Google for DirectX Unproject and there are various articles discussing it. It's sometimes complicated for some to implement but done well it's actually pretty nifty; don't get put off by the people online who say it doesn't work, it does work!
I do not really understand the way I'm suppose to render a side-scroller? How do I know what to render when my character move? What kind of positionning should I use for the characters?
I hope my question is clear
The easiest way i've found to do it is have a characterX and characterY variable [integer or float, whatever you want] Then have a cameraX and cameraY variable. Every object in the scene is drawn at theObjectX-cameraX, theObjectY-cameraY...
CameraX/CameraY are tweened by a similar-to-midpoint formula so eventually they'll reach playerx/playery[Cx = (Cx*99+Px)/100] ... yeah
By doing this, every object moves in the stage's space, and is transformed only on render [saving you from headaches]
Use a matrix to define a camera reference frame.
Use space partitioning to split up your level into screens/windows.
Think of your player sprite as any other entity, like enemies and interactive objects.
Now what you want is the abstraction of a camera. You can define a camera as a 3x3 matrix with this layout:
[rotX_X, rotY_X, 0]
[rotX_Y, rotY_Y, 0]
[transX, transY, 1]
The 2x2 sub-matrix in the top-left corner is a rotation matrix. transX and transY defines the translation part, i.e the origin. You also get scaling for free. Just simply scale the rotation part with a scalar, and you have yourself a zoom.
For this to work properly with rotation, your sprites need to be polygons/primitives, say like triangles or quads; you can't just apply the matrix to the positions of the sprites when drawing. If you don't need rotation, just transforming the center point will work fine.
If you want the camera to follow the player, use the player's position as the camera origin. That is the translation vector [transX, transY]
So how do you apply the matrix to entity positions and model vertices? You do a vector-matrix multiplication.
v' = vM^-1, where v' is the new vector, v is the old vector, and M^-1 is the matrix inverse. A camera needs to be an inverse transform because it defines a local coordinate system. An analogy could be: If you are in front of me and I turn left from my reference frame, I am turning your right. This applies to all affine and linear transformations, like scaling, rotation and translation.
Split up your level into sub-parts so you can cull objects and scenery which does not need to be rendered. Your viewport is of a certain size/resolution. Only render scenery and entities which intersect with your viewport. Instead of checking each and every entity against the viewport bounds, assign each entity to a certain sub-screen and test the bounds of the sub-screen against the viewport and camera bounds. If your divide your levels into parts which are the same size as your viewport, then the maximum number of screens visible
at any particular time is:
2 if your camera only scrolls left and right.
4 if your camera scrolls left, right, up and down.
4 if your camera scrolls in any direction, and additionally can be rotated.
A screen-change is an event you can use to activate entities belonging to that screen. That could be enemies, background animations, doors or whatever you like.
If this is your first foray into writing a side-scroller, I'd suggest considering using an already existing game engine (like Construct or Gamemaker or XNA or whatever fits your experience level) so you don't have to worry about what order to render things and how to make it all work. Mess with that a bit--probably exploring a few of them--to get a feel for how they do things then venture out to your own once you've gotten used to it.
Not that there's anything wrong with baptism by fire but it can get pretty overwhelming in my opinion.