I've got retina tile maps working, 15x10 tiles, of 64x64 tiles. problem is for non-retina devices I will need to make a 15x10 tiles of 32x32 tiles. I don't want to recreate the Tile, is it just a case of changing the XML (.tmx) file? Is there an automated tool or another way around this? I've been looking online but not getting too much help.
Thanks
You have to update the TMX file and scale certain attributes. Unless your TMX map is very simple this will be a tedious and error-prone task that's best left to a tool.
There are a variety of TMX rescaling tools out there, but some didn't work for me or simply were incomplete at the time (ie one didn't scale object layers). All the tools I know are generally are written in rather unusual languages (for an iOS developer at least) like Python, Ruby or Bash scripts. Others are only available as binary without the source code.
Check out this cocos2d forum post. Specifically this tool or HDx on the App Store. iTilemaps might also work for you.
Because I wasn't happy with either of the choices, I wrote my own command line tool tmx2scale in Objective-C to rescale TMX maps intelligently in all directions. The tmx2scale tool is not currently available but it will be distributed complete with source code with the KoboldScript Game Kit project.
Related
I have a Windows application that currently renders graphics largely using MFC that I'd like to change to get better use out of the GPU. Most of the graphics are straightforward and could easily be built up into a scene graph, but some of the graphics could prove very difficult. Specifically, in addition to the normal mesh type objects, I'm also dealing with point clouds which are liable to contain billions of Cartesian stored in a very compact manner that use quite a lot of custom culling techniques to be displayed in real time (Example). What I'm looking for is a mechanism that does the bulk of the scene rendering to a buffer and then gives me access to that buffer, a z buffer, and camera parameters such that I can modify them before putting them out to the display. I'm wondering whether this is possible with Direct3D, OpenGL or possibly use a higher level framework like OpenSceneGraph, and what would be the best starting point? Given the software is Windows based, I'd probably prefer to use Direct3D as this is likely to lead to fewest driver issues which I'm eager to avoid. OpenSceneGraph seems to provide custom culling via octrees, which are close but not identical to what I'm using.
Edit: To clarify a bit more, currently I have the following;
A display list / scene in memory which will typically contain up to a few million triangles, lines, and pieces of text, which I cull in software and output to a bitmap using low performing drawing primitives
A point cloud in memory which may contain billions of points in a highly compressed format (~4.5 bytes per 3d point) which I cull and output to the same bitmap
Cursor information that gets added to the bitmap prior to output
A camera, z-buffer and attribute buffers for navigation and picking purposes
The slow bit is the highlighted part of section 1 which I'd like to replace with GPU rendering of some kind. The solution I envisage is to build a scene for the GPU, render it to a bitmap (with matching z-buffer) based on my current camera parameters and then add my point cloud prior to output.
Alternatively, I could move to a scene based framework that managed the cameras and navigation for me and provide points in view as spheres or splats based on volume and level of detail during the rendering loop. In this scenario I'd also need to be able add cursor information to the view.
In either scenario, the hosting application will be MFC C++ based on VS2017 which would require too much work to change for the purposes of this exercise.
It's hard to say exactly based on your description of a complex problem.
OSG can probably do what you're looking for.
Depending on your timeframe, I'd consider eschewing both OpenGL (OSG) and DirectX in favor of the newer Vulkan 3D API. It's a successor to both D3D and OGL, and is designed by the GPU manufacturers themselves to provide optimal performance exceeding both of its predecessors.
The OSG project is currently developing a Vulkan scenegraph known as VSG, which already demonstrates superior performance to OSG and will have more generalized culling ability.
I've worked a bunch with point clouds and am pretty experienced with them, but I'm not exactly clear on what you're proposing to do.
If you want to actually have a verbal discussion about the matter, I'm pretty easy to find (my company is AlphaPixel -- AlphaPixel.com) and you could call us. I'm in the European time zone right now, it's not clear from your question where you are but you sound US-based.
Is there a programmatic way to convert two images into an animation sequence (e.g., an animated GIF) like the following example?
This image sequence, taken from a http://memrise.com course, doesn't seem to have manually-edited frames, but seems automatically transformed using some kind shape morphing algorithm. Is there a common term used to describe such an animation or algorithm? Is there a feature in ImageMagick or Photoshop/Gimp that generates such animations, given a pair of images?
Ideally the technique could be scriptable so I could create animations for several pairs of start-end images.
Edit: I have just been told about Gimp's tool under Filters->Animation->Blend, which appears to do the same thing as jQuery morph: each frame i is start + (finish - start)/N*i. In other words, you're transitioning each pixel independently from the start value to the finish value, without any shape morphing. The example gives is more complicated, as it modifies the contours of both images to achieve its compelling effect.
Other examples:
http://static.memrise.com/uploads/mems/32000121024054535.gif
http://static.memrise.com/uploads/mems/225428000121109232837.gif
I have written a tool that doesn't require setting manual keypoints and is not restricted to a domain (like faces). Anyway, the images have to be similar (e.g. two faces or two cars from the same perspective).
https://github.com/kallaballa/Poppy
There is also a web-version created with emscripten.
I generated the above animation using following command line:
poppy flame.png glyph.png flame.png
Although this is an old question, since ImageMagick is mentioned, for anyone who comes here from google it may be worth looking at this imagemagick plugin called shapemorph.
GIMP can't do that directly, but over the years a series of (now poorly maintaind) plug-ins to do that where released by third parties. The keyword for searching for this is "morph" - you should find a bunch of stand alone programs to do that as well, from "gratis" to full fledged Free Software, such as xmorph
Given pairs of vector files (.wmf extension) it is possible to use linear interpolation of shapenodes in Visual Basic for Applications to create frames for GIF animations , though this would take along time to explain. For some examples see
http://www.giless.co.uk/animatorMorphGIFs.htm (it is like a slideshow)
I have made some improvements since then, as well!
I have a project in which we (me and my student) will develop a system for robot.
In this robot we have a camera that capture.
My question is how to detect motions, movements.
Is there a solution?? Which technics and tools to use ??
Which language to use (possible for Java for example) ??
Thanks in advance.
Best regards.
Ali
Consider using OpenCV:
http://opencv.org
It has a lot of useful vision algorithms built in, and supports, C, C++ and Python, as well as GPU functionality.
I will suggest you Microsoft Visual Studio wich is an integrated development environment and c# programming language. Emgu CV library wich is a cross platform .Net wrapper to the OpenCV image processing library. A simple method from a static position is this:
Convert a single frame to grayscale.
Convert a new frames from real time into grayscale.
Make abstractions between the first frame and new frame from real time.
The result of this is a third, new frame comprised of the differences between the first two. Use erosion and thresholding for that to get a frame with white representing the motioned section and black representing the rest of the space.
If the objects you attempt to track have a distinct color, you should be able to target them adequately.
One way to accomplish this is to choose an appropriate space for color as RGB space. Keep in mind this may be too sensitive, even to small illumination variance. (It really depends on the objects you want to track and tracking scenario.)
You can use OpenCV
Here you can find a C++ tutorial: http://blog.cedric.ws/opencv-simple-motion-detection
using two cameras instead of one could be useful in your project, for detecting depth in the image and real distance of a motion (in a perspective vision)
Stereoscopic depth rendition
Real-time detection of independent motion using stereo
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm a beginner in game development and game programming. I have experience in computer graphics - mainly OpenGL
In those days Finally, I have some spare time to polish my game coding skills.
But when coming to program a simple 3d game, I couldn't find any good resource for free textures and models for 3d graphics (for 2d game for example, I found many resources for sprite sheets and so on).
Is there any good resource you're familiar with for 3d game textures/models?
This is not a programming queston.
As far as I know, good, free and high-quality modeling resources does not exist (from "good", "free" and "high-quality", select two).
There are multiple free model repositories, but quality of content is generally poor, and there are few places where you can buy models.
There are free textures in multiple places (like this one), and they are easier to find than good free models.
Also, most of free content frequently includes some kind of catch - "non-commercial use only", "creative commons share alike"(i.e. if you make derivative, it should use same license), or it is under GPL.
Anyway, if you're okay with "Creative Commons share alike" and GPL, then you can probably use content from some of opensource games (OpenArena ), and get quite a lot of textures from wikipedia or wikimedia commons, flickr, and you can google for "free textures". You should be careful about using content from opensource games - some opensource projects (like war$ow and sauerbraten) use closed-source/restricted licenses for game content (i.e. you're free to reuse modify engine, but you cannot modify game content and you cannot use it with modified engine. Reasons are pretty obvious).
Anyway, it depends on what kind of model you want. It is pretty easy to find "easy" stuff like boxes, barrels, etc, because everyone can do that. When it comes to guns and vehicles, there will be a trouble - quality will drop, and number of good models will decrease. And if you want a fully rigged animated character with multiple animation, normally you can forget about it - such content is almost impossible to find. But you can probably use mods for Q3 and Q2 if you want characters (you can forget about physics in this case, though)
I'd recommend to forget about "free stuff", and try to make content yourself or hire someone to do that.
If you decide to make content yourself, then you'll need digital photo camera and (optionally) graphic tablet. You can make mediocre textures from photos (digital camera is cheap) using gimp, gimp-resynthesizer plugin, gimp-texturisze plugin, high-pass filters, etc. You can also make normal maps using blender or gimp, and there are even tutorials about extracting them from photos (you still will need to process them by hand). Modeling and animation can be done in blender (after 1 or two weeks of training) using reference photos. Low poly modeling is pretty quick (20 minutes to make a low-poly low-quality gun, hour or two to make simple character), but texture and animation will take more (setting up animation for character can take a few hours for amateur, making one animation for character will take at least several hours as well, making texture unwrap - hour, painting texture - up to few days, depending on quality you want, available reference material, availability of graphic tablet, etc). It is possible to cut corners a bit - for example, for making animations, you can film motion using photo camera(or video camera), and then use it for rotoscoping. Also, you'll need to find some kind of model format blender can export to, or you'll have to write an export plugin in python.
The Blender foundation has a large model repository which may be of use.
There are some free models at Turbosquid that I use sometimes for my XNA games.
But of course, the best stuff is not free.
My experience is that there is very little in the way of quality 3d models with animation and full rigging freely available. There a few companies like this who sell suitable models cheaply and I guess most hobbyists could afford one or two models from them fairly easily which would probably be sufficient for learning. (I have no connection to them but I did buy one model pack from them which I quite liked)
It would be nice if there were a few more generally freely available 3d animated models around though. I even think it might be in the interests of some of the companies that make them to give a few away. If I'd been able to get further in my hobby projects I might have spent £100-200 in total on some nice model packs to make my project better, but due to the lack of any real 3d animated models I ended up losing interest in all my 3d projects before I got to the point of thinking maybe I'd spend a little money on this hobby. I wonder if the availability of a few more free quality models would actually significantly increase the size of the market for those companies as more people got their projects to the point where they were willing to spend a little money on it.
Some company should make a nice model pack with a few static models and a couple of fully rigged and animated humans and "monsters" and say that if the community donates £10000 they'll release them for free use. I suspect there are enough people out there who would like a few quality models they might reach this target in the same way that Blender was originally sold to the public.
I know that it's been a long time since this question was asked, but I ran into same problem when programming in XNA and I found a good solution. As long as you don't need rigged / animated models, Google Warehouse is the best place to search. As far as I know, each model submitted to Google Warehouse is available on Creative Commons license. You just need to:
Download and install Google Sketchup (Sketchup download)
Browse to find a model (Google Warehouse) - there's a 3D preview for each one!
Get a plugin to export Sketchup models to .X - I recommend the '3D RAD' plugin (3D RAD download)
If your model does not look good after the export, try to separate it into several less complex ones.
you are looking for open game art ...
http://thefree3dmodels.com/ has a multitude of free 3D models. I've used a few of these for animation purpose, maybe it'll help you too.
Initial tests indicate that GDI+ (writing in VB.NET) is not fast enough for my purposes. My application needs to be able to draw tens of thousands of particles (coloured circles, very preferably anti-aliased) in a full screen resolution at 20+ frames per second.
I'm hesitant to step away from GDI+ since I also require many of the other advanced drawing features (dash patterns, images, text, paths, fills) of GDI+.
Looking for good advice about using OpenGL, DirectX or other platforms to speed up particle rendering from within VB.NET. My app is strictly 2D.
Goodwill,
David
If you want to use VB.NET, then you can go with XNA or SlimDX.
I have some experience in creating games with GDI+ and XNA, and I can understand that GDI+ is giving you trouble.
If I where you I'd check out XNA, it's much faster than GDI+ because it actually uses your video card for drawing and it has a lot of good documentation and examples online.
SlimDX also looks good but I don't have any experience with it. SlimDX is basically the DirectX API for .NET.
The only way to get the speed you need is to move away from software rendering to hardware rendering... and unfortunately that does mean moving to OpenGL or DirectX.
The alternative is to try and optimise your graphics routines to only draw the particles that need to be drawn, not the whole screen/window.
I would agree with JaredPar that you're better off profiling first to determine if your existing codebase can be improved before making a huge switch to a new framework. DirectX is not the easiest framework if you're unfamiliar with it.
The most significant speed increase I found, when writing a game maker with GDI+, was to convert my bitmaps to Format32bppPArgb;-
SuperFastBitmap = ConvertImagePixelFormat(SlowBitmap, Imaging.PixelFormat.Format32bppPArgb)
If they are not in this format already, you'll see the difference immediately when you convert.
It's possible the problem is in your algorithm and not GDI+. Profiling is the only way to know for sure. Without a profile it's very possible you will switch to a new GUI framework and hit the exact same problems.
If you did profile, what part of GDI+ was causing a problem?
As Jared said,
it could be that a significant fraction of your cycles are not going into GDI, and you might be able to reduce those.
A simple way to find those is to halt it at random a few times and examine the stack. The chance that you will catch it in the act of wasting time is equal to the fraction of time being wasted.
Any instruction or call instruction that appears on more than one such sample is something that, if you could replace it, you would see a speedup.
In general, the method is this.
As you're working in VB.net, have you tried using WPF (Part of .net since 3.0)? As WPF is based on DirectX rather than GDI+, that should give you the speed you need, although developing WPF is not straight-forward at all.
Because the GDI+ is not moved by the graphics card, it's slow to render because it uses the CPU to render. At least, you can use DirectX or SlimDX.
(sorry for bad english)
See This: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ff729480%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/159586/Starting-DirectX-with-Visual-Basic-NET