I'm writing my own game and game engine. One thing that I'm getting confused on is I'm not sure what to do when I draw nearby players. There could be 0 players nearby or multiple. Should I dynamically allocate mesh instances as players walk in range and delete them as players walk out of range or should I use static allocation and keep a resource pool of mesh instances to be used as needed?
If you're coding some MMORPG with a lot of characters you might destroy your meshes if you haven't seen the corresponding actor for a while, but in a 12 player FPS just keep them in memory at all times; no use re-constructing them and re-uploading data to the graphics card.
Prior to rendering, just decide whether or not to render each mesh (or world 'chunk'). Common culling operations are (in order):
Distance culling: if the mesh/actor is > X distance from the camera, cull it
View frustrum culling: if the mesh/actor is outside the viewing volume, cull it
Occlusion culling (optional, I suppose): culls meshes/actors behind solid geometry. This is pretty advanced I'd say.
Related
I have a 2D sidescrolling game. Right now, in order to jump, the player must be touching the ground. Therefor, I have a boolean, isOnGround, that is set to YES when the player collides with a tile object, and no when the player jumps. This generates a LOT of calls to didBeginContact method, slowing down the game.
Firstly, how can I optimise this by using one big physics body for the tiles on the floor (for example clustering multiple adjacent tiles into one single physics body)?
Secondly, is this even efficient? Is there a better way to detect if the play is on the ground? My current method opens up a lot of bugs, for example wall jumping. If a player collides with a wall, isOnGround becomes YES and allows the player to jump.
Having didBeginContact called numerous times should in no way slow down your game. If you are having performance issues, I suspect the problem is probably elsewhere. Are you testing on device or simulator?
If you are using the Tiled app to create your game map, you can use the Objects Layer to create a individual objects in your map which your code can translate into physics bodies later on.
Using physics and collisions is probably the easiest way for you to determine your player's state in relation to ground contact. To solve your wall issue, you simply make a wall contact a different category than your ground. This will prevent the isOnGround to be set to YES.
You could use the physics engine to detect when jumping is enabled, (and this is what I used to do in my game). However I too have noticed significant overhead using the physics engine to detect when a unit was on a surface and that is because contact detection in sprite kit for whatever reason is expensive, even when collisions are already enabled. Even the documentation notes:
For best performance, only set bits in the contacts mask for
interactions you are interested in.
So I found a better solution for my game (which has 25+ simultaneous units that all need surface detection). Instead of going through the physics engine, I just did my own surface calculation and cache the result each game update. Something like this:
final class func getSurfaceID(nodePosition: CGPoint) -> SurfaceID {
//Loop through surface rects and see if position is inside.
}
What I ended up doing was handling my own surface detection by checking if the bottom point of my unit was inside any of the surface frames. And if your frames are axis-aligned (your rectangles are not rotated) you can perform even faster checks to see if the point is inside the frame.
This is more work in terms of level design because you will need to build an array of surface frames either dynamically from your tiles or manually place surface frames in your world (this is what I did).
Making this change reduced the cpu time spent on surface detection from over 20% to 0.1%. It also allows me to check if any arbitrary point lies on a surface rather than needing to create a physics body (which is unnecessary overhead). However this solution obviously won't work for you if you need to use contact detection.
Now regarding your point about creating one large physics body from smaller ones. You could group adjacent floor tiles using a container node and recreate a physics body that fits the nodes that are grouped. Depending on how your nodes are grouped and how you recycle tiles this can get complicated. A better solution would be to create large physics bodies that just overlap your tiles. This would reduce the number of total physics bodies, as well as the number of detections. And if used in combination with the surface frames solution you could really reduce your overhead.
I'm not sure how your game is designed and what its requirements are. I'm just giving you some possible solutions I looked at when developing surface detection in my game. If you haven't already you should definitely profile your game in instruments to see if contact detection is indeed the source of your overhead. If you game doesn't have a lot of contacts I doubt that this is where the overhead is coming from.
I've been reading a book called "iOS Games by Tutorials" (recommend it to anyone interested in making iPhone games) & I'm learning how to make Tiled Maps with Sprite Kit with an overhead view (like the legend of zelda link's awakening). So far, I have made a tiled map using tiles that are 32x32, placed the player character & several NPC's into the world. Even made the NPC's randomly move around the map, though the way it teaches in the book is having them move from tile to tile (any of the 8 tiles surrounding the NPC at any time - if a tile has some property such as categoryBitMask then it won't move to that tile).
I am going to change NPC movement to physics-based (which is its own problem) just like the player character has right now (which means NPC's will collide with objects that have a physicsBody like the player character does). It's more fluid & dynamic.
But here is where the question begins. I want to implement Pathfinding (such as the A* algorithm) into the NPC & player character movement due to the map containing buildings, water, trees, etc. with their own physicsBodies. It's one thing to limit NPC's random movement or to force them to walk a predetermined path (which will kill the point of this game), but it's another to have to tap the screen very often to have the player character avoid all the buildings/trees he has to walk past. I don't want to use a grid system. Is it possible to implement some pathfinding algorithm into x,y coordinates? Is this more resource intensive? Could you share your thoughts about this?
Thank you.
This is a very interesting topic.
There are algorithms for finding paths in continuous spaces. For example, you can use a potential based method with the objective having a very low potential and obstacles being "hills" (perhaps infinitely high, although this requires a bit of care). The downside of potential methods is that you have to take special precautions to keep them from getting stuck at a local minimum. Situations like this
P
+----+
| M|
| |
+ ---+
Where M is a monster trying to get to the player, P can occur. In the example, the monster is at a local minimum, and it would have to go to a higher potential in order to get out the door at the lower left of the building. A variant of potential algorithms (in fact, it's often useful to reduce it to one), is to assign anti-gravity to obstacles and gravity to objectives. This is also somewhat non-deterministic and requires special precautions to avoid getting "stuck".
As #rickster points out, SpriteKit provides an SKFieldNode class that can help you implement a potential based solution.
Other approaches include "wall following" (for example, Pledge's algorithm) and are useful for finding your way around in a maze like environment.
One drawback to continuous methods is that NPC movement will often seem a bit unnatural -- for example, even if our monster in the example above is able to decide that it's at a local minimum and increase the "temperature" of it's search (that is, make larger moves, perhaps at random, against the potential gradient), it will bounce around instead of going straight for the door.
An alternative to searching in continuous spaces is to quantize the space. A simple method is to tile it, cover it with polygons, or represent it as a quadtree. Essentially, you want to have a way of mapping every point in the continuous space to a vertex on a graph representing the quantized space. At this point, graph search algorithms like A* and friends are applicable.
Graph search is somewhat resource intensive, but for a 2d zelda like game, it should be doable on a mobile device, especially with various optimizations like only "waking up" NPCs that are within a certain distance of the player (think aggro).
This page is a bit thin on implementation details, but it'll give you the right terms to google.
As always, start simple and iterate. Tiling is incredibly easy, and will let you experiment with the graph search method before optimizing.
I am trying to develop game, which will take place in outer space. We decided to create a full 3D environment. Our goal is to create infinite world - it creates itself automatically when needed. One of our problems is how to create orbital movement of planets in the optimal way. There will be hundreds of them and calculating their new position in every frame sounds really expensive.
We have two ideas how to deal with it:
Calculate every position in a circuit (depends on time) after creating a planet and then during the game just read it from memory. However it sounds like a great waste of memory.
Calculate their movement only if they are in camera vision range. But it creates another problem with collision detection with other objects when off-screen.
My question is: does anybody know how it should be done? I wonder whether we shall focus on CPU or memory usage optimisation?
Recently I've started developing voxel engine. What I need is only colorful voxels without texture, but at very large amount (much smaller than minecraft) - and the question is how to draw the scene very fast? I'm using c#/xna but this is in my opinion not very important in this case, let's talk about general cases. Look at these two games:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKdRri5jSMs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in0bavLJ8KQ
Especially I think video number 2 represents great optimization methods (my gfx card starts choking just at 192 x 192 x 64) How they achieve this?
What i would to have in the engine:
colorful voxels without texture, but shaded
many, many voxels, say minimum 512 x 512 x 128 to achieve something like video #2
shadows (smooth shadows will be great but this is not necessary)
optional: dynamic lighting (for example from fireballs flying, which light up near voxel structures)
framerate minimum 40 FPS
camera have 3 ways of freedom (move in x-axis, move in y-axis, move in z-axis), no camera rotation is needed
finally optional feature may be Depth of Field (it will be sweet ^^ )
What optimization I have already know:
remove unseen voxels that resides inside voxel structure (covered
from six directions by other voxels)
remove unseen faces of voxels - because camera have no rotation and always look aslant forward like in TPP games, so if we divide screen
by vertical cut, left voxels and right voxels will show only 3 faces
keep voxels in Dictionary instead of 3-dimensional array - jumping through array of size 512 x 512 x 128 takes miliseconds which is
unacceptable - but dictionary int:color where int describes packed
3D position is much much faster
use instancing where applciable
occluding? (how to do this?)
space dividing / octtree (is it good idea?)
I'll be very thankful if someone give me a tip how to improve existing optimizations listed above or can share ideas of new improvements. Thanks
1) Voxatron uses a software renderer rather than the GPU. You can read some details about it if you read the comments in this blog post:
http://www.lexaloffle.com/bbs/?tid=201
I haven't looked in detail myself so can't tell you much more than that.
2) I've never played 3D Dot Game Heroes but I don't have any reason to believe it uses voxels at all. I mean, I don't see any cubes being added or deleted. Most likely it is just a static polygon mesh with a nice texture applied.
As for implementing it yourself, do not try to draw the world by rendering cubes as this is very slow. Instead you should process the volume and generate meshes lying on the intersection of solid voxels and empty ones. Break the volume into suitable sized regions (e.g. 32x32x32) and generate a mesh for each.
I have written a book article about this which you might find useful. It's actually about smooth voxel terain but a lot of the priciples stll apply.
You can read it on Google books here: http://books.google.com/books?id=WNfD2u8nIlIC&lpg=PR1&dq=game%20engine%20gems&pg=PA39#v=onepage&q&f=false
And you can find the associated source code here: http://www.thermite3d.org
Since you are using XNA, you can just use instancing to get the desired effect: http://www.float4x4.net/index.php/2010/06/hardware-instancing-in-xna/
http://roecode.wordpress.com/2008/03/17/xna-framework-gameengine-development-part-19-hardware-instancing-pc-only/
The underlying concept is instancing: this feature lets you specify some amount of repeating data and some amount of varying data in a single DrawIndexedPrimitive call. In your case, the instance stream would be a single solid box, and the other stream would be the transform and color information.
I am writing a physics simulation using Ogre and MOC.
I have a sphere that I shoot from the camera's position and it travels in the direction the camera is facing by using the camera's forward vector.
I would like to know how I can detect the point of collision between my sphere and another mesh.
How would I be able to check for a collision point between the two meshes using MOC or OGRE?
Update: Should have mentioned this earlier. I am unable to use a 3rd party physics library as we I need to develop this myself (uni project).
The accepted solution here flat out doesn't work. It will only even sort of work if the mesh density is generally high enough that no two points on the mesh are farther apart than the diameter of your collision sphere. Imagine a tiny sphere launched at short range on a random vector at a huuuge cube mesh. The cube mesh only has 8 verts. What are the odds that the cube is actually going to hit one of those 8 verts?
This really needs to be done with per-polygon collision. You need to be able to check intersection of polygon and a sphere (and additionally a cylinder if you want to avoid tunneling like reinier mentioned). There are quite a few resources for this online and in book form, but http://www.realtimerendering.com/intersections.html might be a useful starting point.
The comments about optimization are good. Early out opportunities (perhaps a quick check against a bounding sphere or an axis aligned bounding volume for the mesh) are essential. Even once you've determined that you're inside a bounding volume, it would probably be a good idea to be able to weed out unlikely polygons (too far away, facing the wrong direction, etc.) from the list of potential candidates.
I think the best would be to use a specialized physics library.
That said. If I think about this problem, I would suspect that it's not that hard:
The sphere has a midpoint and a radius. For every point in the mesh do the following:
check if the point lies inside the sphere.
if it does check if it is closer to the center than the previously found point(if any)
if it does... store this point as the collision point
Of course, this routine will be fairly slow.
A few things to speed it up:
for a first trivial reject, first see if the bounding sphere of the mesh collides
don't calc the squareroots when checking distances... use the squared lengths instead.(much faster)
Instead of comparing every point of the mesh, use a dimensional space division algorithm (quadtree / BSP)for the mesh to quickly rule out groups of points
Ah... and this routine only works if the sphere doesn't travel too fast (relative to the mesh). If it would travel very fast, and you sample it X times per second, chances are the sphere would have flown right through the mesh without every colliding. To overcome this, you must use 'swept volumes' which basically makes your sphere into a tube. Making the math exponentially complicated.