I'm been developing my own physics engine for a school project and recently I encountered a problem: Per pixel collisions on big sprites make my FPS drop A LOT.
Here's my pixel collision code. Before entering the following code I'm using Intersects() to see if their bounding boxes collided.
private bool PerPixelCollision(IObject a, IObject b)
{
Color[] bitsA = new Color[a.Texture.Width * a.Texture.Height];
a.Texture.GetData(bitsA);
Color[] bitsB = new Color[b.Texture.Width * b.Texture.Height];
b.Texture.GetData(bitsB);
// Calculate the intersecting rectangle
int x1 = Math.Max(a.Bounds.X, b.Bounds.X);
int x2 = Math.Min(a.Bounds.X + a.Bounds.Width, b.Bounds.X + b.Bounds.Width);
int y1 = Math.Max(a.Bounds.Y, b.Bounds.Y);
int y2 = Math.Min(a.Bounds.Y + a.Bounds.Height, b.Bounds.Y + b.Bounds.Height);
Color c;
Color d;
// For each single pixel in the intersecting rectangle
for (int y = y1; y < y2; ++y)
{
for (int x = x1; x < x2; ++x)
{
// Get the color from each texture
c = bitsA[(x - a.Bounds.X) + (y - a.Bounds.Y) * a.Texture.Width];
d = bitsB[(x - b.Bounds.X) + (y - b.Bounds.Y) * b.Texture.Width];
if (c.A != 0 && d.A != 0) // If both colors are not transparent (the alpha channel is not 0), then there is a collision
{
return true;
}
}
}
// If no collision occurred by now, we're clear.
return false;
}
In the example I'm using to test I'm dropping 4 sprites in another sprite that represents the floor (736x79). When I change the sprite that represents the floor to a bigger sprite (3600x270) the FPS drops. I know the problem is in the pixel collision because I'm using a profiler.
Does anyone have any idea on how to optimize the collision?
P.S.: Sorry if I wasn't clear enough about my problem. My english is not so good.
EDIT: The first problem was solved by using the solution provided by #pinckerman but I found another one related to pixel collision detection.
When a sprite collide with a the transparent part of a texture, we get the part that intersected and check all the pixels of that part. The problem is: When the transparent part is big enough to cover the whole sprite, I check the whole texture of that sprite (currently using 50x50 textures which is 2500 pixels). Is there any way to not check the whole texture?
Thanks
I'm pretty sure that your FPS drop so much because you're doing
Color[] bitsA = new Color[a.Texture.Width * a.Texture.Height];
a.Texture.GetData(bitsA);
Color[] bitsB = new Color[b.Texture.Width * b.Texture.Height];
b.Texture.GetData(bitsB);
at the beginning of your method.
I suppose you call your PerPixelCollision every Update loop and creating and coping millions of values every game cycle it's not a very efficient thing to do.
A big sprite creates a huge Color[] array: the bigger are your arrays, the slower will be this method.
EDIT:
For your second problem, I think that, if you don't know beforehand where is the transparent area of your "big" texture, you have to check the whole sprite anyway.
If your sprite it's not too big that's not a big waste of performance.
PS: I see that you get the intersecting Rectangle on your own, maybe you could find useful this method.
Related
I'm trying to create a simple mouse emulator controlled by a joystick's right thumbstick. I was trying to have the mouse move in the direction the stick pointed with a smooth gradient of pressure values dictating speed, but I've hit a number of snags when trying to do so.
The first is how to accurately translate the angle into accurate X and Y values. I can't find a way to implement the angle correctly. The way I have it, the diagonals are likely to move considerably faster than the cardinals.
I was thinking I need something like Math.Cos(angle) for the X values, and Math.Sin(angle) for the Y values to increment the mouse, but I can't think of a way to set it up.
The second, is smooth movement of the mouse, and this is probably the more important of the two. Since the SetPosition() function only works with integers, the rate at which pixels move over time seems very limited. The code I have is very basic, and only registers whole number values of 1-10. That not only creates small 'jumps' in acceleration, but limits diagonal movement as well.
The goal would to have something like 10 pixels-per-second, with the program running at 100hz, and each cycle outputting 0.1 pixel movement.
I'd imagine I might be able to keep track of the pixel 'decimals' for the X and Y values and add them to the axes when they build to whole numbers, but I'd imagine there's a more efficient way to do so and still not anger the SetPosition() function.
I feel like Vector2 objects should get this done, but I don't know how the angle would fit in.
Sample code:
//Poll Gamepad and Mouse. Update all variables.
public void updateData(){
padOne = GamePad.GetState(PlayerIndex.One, GamePadDeadZone.None);
mouse = Mouse.GetState();
currentStickRX = padOne.ThumbSticks.Right.X;
currentStickRY = padOne.ThumbSticks.Right.Y;
currentMouseX = mouse.X;
currentMouseY = mouse.Y;
angle = Math.Atan2(currentStickRY, currentStickRX);
vectorX = (int)( currentStickRX*10 );
vectorY = (int)( -currentStickRY*10 );
mouseMoveVector.X = vectorX;
mouseMoveVector.Y = vectorY;
magnitude = Math.Sqrt( Math.Pow( (currentStickRX - 0), 2 ) + Math.Pow( (currentStickRY - 0), 2 ) );
if (magnitude > 1){
magnitude = 1;
}
//Get values not in deadzone range and re-scale them from 0-1
if(magnitude >= deadZone){
activeRange = (magnitude - deadZone)/(1 - deadZone);
}
Console.WriteLine(); //Test Code
}
//Move mouse in in direction at specific rate.
public void moveMouse(){
if (magnitude > deadZone){
Mouse.SetPosition( (currentMouseX + vectorX), (currentMouseY + vectorY));
}
previousStickRX = currentStickRX;
previousStickRY = currentStickRY;
previousActiveRange = activeRange;
}
Note: I'm using all the xna frameworks.
Anyway, apologies if I'm explaining these things incorrectly. I haven't been able to find a good resource for this, and the vector examples I searched only move in integer increments and from point A to B.
Any help with any part of this is greatly appreciated.
I haven't tried it myself but from my point of view, you should normalize the pad axis after reading them, that way diagonals would move the same speed as cardinals. And for the second part, I would keep track of the mouse in floating variables, such as a Vector2 and do the cast (maybe rounding better) when setting the mouse position.
public void Start()
{
mousePosV2 = Mouse.GetState().Position.ToVector2();
}
public void Update(float dt)
{
Vector2 stickMovement = padOne.ThumbSticks.Right;
stickMovement.Normalize();
mousePosV2 += stickMovement*dt*desiredMouseSpeed;
/// clamp here values of mousePosV2 according to Screen Size
/// ...
Point roundedPos = new Point(Math.Round(mousePosV2.X), Math.Round(mousePosV2.Y));
Mouse.SetPosition(roundedPos.X, roundedPos.Y);
}
So i'm trying to write a simple 3d-application (for study only).
I want to do shading using Phong. So i'm reading this article and see
Since this can be slow, there are various ways you can speed it up if you don't mind a little loss of freedom. If you assume that the light source is at the same place as the camera, then you can ignore the V and H vectors altogether. Instead take the X and Y components of the normal vector, multiply by 128 and add 127 (assuming that is that the magnitude of the normal vector is 1).
okay, i can do it, but now, what should I do with this X and Y? I have array of triangles, each has calculated normal. I'm calculating this X and Y, but what should i do with? This code works, but not properly, because in this case light source is in 0,0,0 when i assume that it's in camera point.
Invalid code is here:
public override void Draw(Graphics graphics, VisualizableShape shape)
{
if (!shape.IsVisible)
return;
base.Draw(graphics, shape); // draw edge
int x = (int) (shape.Normal.X*128 + 127);
int y = (int) (shape.Normal.Y*128 + 127);
int z = x + y;
var color = Color.FromArgb(255, (Pen.Color.R*z)/511, ((Pen.Color.G*z)/511), (Pen.Color.B*z)/511);
graphics.FillPolygon(new SolidBrush(color), shape.Points.CastToPointF());
}
just dunno what should I do in this case...
I understand the theory behind Per Pixel Collision in Xna, you get the texture data from two textures, and then compare them, checking the alpha values of, for example, your character texture.
What I'm wanting to do is use Per Pixel Collision to check if the Player Sprite has touched the map by checking for collisions with a certain colour (Black). I've tried implementing this before, but the characters always falls through the map with no programming errors thrown.
Please point me towards articles/tutorials/videos, or if anybody here could give me some tips and points that would be great too.
I would not check pixel to pixel between two textures, if I were you. Checking just one point vs a map is not too bad, though;
//In Class-scope:
Color[] CollisionMapData;
Texture2D CollisionMap;
public void LoadContent()
{
CollisionMap = Content.Load<Texture2D>("map");
CollisionMapData = new Color[CollisionMap.Width * CollisionMap.Height];
CollisionMap.GetData<Color>(CollisionMapData);
}
public Boolean Collision(Vector2 position)
{
int index = (int)position.Y * CollisionMap.Width + (int)position.X;
if (index < 0 || index >= CollisionMapData.Length) //Out of bounds
return true;
if (CollisionMapData[index] == Color.Black)
return true;
return false;
}
To check the entire player-sprite against a map, you would have to call the Collision-method for each pixel in the players sprite, creating a vector2 to get the right point.
It is a lot easier to check maybe a few points (for instance; topleft, topmiddle, topright, left, right, bottomleft, bottommiddle, bottomright. No need to check middle because sides are already being tested.)
I've got quite a lot of code here, but it's relatively straightforward.
This is all snippets from different classes, all references are right, but I think I've done a math-based error somewhere and I can't find it. It always finds a collision on the y axis a pixel before it should. I haven't tried it with different X axis positions but it seems to fall past blocks next to it fine.
The struct "mapSection" just contains two Vector2s- A top-left block and bottom-left block coordinate.
tileManager.def_ts is the default tile width and height (32). The player's size is 32x64.
The toWorldSpace function does nothing right now other than return so that's not the problem.
When I say block coordinate I mean which index the block is in the tile array (Ex 0, 0 is the first block, 0, 1 is the second block on the Y axis, 1, 3 is 1 block in on the X axis and 3 on the Y axis, I do not mean actual pixels.)
From tile engine class:
public mapSection toMapMinMax(Vector2 position, Vector2 size)
{
position = toWorldSpace(position);
position.X = (float)Math.Floor(position.X / tileManager.def_ts);
position.Y = (float)Math.Floor(position.Y / tileManager.def_ts);
size.X = (float)Math.Floor(size.X / tileManager.def_ts);
size.Y = (float)Math.Floor(size.Y / tileManager.def_ts);
return new mapSection(position, position + size);
}
public bool collision(Vector2 screenPosition, Vector2 size)
{
mapSection mapCollisionPossibilities = toMapMinMax(screenPosition, size);
for (int y = (int)mapCollisionPossibilities.topLeft.Y; y <= mapCollisionPossibilities.bottomRight.Y; y++)
{
for (int x = (int)mapCollisionPossibilities.topLeft.X; x <= mapCollisionPossibilities.bottomRight.X; x++)
{
if (x >= 0 && y >= 0 && y < tiles.Count && x < tiles[y].Count)
{
if (tileManager.tileTypes[tiles[y][x]].collideable == true)
{
return true;
}
}
}
}
return false;
}
And this is the code from the player class:
if (!tEngine.collision(position + new Vector2(0, 1), new Vector2(32, 64)))
{
position.Y += 1;
}
I add "Vector2(0, 1)" because I want to see if there's a collision a pixel further down; so that he falls until he hits something. It's very basic right now but it's only to test the collision engine, which isn't working.
There's a picture of the error. You can see the player is a pixel too high.
In the picture, "X:" is the top-left block coordinate on X axis, "X2:" is the bottom-right block coordinate on the X axis, and same with "Y:" and "Y2: except Y axis. They're read from the mapSection directly.
If anyone can notice why this is happening, it would be massively appreciated.
Thanks.
If you cannot understand any section of the code just post in the comments and I'll be happy to explain, or if you think I've been a bit too unspecific in some area of this post.
EDIT: For the tile coordinates issue, your toMapMinMax code should be more like this:
EDIT2: have subtracted (1, 1) from bottomRight, since it is a size we are adding.
public mapSection toMapMinMax(Vector2 position, Vector2 size)
{
Vector2 topLeft = position;
Vector2 bottomRight = position + size - new Vector2(1, 1);
topLeft.X = (float)Math.Floor(topLeft.X / tileManager.def_ts);
topLeft.Y = (float)Math.Floor(topLeft.Y / tileManager.def_ts);
bottomRight.X = (float)Math.Floor(bottomRight.X / tileManager.def_ts);
bottomRight.Y = (float)Math.Floor(bottomRight.Y / tileManager.def_ts);
return new mapSection(topLeft, bottomRight);
}
Also, I was wrong in my above comment; you do want <= signs in your two for loops, because most of the time you will be checking 6 tiles.
for the off-by-one-pixel issue:
In order for you to see the character off by some amount of pixels, the draw code and the collision code must be different. If they were identical, for example if they were both off by 15 pixels (you collide 15 pixels too early, but you are also drawing 15 pixels ahead), you wouldn't see any change.
The 1 pixel gap indicates a 1 pixel difference between the draw coordinate calculation and the collision coordinate calculation. This 1 pixel difference is most likely caused by differences in rounding, probably that you are calling Math.Floor in the collision code, but are not rounding the coordinates in the draw code. (I would guess you are probably just passing the position Vector2 straight to the SpriteBatch.Draw method).
I'm trying to write a simple raytracer as a hobby project and it's all working fine now, except I can't get soft-shadows to work at all. My idea of soft-shadows is that the lightsource is considered to have a location and a radius. To do a shadow test on this light I take the point where the primary ray hit an object in the scene and cast an n-amount of rays towards the lightsource where each new ray has a random component to every axis, where the random component varies between -radius and radius.
If such a ray hits an object in the scene, I increment a hitcounter (if a ray hits multiple objects, it still only increments with one). If it makes it to the lightsource without collisions, I add the distance of the primary ray's intersect point to the lightsource's center to a variable.
When n samples have been taken, I calculate the ratio of rays that have collided and multiply the color of the light by this ratio (so a light with color 1000,1000,1000 will become 500,500,500 with a ratio of 0.5, where half the rays have collided). Then I calculate the average distance to the lightsource by dividing the distance variable of earlier by the amount of non-colliding rays. I return that variable and the function exits.
The problem is: it doesn't work. Not quite at least. What it looks like can be seen here. You can see it sort of resembles soft-shadows, if you squint real hard.
I don't get it, am I making some sort of fundamental flaw here, or is it something tiny? I'm fairly sure the problem is in this method, because when I count the number of partially lit pixels produced directly by this method, there are only about 250, when there should be a lot more. And when you look closely at the picture, you can see there's some partially lit pixels, suggesting the rest of the code processes the partially lit pixels just fine.
Here's the actual light for soft-shadows class:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
namespace MyFirstRayTracer
{
public class AreaLight : ILight
{
private const int _radius = 5;
private const int _samples = 16;
public Color Color { get; set; }
public Vector Location { get; set; }
#region ILight Members
public float GetLightingInformation(Vector point, ISceneObject[] scene, out Color color)
{
int intersectCount = 0;
float distance = -1;
for(int i = 0; i < _samples; i++)
{
bool intersects = false;
float rand = 0;
rand = _radius - (float)(new Random().NextDouble()*(2*_radius));
foreach (ISceneObject obj in scene)
{
Vector iPoint;
Vector loc = new Vector(Location.X + rand, Location.Y + rand, Location.Z + rand);
if (!obj.Intersect(new Ray(point, loc), out iPoint))
{
distance += (Location - point).SqLength;
}
else
{
intersects = true;
distance -= (Location - point).SqLength;
}
}
if (intersects)
intersectCount++;
}
float factor = 1-((float)intersectCount/_samples);
color = new Color(factor*Color.R, factor*Color.G, factor*Color.B);
return (float)Math.Sqrt(distance / (_samples - intersectCount));
}
#endregion
}
}
minor point but is this the best use of the random class..
for(int i = 0; i < _samples; i++)
{
bool intersects = false;
float rand = 0;
rand = _radius - (float)(new Random().NextDouble()*(2*_radius));
should this not be..
var rnd = new Random()
for(int i = 0; i < _samples; i++)
{
bool intersects = false;
float rand = 0;
rand = _radius - (float)(rnd.NextDouble()*(2*_radius));
Try generating a different "rand" for each component of "loc". As is, your jittered points all lie on a line.
You actually generate the point on the line on a line with direction (1, 1, 1). Is the lightsource really linear?
Also, I can barely see anything in your example. Could you make your camera nearer the to-be shadow and not pointing from the direction of the light?
See, this is why I come to this site :)
Every axis has its own random now, and it looks a lot better. It's still a little weird looking, increasing the number of samples helps though. It now looks like this.
Do you know a more efficient way to reduce the pattern-forming?
The biggest help though: not instantiating Random for every sample. It seriously tripled my rendering speed with soft shadows! I never knew that Random was so costly to instantiate. Wow.
Thanks a lot.
In your response you asked for an improved way to make soft shadows. An improvement could be, instead of randomizing all the rays from the same point, to give each ray a different offset on all axes to effectively give them a seperate little window to randomize in. This should result in a more even distribution. I don't know if that was clear but another way to describe it is as a grid which is perpendicular to the shadow ray. Each tile in the grid contains one of the n shadow rays but the location in the grid is random. Here you can find a part of a tutorial which describes how this can be used for soft shadows.