Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


ANSI C - pixel perfect collision


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
12 replies to this topic

#1 DrNicholas   Members   -  Reputation: 130

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 07 June 2014 - 02:11 PM

Hello,

 

I making this topic because someone told me in the other threads to just make it a new one. First I am going to post my code and then talk.

typedef struct HITBOX
{
	/* This is for the hitbox's dimensions */
	int x, y;
	int w, h;
	/* This is for pixel perfect collision */
	int surface_n;
	int surface_e;
	int surface_s;
	int surface_w;
} HITBOX;
int collision( HITBOX A, HITBOX B ) {
	int a_left, a_right, a_top, a_bottom;
	a_left = A.x;
	a_right = A.x + A.w;
	a_top = A.y;
	a_bottom = A.y + A.h;

	int b_left, b_right, b_top, b_bottom;
	b_left = B.x;
	b_right = B.x + B.w;
	b_top = B.y;
	b_bottom = B.y + B.h;

	if( a_bottom <= b_top || a_top >= b_bottom || a_right <= b_left || a_left >= b_right ) {
		return false;
	} else {
		return true;
	}
}
int t = 0;
HITBOX TILE;
int world_collision( HITBOX A ) {
	for( t = 0; t < total_tiles; t++ ) {
		TILE.x = levelbox[t].x;
		TILE.y = levelbox[t].y;
		TILE.w = levelbox[t].w;
		TILE.h = levelbox[t].h;
		if( collision( A, TILE ) == true ) {
			A.surface_n = TILE.y;
			A.surface_e = TILE.x + TILE.w;
			A.surface_s = TILE.y + TILE.h;
			A.surface_w = TILE.x;
			return true;
		}
	}
	return false;
}
int collision_lua( lua_State *L ) {
	if( strcmp(lua_tostring(L, 1), "world") == 0 )
		return world_collision( player.hitbox );
	return 0;
}

My collisions technically are pixel perfect, but because the game object inside the lua file moves at a float (although I have done the rounding method to prevent that, I still get the player hovering or inside by 1/2 pixels time to time). I came up with the surface variables inside HITBOX so that when there is a collision (with the level), the hitbox will touch that surface, and i won't see any floating/sinking. The problem is I can't figure out how to return those surface variables easily. I was asking some people, and they told me to do

int world_collision( HITBOX *A ) {
	for( t = 0; t < total_tiles; t++ ) {
		TILE.x = levelbox[t].x;
		TILE.y = levelbox[t].y;
		TILE.w = levelbox[t].w;
		TILE.h = levelbox[t].h;
		if( collision( A, TILE ) == true ) {
			A->surface_n = TILE.y;
			A->surface_e = TILE.x + TILE.w;
			A->surface_s = TILE.y + TILE.h;
			A->surface_w = TILE.x;
			return true;
		}
	}
	return false;
}

I will get the errors:

 

actor.c: In function 'world_collision':
actor.c:72:3: error: incompatible type for argument 1 of 'collision'
actor.c:45:5: note: expected 'HITBOX' but argument is of type 'struct HITBOX *'
actor.c: In function 'collision_lua':
actor.c:104:3: error: incompatible type for argument 1 of 'world_collision'
actor.c:66:5: note: expected 'struct HITBOX *' but argument is of type 'HITBOX'

although if I change one line to:

if( collision( *A, TILE ) == true ) {

I just get the errors in function 'collision_lua'. If I do:

return world_collision( *player.hitbox );

I will get the issue:

 

actor.c: In function 'collision_lua':
actor.c:104:27: error: invalid type argument of unary '*' (have 'HITBOX')

Does anybody have any ideas what thing needs changed, and willing to show me? Thanks



Sponsor:

#2 rip-off   Moderators   -  Reputation: 8120

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 07 June 2014 - 04:04 PM

The correct code to pass a pointer to the player's hitbox would be:
world_collision( &player.hitbox );
I would also note that "t" and TILE" could be local variables in "world_collision":
int world_collision( HITBOX *hitbox ) {
	for(int t = 0; t < total_tiles; t++ ) {
                HITBOX tile;
		tile.x = levelbox[t].x;
		tile.y = levelbox[t].y;
		tile.w = levelbox[t].w;
		tile.h = levelbox[t].h;
		if( collision( *hitbox , tile) == true ) {
			hitbox->surface_n = tile.y;
			hitbox->surface_e = tile.x + tile.w;
			hitbox->surface_s = tile.y + tile.h;
			hitbox->surface_w = tile.x;
			return true;
		}
	}
	return false;
}
Code that uses global variables is generally harder to understand and change than code with local variables, so this would be preferred. Here, it is obvious that no other code depends on the values of "t" and "TILE" being set by this function.

I would also note that you don't seem to have a consistent naming scheme for variables. In some cases you use lowercase, such as a_left, others you use TILE and A. While the exact scheme is not important, being consistent makes code easier to understand.

#3 DrNicholas   Members   -  Reputation: 130

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 07 June 2014 - 06:05 PM

ANSI C does not allow you to initialize a variable inside a for statement, or at the very least my GCC compiler won't. Will try defining TILE inside it though, doesn't that make a bunch of them or are they cleared from memory?

 

EDIT:

thanks, it works


Edited by DrNicholas, 07 June 2014 - 06:20 PM.


#4 LennyLen   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3730

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 07 June 2014 - 08:46 PM

Also, just for the record:  What you are doing is NOT pixel perfect collision, it is bounding box collision.  Unless every object in your world is a rectangle.



#5 rip-off   Moderators   -  Reputation: 8120

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 08 June 2014 - 05:21 AM

ANSI C does not allow you to initialize a variable inside a for statement, or at the very least my GCC compiler won't.

It should if you specify -std=c99. If you don't want to do this, you can declare it just before the loop:
int world_collision( HITBOX *hitbox ) {
	int t;
	for(t = 0; t < total_tiles; t++ ) {
                HITBOX tile;
		tile.x = levelbox[t].x;
		tile.y = levelbox[t].y;
		tile.w = levelbox[t].w;
		tile.h = levelbox[t].h;
		if( collision( *hitbox , tile) == true ) {
			hitbox->surface_n = tile.y;
			hitbox->surface_e = tile.x + tile.w;
			hitbox->surface_s = tile.y + tile.h;
			hitbox->surface_w = tile.x;
			return true;
		}
	}
	return false;
}

Will try defining TILE inside it though, doesn't that make a bunch of them or are they cleared from memory?

The necessary memory will be allocate when the function is called and deallocated when it returns, so no it doesn't have any drawbacks. It is only manual memory allocation (such as malloc/free or external library calls) that you have to worry about.

#6 Bacterius   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 8533

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 08 June 2014 - 05:24 AM


It should if you specify -std=c99.

 

That's not ANSI C anymore though (admittedly GCC's default setting isn't either, but some gnu89 variant).


The slowsort algorithm is a perfect illustration of the multiply and surrender paradigm, which is perhaps the single most important paradigm in the development of reluctant algorithms. The basic multiply and surrender strategy consists in replacing the problem at hand by two or more subproblems, each slightly simpler than the original, and continue multiplying subproblems and subsubproblems recursively in this fashion as long as possible. At some point the subproblems will all become so simple that their solution can no longer be postponed, and we will have to surrender. Experience shows that, in most cases, by the time this point is reached the total work will be substantially higher than what could have been wasted by a more direct approach.

 

- Pessimal Algorithms and Simplexity Analysis


#7 Chris_F   Members   -  Reputation: 2238

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 08 June 2014 - 05:37 AM

 


It should if you specify -std=c99.

 

That's not ANSI C anymore though (admittedly GCC's default setting isn't either, but some gnu89 variant).

 

 

Why on earth would anyone be using strictly ANSI C in 2014? blink.png  Stuck with Turbo C 2.0 or something?



#8 Bacterius   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 8533

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 08 June 2014 - 05:41 AM

 

 


It should if you specify -std=c99.

 

That's not ANSI C anymore though (admittedly GCC's default setting isn't either, but some gnu89 variant).

 

 

Why on earth would anyone be using strictly ANSI C in 2014? blink.png  Stuck with Turbo C 2.0 or something?

 

 

The thread title does contain "ANSI C" wink.png


The slowsort algorithm is a perfect illustration of the multiply and surrender paradigm, which is perhaps the single most important paradigm in the development of reluctant algorithms. The basic multiply and surrender strategy consists in replacing the problem at hand by two or more subproblems, each slightly simpler than the original, and continue multiplying subproblems and subsubproblems recursively in this fashion as long as possible. At some point the subproblems will all become so simple that their solution can no longer be postponed, and we will have to surrender. Experience shows that, in most cases, by the time this point is reached the total work will be substantially higher than what could have been wasted by a more direct approach.

 

- Pessimal Algorithms and Simplexity Analysis


#9 Bregma   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 5017

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 08 June 2014 - 05:43 AM


That's not ANSI C anymore though (admittedly GCC's default setting isn't either, but some gnu89 variant).

Well, given the phrase "ANSI C" has no distinct meaning, that's a pretty vague statement.

 

GCC is pretty strict about adhering to the various standards when you explicitly set them.  Using -std=c89 you get ISO C 89, using -std=c99 you get ISO C 99, using -std=c11 you get ISO C 2011.  If you want the gnu89 variant, you need to specify -std=gnu89.


Stephen M. Webb
Professional Free Software Developer

#10 Bacterius   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 8533

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 08 June 2014 - 05:50 AM

Not sure what your point is, Bregma, ANSI C can be a couple of things but it certainly isn't C99. And I did say "default", and by default GCC does currently adhere to gnu90 (not gnu89, my mistake) as pointed out in the documentation. Obviously if you ask for a specific standard or dialect you'll get that. Anyway let's not derail the thread further, was just pointing out that the OP might want to stick to ANSI C one way or the other as per the thread title.


Edited by Bacterius, 08 June 2014 - 05:51 AM.

The slowsort algorithm is a perfect illustration of the multiply and surrender paradigm, which is perhaps the single most important paradigm in the development of reluctant algorithms. The basic multiply and surrender strategy consists in replacing the problem at hand by two or more subproblems, each slightly simpler than the original, and continue multiplying subproblems and subsubproblems recursively in this fashion as long as possible. At some point the subproblems will all become so simple that their solution can no longer be postponed, and we will have to surrender. Experience shows that, in most cases, by the time this point is reached the total work will be substantially higher than what could have been wasted by a more direct approach.

 

- Pessimal Algorithms and Simplexity Analysis


#11 DrNicholas   Members   -  Reputation: 130

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 08 June 2014 - 11:13 PM

I use ANSI C because the C Programming Language only covers ANSI C, and http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Portability_and_ANSI_C_Compliance

 

So I may be cut out of some nicer features, but the program still get's done nontheless.



#12 Álvaro   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 12936

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 08 June 2014 - 11:40 PM

The problem is that you are saying
typedef struct HITBOX {...] HITBOX;
Instead, you should be saying
typedef struct {...} HITBOX;


#13 Olof Hedman   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2753

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 09 June 2014 - 04:03 AM


http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Portability_and_ANSI_C_Compliance

 

And as usual, I'm left scratching my head. Sure, portable code is great, and all those arguments are fine, but what has Ansi C to do with it?

Wouldn't my code be just as portable, and I have all those advantages, if I simply wrote it for any of the other standards that have free compilers for pretty much anything?

Like... C++11 or something? :)

 

Sorry for the OT, and I'm not bashing your choice of language, I just... don't understand I guess...






Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS