HappyCoderMember Since 28 Apr 2007
Offline Last Active Today, 07:22 PM
- Group Members
- Active Posts 827
- Profile Views 14,912
- Submitted Links 0
- Member Title Member
- Age Age Unknown
- Birthday Birthday Unknown
Posted by HappyCoder on 27 May 2016 - 08:46 AM
If you have determined that two shapes do overlap, determine the smallest amount you need to push one of the shapes to correct the overlap. This however, can result in objects passing through each other if they move fast enough.
See separating axis theorem
The second option is to do a raycast aka swept collision detection. You find out how far in a given direction any obstacle is in front of the player and use that distance to determine if the player can move before moving them. Is actual practice, you usually do sphere casting or capsule casting. Its like ray casting except the ray has thickness. In essense it just determines how far a sphere or capsule shape can move before hitting something. Spheres and capsules, apart from being easier to do collision detection with, also have the benefit of not getting stuck on sharp corners. They just slide over them without a problem.
Here is a simple example for a sphere/plane swept collision. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131790/simple_intersection_tests_for_games.php
Posted by HappyCoder on 21 May 2016 - 10:27 AM
|a| inverse(transpose(M)) * |b| |c| |d|Where ax + by + cz + d = 0 defines a plane
In normalized coordinates the 6 planes in opengl are
[1 0 0 1] [-1 0 0 1] [0 1 0 1] [0 -1 0 1] [0 0 1 1] [0 0 -1 1]where [a b c d] defines a plane
For directx, the last two planes are
[0 0 0 1] [0 0 -1 1]Since we want to transform a plane from normalized space to world space we simply take the transpose of the view projection matrix and
mutliply each of those six planes by that matrix
transpose(view * projection) * pYou notice that we don't take the inverse of the matrix since it is already the inverse of the matrix we actually want to transform it by.
(view * projection goes from world to normalized space, we want to go from normalized space to world space)
The result of multiplying each plane will give a 4 dimensional vector. where x, y, z, w of the vector can be copied over directly to the
plane a, b, c, d respectively.
Notice that the 6 original planes have a lot of 1s and 0s. This means there is a lot of wasted work so when you simplify the multiply, just
end up with adding or subtracting two value from the matrix to get each plane. The simplified extraction can be found in this paper.
Posted by HappyCoder on 05 May 2016 - 01:34 PM
Take a look at the section titled "All Together..." it describes how the require looks for files
Posted by HappyCoder on 29 April 2016 - 05:30 PM
Q q2 = glm::angleAxis(rs.y * (float)dTime, V(1, 0, 0)); // pitch ... m_orientation = q1 * m_orientation * q2;
Posted by HappyCoder on 25 April 2016 - 05:19 PM
On the other hand, a TD without real stats (and you have to guess) is not satisfying in my opinion. So maybe we can show stats but reduce their format: Instead of Armor: 120 we could display Armor: XX--- (=2/5) ? What do you think?
I agree with that. I few stats presented well in an organized way would definitely be useful. As long as you don't overwhelm the user with information I see nothing wrong with that.
Posted by HappyCoder on 22 April 2016 - 11:12 AM
2. The player should never feel overwhelmed with options even though you want to give them many options. This is best done by incrementally introducing new gameplay elements into the game to create a gradual learning curve. Your towers and enemies should best convey their behavior based on appearance as much as possible through its design or attack animations. Any text descriptions of what things do should be kept very short. Most people aren't willing to read a paragraphs of text to learn how to play a game. If its clear what is happening when an enemy or turret attacks then the player can use that information when developing strategies.
Posted by HappyCoder on 21 April 2016 - 10:34 AM
I like them. They are very entertaining. I remember playing some as custom starcraft maps and put a lot of time into that.
Plants vs Zombies would be my favorite tower defense game. It certainly doesn't fit the mold of most tower defense games but some of the ways it varies from the norm is why I like it.
I think most tower defense games don't much to let you counter different types of enemies. Many don't let you know what is coming so you have to blindly make decisions or memorize the order of waves by trail and error. Many don't really have different kinds of enemies, just varying amounts of health. I also think many end up with a dominant strategy where you each level has a single solution that is obviously the best. Again, it often comes down to trail and error. Many of the games strategy simply comes down to determining the optimal places to place your turrets, other than that there aren't many interesting decisions to be made.
A few things I like about Plants vs Zombies. It lets you know what zombies to expect before each wave, this lets you prepare for that zombie type. There are many zombie types that are more than just a higher damage zombie. Each zombie type has a hard counter, magnet shrooms for buckets and football zombies, tallnuts for pole vaulters. The game has enough unique plants to let the player experiment with different strategies. A few strategies I like are using gatling peas with torchwood to produce a high damage per second. You can also you slow peas or blue watermelons to slow down zombies to allow for more damage over a longer time. A row of corn launchers is a fun one. Using onions to force zombies into only a few lanes full of spikes surrounded by gloom shrooms is also effective. There are probably many other strategies I haven't tried, that the freedom to play around with different ideas really adds a lot of replay value. One thing it lacks that I like from other tower defense games are the long winding paths that can very greatly between levels. I definitely see how that would not work in that game, but it would be fun to see a tower defense game that had a depth of strategy with interesting decisions like plants vs zombies, but with long winding paths that would vary greatly from level to level.
Posted by HappyCoder on 19 April 2016 - 10:46 AM
GLFW is its own window and input manager. You will either have to pick one or the other. If you want to go with Qt then this might be useful
Posted by HappyCoder on 15 April 2016 - 01:13 PM
I tend to agree with it because inheritance has caused me plenty of frustrations. I really appreciate what the makers of golang did. They got rid of inheritance and make use of embedding and interfaces instead.
Am I wrong to think that inheritance should be avoided?
Posted by HappyCoder on 11 April 2016 - 11:33 AM
angle *= (1 + distanceBetweenRayAndSphereSurface / sphereRadius);
Posted by HappyCoder on 31 March 2016 - 02:05 PM
If you lerp the Euler inputs your rotation may not take the most direct path. A simple example is lerping between 10 degress and 350 degrees. Instead of rotation 20 degrees it will rotate 340 in the other direction.
Another simple example is if you have an airplane pointed upwards at 45 degrees. Now suppose you have a rocket also nearly pointed up at 45 degrees but rotated 180 degrees around the vertical axis. If you lerped the Euler angles from the plane to the rocket it would rotate 180 degrees around the vertical instead of rotating 90 degrees by continuing to pitch upward. This may be the desired lerping behavior if you were rotating a gun turret, for example. However, in most cases, the properties of a quaternion slerp are much nicer.
Posted by HappyCoder on 25 March 2016 - 12:23 PM
Also, this always motivates me its own weird way
Posted by HappyCoder on 23 March 2016 - 10:09 AM
I don't have frustration in learning and developing games, despite constant discouragement. So should I give up and just turn away from all these discouragement? Maybe I'm not meant to be because people say I'm not meant to be a video game developer? Who can be a video game developer?
I remember when I started making games I felt a little discouraged because I saw what others could create and felt that it was out of my reach. Years later after just focusing on making simple games within my ability, I can now do the things that I thought I couldn't before. Just stick with it, your skills will improve, you can be a game developer.
Posted by HappyCoder on 07 March 2016 - 06:19 PM
You will determine the best shot based on a score. I would score it based on how close it comes to the target, and for moving targets, how much time it would take for impact. Further away shots wont score as high since it would be more likely for the target to move.
This would be a genetic algorithm approach. You could refine it by coming up with another method that can give a good initial direction and velocity, this would make it converge faster. You will also have to fine tune how much to modify the inputs each iteration. You will also need to set a max maximum time you will simulate out to.
Once you have a way to score your shots, you can set a threshold for the score. Once a shot score exceeds a threshold you take the shot. The threshold could slowly drop down each frame to ensure that the enemy eventually shoots, and once the enemy does shoot, you raise the threshold.
I may be over complicating this, but the nice thing about this approach is it pretty flexible. You could add multiple bodies with gravity and it would handle it just fine. You could also simulate moving targets assuming you could accurately predict their future position. The way you score a shot also gives you some flexibility. You could check for collision with things you don't want to hit as part of the score.
You could also reuse the same path predictor to determine if a projectile will hit the AI's ship.
Posted by HappyCoder on 26 February 2016 - 03:46 PM
1. When you move the player, you check to see if the player volume would hit any object and move them to the point of contact then slide along the wall.
2. Move the player then after they moved see if they are overlapping any object. This seems to be the approach you are taking.
Each approach has their advantages and disadvantages. #2 is usually simpler to implement and works well with many dynamic objects. However, fast moving objects can pass through walls or other objects. #1 will keep objects from passing through wall, but sweeping volumes can be tricky to implement
However, you could probably get unity to work how you want without having to resort to making your own collision detection. First of all, use a character controller to move your player around. Character controllers lets you specify how much you want the player to move and it will handle collision for you.