Path-Finding == A.I.
3D == insert any rendering API
If you understand the theory, go program it. You're a programmer, not a copy&paster.. right?
Path-finding why always use 2D only to demo your ideas??
Author
nope.But if we all had to re-invent the wheel everytime,we would
all be walking -;)
My offer still stands pipo the clown...are you up to it,or are you too busy? or just blowing steam??
<Edit> your a programmer right? do you want a job actually being payed to any bank account paypal account? for what your saying is easy work...then i must be a fool right? the offer still stands ..or? if your serious please comment more..
if not then i know your just blowing steam -;)
all be walking -;)
My offer still stands pipo the clown...are you up to it,or are you too busy? or just blowing steam??
<Edit> your a programmer right? do you want a job actually being payed to any bank account paypal account? for what your saying is easy work...then i must be a fool right? the offer still stands ..or? if your serious please comment more..
if not then i know your just blowing steam -;)
From what I've read of A* it should be easily adaptable to 3d tiles. But then again I've never programmed a pathfinder, and my game's map design lends itself to that algorithm.
The problem with 'real life' 3d pathfinding is that it's never generally implimented. I mean what 3d games exist? Space games, where pathfinding is pretty much plotting a line... and FPS games. FPS' though vary so significantly in their implimentation of maps and graphs and movement, that creating a general pathfinding algorithm is challenging.
Most implimentations I've heard of convert their maps into 2d structures by selecting higher branches in their map trees and designating them as waypoints. Then the 3rd dimension is simply added to the distance/weight calculation between the nodes/waypoints. Once the monster/enemy gets to the waypoint, a seperate AI controls their movement and the actual engage/dodge/hide/run logic.
The problem with 'real life' 3d pathfinding is that it's never generally implimented. I mean what 3d games exist? Space games, where pathfinding is pretty much plotting a line... and FPS games. FPS' though vary so significantly in their implimentation of maps and graphs and movement, that creating a general pathfinding algorithm is challenging.
Most implimentations I've heard of convert their maps into 2d structures by selecting higher branches in their map trees and designating them as waypoints. Then the 3rd dimension is simply added to the distance/weight calculation between the nodes/waypoints. Once the monster/enemy gets to the waypoint, a seperate AI controls their movement and the actual engage/dodge/hide/run logic.
Author
Exactly Telastyn...most of the theory goes right out of the top window and your left with a * Lot * of guess work.
Pipo are you still there?
Pipo are you still there?
Quote:Original post by npc
Exactly Telastyn...most of the theory goes right out of the top window and your left with a * Lot * of guess work.
Pipo are you still there?
Well, the theory still holds, it just becomes an implimentation dependant problem [ex. How to make this BSP tree look like a mess of nodes and paths] rather than a general one.
As others have said, doing pathfinding in 2d [each node has 2-8 paths from it] to 3d [each node has 3-26 paths from it] to 4d [each node has 4-62? paths from it]... isn't any different to the algorithms.
And a suggestion... Internet routing is the same thing as pathfinding. It though is more arbitrary than game pathfinding, and might give you better examples.
I'll do it for you ... if you buy me a new car... deal?
gamedev is about learning and you seem very opposed to learning it yourself?
gamedev is about learning and you seem very opposed to learning it yourself?
npc, first of all. I am not trying to attack or harass you, I'm just suggesting that you (try to) implement it yourself. These forums aren't really for arguing, but for problem solving, so I won't be responding to off-topics.
Why would implementing path-finding in 2D (instead of 3D) would be reinventing the wheel?
Why would implementing path-finding in 2D (instead of 3D) would be reinventing the wheel?
Author
Nugget5555... Lol ok then,which car do you want?
gamedev used to be about learning...time is more important than learning 'inside-out'something that is mostly the same/common in every 3D game.
I have nothing against learning...I do however,have something against wasting my time caused by people that haven't applied something to real world problems before they take credit for being so called 'great' game programmers or intelligent AI programmers in the AI field,or being classed as a great book author/article writer.
Pipo,no problem...offer still stands though if you think it is easy work, though,i can tell you that it wouldn't be from experience-;)
Telastyn...
Well,that is what this post is really all about..
Having a theory about something without showing a real implementation is almost totally useless.I have theories about things all the time,but that doesn't mean they will be of any use in the 'real world'.
As you can see,this began as more of a rant out of frustration more than anything else.
Take popular books like gems.Why not have the main article(the theory)then have both a simple implementation in DirectX and Open GL.Would that be really that difficult for them to do?
Why only use OpenGL? there are enough people that contribute to these books(so called proffessionals in that field) that could take one contributors idea and implement it using the other API,even if the original writer only knew how to program in OGL.
Everyone who is anyone knows that everything is moving more and more away from OpenGL and DirectX is becoming the overall leader of the 2 API's(PC PLATFORM mainly).
Why use OpenGL? because it was much easier to implement that idea using that API(yes i have looked at that source (Section 3)).
Which makes the idea(s) almost irrelivent if your using a more modern API such as DirectX.Those ideas are/were difficult to apply using the latest DirectX API.
Anyone that still says that anything that can be applied such as a theory paper in 2D (and is equally the same (except for the extra dimension(s)using another API is either mislead or blowing steam...and doesn't have any real experience).
Sorry,but i stand by that statement.
gamedev used to be about learning...time is more important than learning 'inside-out'something that is mostly the same/common in every 3D game.
I have nothing against learning...I do however,have something against wasting my time caused by people that haven't applied something to real world problems before they take credit for being so called 'great' game programmers or intelligent AI programmers in the AI field,or being classed as a great book author/article writer.
Pipo,no problem...offer still stands though if you think it is easy work, though,i can tell you that it wouldn't be from experience-;)
Telastyn...
Well,that is what this post is really all about..
Having a theory about something without showing a real implementation is almost totally useless.I have theories about things all the time,but that doesn't mean they will be of any use in the 'real world'.
As you can see,this began as more of a rant out of frustration more than anything else.
Take popular books like gems.Why not have the main article(the theory)then have both a simple implementation in DirectX and Open GL.Would that be really that difficult for them to do?
Why only use OpenGL? there are enough people that contribute to these books(so called proffessionals in that field) that could take one contributors idea and implement it using the other API,even if the original writer only knew how to program in OGL.
Everyone who is anyone knows that everything is moving more and more away from OpenGL and DirectX is becoming the overall leader of the 2 API's(PC PLATFORM mainly).
Why use OpenGL? because it was much easier to implement that idea using that API(yes i have looked at that source (Section 3)).
Which makes the idea(s) almost irrelivent if your using a more modern API such as DirectX.Those ideas are/were difficult to apply using the latest DirectX API.
Anyone that still says that anything that can be applied such as a theory paper in 2D (and is equally the same (except for the extra dimension(s)using another API is either mislead or blowing steam...and doesn't have any real experience).
Sorry,but i stand by that statement.
Your pathfinding algorithm, and indeed any pathfinding algorithm should be completely independant of the rendering API you use. That they both take map data is irrelevant. If your design has the map in some format that makes pathfinding difficult, but rendering easy, that's a design issue, not a problem with perfectly good pathfinding algorithms.
Author
I appreciate your insight Telastyn..but it takes us right back to the beginning of my post..why always use 2D only to demo your ideas?
This may be slightly off-of what we are talking about now,but tell me,have you seen any examples in 3D using DirectX?
If there isn't any examples showing their actual implementations
(regarding map formats/grids etc that differ in difficulty)using rendering API's such as DirectX,then can you tell me how is anyone supposed to know how to implement these algo's into realtime-3D-games as apposed to MFC/GDI applications?
I'll check back here in the morning(12:30 here in the UK)
off to sleep now...
Thanks for the input.
This may be slightly off-of what we are talking about now,but tell me,have you seen any examples in 3D using DirectX?
If there isn't any examples showing their actual implementations
(regarding map formats/grids etc that differ in difficulty)using rendering API's such as DirectX,then can you tell me how is anyone supposed to know how to implement these algo's into realtime-3D-games as apposed to MFC/GDI applications?
I'll check back here in the morning(12:30 here in the UK)
off to sleep now...
Thanks for the input.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
