# Pixel perfect collision with SDL

This topic is 4799 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

## Recommended Posts

Here is my code for it, but for some reason it is detecting a collision when there is no collision:
// Returns color at given point on surface.
Uint32 CEngine::SDL_GetPixel(SDL_Surface * surface, int x, int y)
{
int bpp = surface->format->BytesPerPixel;
// Here p is the address to the pixel we want to retrieve
Uint8 * p = (Uint8 *) surface->pixels + y * surface->pitch + x * bpp;

switch(bpp)
{
case(1):
return *p;

case(2):
return *(Uint16 *)p;

case(3):
if(SDL_BYTEORDER == SDL_BIG_ENDIAN)
return p[0] << 16 | p[1] << 8 | p[2];
else
return p[0] | p[1] << 8 | p[2] << 16;

case(4):
return *(Uint32 *)p;

default:
return 0; // shouldn't happen, but avoids warnings
}
}

bool CEngine::SurfaceCollide(SDL_Surface * SA, int Ax1, int Ay1, SDL_Surface * SB, int Bx1, int By1)
{

// Box A;
// Box B;

//Set right and bottom co-ordinates
int Ax2 = Ax1 + SA->w;
int Ay2 = Ay1 + SA->h;

int Bx2 = Bx1 + SB->w;
int By2 = By1 + SB->h;

if( Bx2 < Ax1 )		return false;	// Just checking if their
if( Bx1 > Ax2 )		return false;	// bounding boxes even touch

if( By2 < Ay1 )		return false;
if( By1 > Ay2 )		return false;

// Now lets make the bouding box for which we check for a pixel collision

/*To get the bounding box we do
Ax1,Ay1_____________
|				|
|				|
|				|
|    Bx1,By1_____________
|		|		|		|
|		|		|		|
|_______|_______|		|
|    Ax2,Ay2	|
|				|
|				|
|____________Bx2,By2

To find that overlap we find the biggest left hand cordinate
AND the smallest right hand co-ordinate

To find it for y we do the biggest top y value
AND the smallest bottom y value

Therefore the overlap here is Bx1,By1 --> Ax2,Ay2

Remember	Ax2 = Ax1 + SA->w
Bx2 = Bx1 + SB->w

Ay2 = Ay1 + SA->h
By2 = By1 + SB->h
*/

int bx1 = ( Ax1 > Bx1 ) ? Ax1 : Bx1;
int bx2 = ( Ax2 < Bx2 ) ? Ax2 : Bx2;

int by1 = ( Ay1 > By1 ) ? Ay1 : By1;
int by2 = ( Ay2 < By2 ) ? Ay2 : By2;

// Start at upper left of bounding box
for( int y = by1 ; y <= by2 ; y++ )
{
for( int x = bx1 ; x <= bx2 ; x++ )
{
if ((SDL_GetPixel(SA, x - Ax1, y - Ay1) != TRANS)
&& (SDL_GetPixel(SB, x - Bx1, y - By1) != TRANS))
return true;

}
}

return false; // We searched whole area of overlap and their was
// No collision at all.
}



##### Share on other sites
have you tried taking away the pixel perfect-ness and just checked if the rects are overlapping? (probably a good place to start) and in what case does it detect a collision when there isnt one?

hope that helps
-Dan

##### Share on other sites
I noticed that bx1, bx2, by1, by2 are set depending on the relative position of your 2 sprites, but in the inner portion of the loop where you check each pixel for collision, you're using SA and SB arbitrarily. It seems that half the time, SA should actually be SB, and vice versa. I think you need SDL_Surface pointers that are set using the same conditional logic as bx1, bx2, by1, by2.

##### Share on other sites
I agree with Ademan555. Just to make things simple break your rough and precision based collision apart to ensure that any assumptions that the first test should weed out isn't tweaking the more complicated part of the testing. Then I would try to isolate your testing and where it is failing.

For example, does the test fail only of the two objects are of different size or always? If x-axis aligned, y-axis aligned, etc... When I put together this sort of code a long time ago, the real trick was to get the object size and pixel width stuff dialed in. I was doing the testing a little differently (I took a stream of the memory and did a logical AND of the largest register I could do (64-bits, 32-bits, etc..). You are going about this a little differently so that may not be it - but that is the critical area of getting the test correct.

The only other thing is to make sure the test actually returns the result you are expecting it to.

I dont know if this was useful - but its hard to reproduce the problem without a lot of code, test textures, etc... But these were the areas I had to work through. I am including the article/code that I based my stuff on a while ago - my implementation differed a lot in the end, but hopefully it helps.

/*Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 21:43:13 -0400Subject: Collision Detection - How?Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 23:24:15 -0400Subject: Typo fixed with 2K(K-1) expansionMany people have requested copies of my collision detection code.  I suspect that it's of general interest for the readers of this newsgroup, so I'm posting the code here along with a discussion of the techniques it uses.  Please accept my apologies for the length of this posting.The code was written in C++ on a Macintosh, but I've endeavored to keep the collision detection code close to ANSI C.  Porting it should be a 30 minute affair.  The testing-timing harness is C++- and Macintosh-specific, so it will take, say, an hour longer to port that, if you feel so inclined.OVERVIEWHere's how the code works, roughly speaking.  The screen is divided into "sectors," defined by a regularly-spaced grid.  All objects (e.g., sprites) are placed into the appropriate sectors as determined by the objects' upper-left corners.  Then the objects in each sector are tested for collision with one another, taking advantage of the observation that overlapping objects will usually be classified into the same sector.  This isn't always the case, however, and the code therefore makes well-behaved translations of the grid to ensure that all collisions will be detected and that no false collisions will be reported.NOTESThe first thing to do when you get the code is to look at the declaration of the "obj" structure.  It represents an on-screen object.  For convenience's sake, I've made all my objects 30x30.  That way I can define the x and y data members to be the upper-left corner of an object's bounding rectangle, and when I need the lower-right, I calculate it by adding 30 to x and y.  (That's the way I'd do it in a shoot-'em-up, too.  Each class of objects would have a different size associated with it.  E.g., for a bullet I'd add, say, 8 instead of 30 because they're smaller.)I keep all the objects in a linked list, where the obj_link member is the link between objects.  The sector_link is especially important.  It is used to keep all the objects in a sector in a single linked list.  That's a key to making this collision detection technique work quickly.  Placing each object in its containing sector takes O(1) time, with a low constant, to boot.With that in mind, here's an overview of the implementation:    iterate four times, shifting the sector grid between iterations        place objects into the appropriate sectors        for each sector            check for collisions among its objectsYou may find it interesting that I've chosen to repeat the entire sectorization and per-sector collision checking process four times.  That's how I get around the problems associated with overlapping objects that are placed into adjacent sectors.  Instead of testing for collisions with objects in adjacent sectors, I just shift the entire sector grid and repeat the process.  Before you accuse me of being insane for this "four-shifts" business, you should know that it's asymptotically 20 times faster than testing the adjacent sectors, and about 40 times faster for the most common "real world" cases.  If you're interested in my analysis, it's near the end of my notes. Uninterested readers may feel free to skip it.A side effect of the multiple iterations is that the same collision will sometimes be reported more than once.  For example, if you have two objects directly on top of each other, they will both be placed in the same sector and detected as having collided, regardless of how the sector grid is shifted.  The result: this particular collision will be reported four times.  This isn't a big concern, and there are trivial ways to sidestep the issue, but I think I'd be remiss if I didn't point it out.  I'd hate to have people screaming because particular bullets were packing four times the expected wallop, hurling their innocent spaceships into oblivion.ANALYSIS:  FOUR-SHIFTS vs. ADJACENT-SECTORSBefore you begin thinking that this shift-and-repeat technique is terribly inefficient, consider the alternative, checking adjacent sectors.  Let's say you've got a sector in the middle of the screen; call it S.  Objects in S could collide with objects in adjacent sectors, so you'd have to include all eight of them in your collision testing of S.  How does that affect running time?Assume that objects are randomly distributed over the screen and that there are on average K objects in each sector.  Recall that to test for collisions in each sector, we use a brute-force technique that requires n(n-1)/2 rectangle intersection operations (check it) for n objects.  Now we can compare the four-shifts method with the test-adjacent-sectors method.* Four-shifts method: each sector is checked by itself, at a cost of K(K-1)/2 rectangle tests, but the process is repeated 4 times.  Consequently, the cost to entirely check a sector is 4 * K(K-1)/2 = 2K(K-1) = 2K^2 - 2K.* Adjacent-sectors method: Each sector is checked only once, but its eight neighboring sectors are included in the check.  Define L = (1+8)K be the average number of objects in these 9 sectors.  So the cost per sector is L(L-1)/2 = (9K)((9K)-1)/2 = (81K^2 - 9K)/2.Now, let's calculate the ratio of the two methods' expected number of rectangle tests:            cost of adjacent-sectors   (81K^2 - 9K)/2        R = ------------------------ = --------------              cost of four-shifts         2K^2 - 2KNote that the limit of R as K -> Infinity is 20.25.  Asymptotically, then, the four-shifts method is about 20 times faster than the adjacent-sectors method.  Admittedly, it's unlikely you'll have an infinite number of objects on the screen.  That fact begs the question, how much faster is the four-shifts method for the more common cases in which there are, on average, one, two, or three objects in a sector? Answer: For one object, it's *much* faster; for two, 38 x faster; for three, 30 x faster.The four-shifts method needs to perform *no* tests when there's only a single object in a sector---a very common case.  The adjacent-sectors method, on the other hand, needs an average of 36 tests to handle the same situation.THE CODEHere it is.  Enjoy.  And, let me know how it works on your platform.  If you port the testing-timing harness, please send me the timing results.The code is broken into sections.  They are, in order:    front matter        introductory comments    declarations        defines constants and parameters    test code           testing/timing harness (Mac specific)    sector code         code that puts objects into sectors    helpers             functions that are used by intersection code    intersection code   uses sector and helper code to determine                        object intersections and, hence, collisions======= begin*/// Sector-based collision detection routines &// timing code.//// Tom Moertel 21-Jun-94//// Results for a 25 MHz 68040 Macintosh (not// exactly a screamer) and an 80 MHz PPC 601// Power Macintosh 8100 (this one screams):////                          tests/s//   object count        -68K-  -PPC-////        0               611   7640//       50               340   4020//      100               189   2060//      200                81    788//// where a "test" is defined to be a complete// check of all objects, determining for each// object whether it is involved in a collision// (and if it is, with what other object).//// NOTES//// For this job I made all objects 30x30, but// the code will work for arbitrarily-sized// objects, with the restriction that objects// are smaller than half of kSectorSize.//// This code is far from optimized.  I didn't// even bother to run it through a profiler.// With a little work, it could probably be// twice as fast.//// LEGAL STUFF//// Feel free to use this code in your own// projects, but please give me credit.//// Copyright 1994 by Tom Moertel// moertel@acm.org//// PORTING//// Most of the "real" code is portable C++,// but the testing code uses some Mac-// specific calls, namely Microseconds()// and a few graphics and windowing calls.// To port to the timing code to your platform,// redifine Clock_us() to return the current// state (count) of a fast internal clock in// microseconds.  The Macintosh drawing// code will automaticaly compile out on// non-Mac platforms, so if you want pretty// pictures, you'll have to roll your own.#include <iostream.h>#include <string.h>#include <stdlib.h>#include <math.h>#if defined(macintosh) || defined(__MWERKS__)#include <Types.h>#include <Quickdraw.h>#include <Windows.h>#include <Events.h>#include <Timer.h>#endif// define compilation parameters#if defined(__MWERKS__) || defined (__SC__)#define BRAIN_DEAD_INLINING     // define this to declare "hot"#endif                          // functions as macros instead                                // of C++ inline functions// define test parametersenum{    kMaxObjects     = 200,      // more than you're likely to need    kRectSize       = 30,       // each object is 30 x 30 pixels    kTBase          = 1000000L, // timing is in microseconds    kTestLength     = 30*kTBase,// 30 seconds per experiment    kCycleLength    = 50        // inner timing loop cycles 50 times};// types#if defined(powerc) || defined (__powerc)typedef int scalar;         // fast integer type#elsetypedef short scalar;       // fast integer type#endif// sprite objectstruct obj{    scalar  x, y;           // coords    obj*    sector_link;    // link in sector list    obj*    obj_link;       // link in obj list    // ... other members ...} ;// module-scope globalsstatic obj      gObjects[kMaxObjects];static Boolean  gCollisionArray[kMaxObjects];// forward declatationsstatic void _DetermineCollisions();static void _ShowLastIteration(scalar numObj);static void _RandomizeObjects(scalar numObj);static void _RunExperiment(scalar numObj, Boolean drawQ=false);//==================================================================// test code//==================================================================// returns a long representing a count of internal clock "ticks"#if defined(powerc) || defined (__powerc)inline long Clock_us() { return TickCount() * (kTBase/60); }#elselong Clock_us(){    static UnsignedWide base;    static Boolean initQ = true;    if (initQ)        Microseconds(&base), initQ = false;    UnsignedWide x;    Microseconds(&x);    return (x.lo - base.lo);}#endifvoid main(){    srand((unsigned int) Clock_us());    cout << "Collision testing..." << endl;        _RunExperiment(  0, false);    _RunExperiment( 50, false);    _RunExperiment(100, false);    _RunExperiment(200, true ); // draw this one}static void _RunExperiment(scalar numObjects, Boolean drawQ){    if (numObjects > kMaxObjects)        return; // too many    cout << (int) numObjects << " objects: ";    long    endTime     = Clock_us() + kTestLength;    long    iterations  = 0;            while (Clock_us() < endTime)    {        // don't count initialization time            {            long t0 = Clock_us();            _RandomizeObjects(numObjects);            endTime += Clock_us() - t0;        }            // test/timing loop                scalar i;        for (i = 0; i < kCycleLength && Clock_us() < endTime; i++)            _DetermineCollisions(), iterations++;    }        long totalTime = kTestLength + Clock_us() - endTime;        if (drawQ)        _ShowLastIteration(numObjects); // draw results        cout << (int) iterations << " in " << (int) totalTime         << " us:  ";            float usec = totalTime;    float iter = iterations;        cout.precision(2);    cout << usec/iter << " us/iter, "         << ((float)kTBase)*iter/usec << " iter/s" << endl;}//==================================================================// sector code//==================================================================#define CEILING_DIV(x, y) ( ((x)+(y)-1) / (y) )// define constants//// Note that to work properly, kSectorSize must be greater// than twice the length of the largest side of any// object's bounding box.  E.g., if your objects are// 30x30, then the sector size should be > 60 -- 64 would// be an excellent choice.enum {    kSectorSize     = 64,   // length of a sector's side in pixels    kLog2SectorSize =  6,   // log2(kSectorSize): for shifting        kScreenWidth    = 640,    kScreenHeight   = 480,        kNumXSectors    = CEILING_DIV(kScreenWidth, kSectorSize) + 1,    kNumYSectors    = CEILING_DIV(kScreenHeight, kSectorSize) + 1,    kNumSectors     = kNumXSectors * kNumYSectors} ;// define a module-scope array of linked list heads,// one for each sectorstatic obj* gSectorArray[kNumXSectors][kNumYSectors];// call this routine to place all objects into the// appropriate sectors//// (assumes all objects are kept in a linked list and// GetMyFirstObject() returns the head of this list)extern obj* GetMyFirstObject();static void UpdateSectors(register scalar xoff, register scalar yoff){    // reset the sectors' linked lists        obj** theArray = (obj**) gSectorArray; // for 1-D access    for (scalar i = 0; i < kNumSectors; i++)        *theArray++ = NULL;        // put each object in its sector's linked list.        for (obj* o = GetMyFirstObject(); o != NULL; o = o->obj_link)    {        // get the list head for the sector in which o resides            register obj** thisSectorListHead =            &gSectorArray [ (o->x + xoff) >> kLog2SectorSize ]                          [ (o->y + yoff) >> kLog2SectorSize ];                // add o to this sector's linked list                o->sector_link = *thisSectorListHead;        *thisSectorListHead = o;    }}//==================================================================// helpers//==================================================================// Draw an object (rectangle).  If the object is involved// in a collision, it is drawn as a rectanglular outline;// otherwise it's drawn as a solid gray rectangle.// [Macintosh specific]static void _DrawObject(obj* o, Boolean collidedQ){#if defined(macintosh) || defined(__MWERKS__)    static Pattern myBlack = { 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff,                               0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff };    static Pattern myGray  = { 0xaa, 0x55, 0xaa, 0x55,                               0xaa, 0x55, 0xaa, 0x55 };    Rect r;    SetRect(&r, o->x, o->y,            o->x + kRectSize, o->y + kRectSize);    PenPat(collidedQ ? &myBlack : &myGray);        if (collidedQ)        FrameRect(&r);    else        PaintRect(&r);#endif // macintosh}// conciliate skeptics by showing them that the// code did, indeed, work properly// [Macintosh specific]static void _ShowLastIteration(scalar numObjects){#if defined(macintosh) || defined(__MWERKS__)    Rect rBounds = { 0, 0, kScreenHeight, kScreenWidth };    OffsetRect(&rBounds, 0, GetMBarHeight());    WindowPtr wind = NewWindow(nil, &rBounds, "\p", true, plainDBox,                               WindowPtr(-1), false, 0);    GrafPtr savePort;    GetPort(&savePort);    SetPort(wind);        for (scalar i = 0; i < numObjects; i++)        _DrawObject(&gObjects, gCollisionArray);        while (!Button())        ;        SetPort(savePort);    DisposeWindow(wind);#endif // macintosh}static scalar _RandScalar(scalar max){    return (((unsigned long) max) *            ((unsigned short) rand())) / (RAND_MAX+1);}static void _RandomizeObjects(scalar numObjects){    obj* o = gObjects;    for (scalar i = 0; i < numObjects; i++, o++)    {        o->x        = _RandScalar(kScreenWidth-1);        o->y        = _RandScalar(kScreenHeight-1);        o->obj_link = o + 1;    }        (--o)->obj_link = NULL;}//==================================================================// intersection code//==================================================================obj* GetMyFirstObject() { return &gObjects[0]; }// local helpersstatic void _ClearCollisionArray();static void _UpdateCollisionArray();// determine all collisionsstatic void _DetermineCollisions(){    _ClearCollisionArray(); // erase the slate; no collisions yet    scalar shift = kSectorSize / 2;        // We need to try four differnt "shifts" of the    // sector grid to detect all collisions.  Proof of    // why this is so is left as an excercise for the    // reader.  (Hint: consider an analogous 1-D case.)        UpdateSectors(    0,     0),    _UpdateCollisionArray();    UpdateSectors(    0, shift),    _UpdateCollisionArray();    UpdateSectors(shift,     0),    _UpdateCollisionArray();    UpdateSectors(shift, shift),    _UpdateCollisionArray();}// "hot" functions that are used in inner loops#ifdef BRAIN_DEAD_INLINING#define _Abs(a) ((a) < 0 ? -(a) : (a))#define _IntersectQ(o1, o2)                                 (_Abs(o1->x - o2->x) < kRectSize &&              _Abs(o1->y - o2->y) < kRectSize)#elseinline scalar _Abs(scalar a){    return a < 0 ? -a : a;}inline scalar _IntersectQ(obj* o1, obj* o2){    return _Abs(o1->x - o2->x) < kRectSize &&           _Abs(o1->y - o2->y) < kRectSize;}#endif // BRAIN_DEAD_INLININGstatic void _ClearCollisionArray(){    memset(gCollisionArray, 0, sizeof(gCollisionArray));}static void _CalcCollisionsInSector(obj* objList);static void _UpdateCollisionArray(){    for (scalar x = 0; x < kNumXSectors; x++)        for (scalar y = 0; y < kNumYSectors; y++)            _CalcCollisionsInSector(gSectorArray[x][y]);}// We've got the head of the linked list for a // sector.  Let's see if there are any objects// in it that are involved in collisions.//// Use the plain, old O(n^2) technique to compute// the collisions in this sector.  If the grid size// was appropriately chosen, n should be very small;// in many cases it will be 0 or 1, obviating// collision tests altogether.static void _CalcCollisionsInSector(obj* objList){    if (objList == NULL || objList->sector_link == NULL)        return;    for (obj* o0 = objList; o0->sector_link; o0 = o0->sector_link)        for (obj* ox = o0->sector_link; ox; ox = ox->sector_link)            if (_IntersectQ(o0, ox))                gCollisionArray[ o0 - gObjects ] =                gCollisionArray[ ox - gObjects ] = 1;                    // Note that at this point we know object o0                // collided with object ox, so we could use that                // information to, say, determine what kind of                // explosion is appropriate.  Here, however, I                // just toss the information away.}/*======= endRegards,Tom Moertel                          Interests:  Software Engineering,                                                 Symbolic Mathematics,MSA, CSG Technologies Division                   Algorithms,thor@telerama.lm.com                             Itchy-Scratchy Theory.*/

#dth-0

##### Share on other sites
that code is not your code, but my code, and is released under the GNU GPL. so if you plan on using it, itd be nice if you told people that first.
the reason is, is that TRANS has to be defined as the transparent color. there is a newer version if you want it
bool TransparentColor(SDL_Surface *surface , int x , int y){	/*assert that (u,v) offsets lie within surface*/	assert( !((u < surface->w) || (v < surface->h)) );	int bpp = surface->format->BytesPerPixel;	/*here p is the address to the pixel we want to retrieve*/	Uint8 *p = (Uint8 *)surface->pixels + v * surface->pitch + u * bpp;	Uint32 pixelcolor;	switch(bpp)	{		case(1):			pixelcolor = *p;		break;		case(2):			pixelcolor = *(Uint16 *)p;		break;		case(3):			if(SDL_BYTEORDER == SDL_BIG_ENDIAN)				pixelcolor = p[0] << 16 | p[1] << 8 | p[2];			else				pixelcolor = p[0] | p[1] << 8 | p[2] << 16;		break;		case(4):			pixelcolor = *(Uint32 *)p;		break;	}	/*test whether pixels color == color of transparent pixels for that surface*/	return (pixelcolor == surface->format->colorkey);}

and replace
                        if ((SDL_GetPixel(SA, x - Ax1, y - Ay1) != TRANS)                       && (SDL_GetPixel(SB, x - Bx1, y - By1) != TRANS))                        return true

with
		if(TransparentPixel(SA , x - Ax1 , y - Ay1) &&		  (TransparentPixel(SB , x - Bx1 , y - By1)   )			return 1;

im usually not very happy with people claiming my code as there own.

i take it you got it from here.

##### Share on other sites
since it looks like people might be using it (googles indexed it :)), ive uploaded a nicer newer version. use that one instead.

##### Share on other sites
Lol, I'm sorry but I take no credit for the code. I just wanted to use your code to try and develop an understanding of how to do pixel perfect collision detection so I could write some for code for it by myself. If code in my project is very similar to yours or the same, I'll be sure to follow the LPGL. Please, don't take this the wrong way. I am not stealing or taking credit for your code.

##### Share on other sites
Quote:
 Original post by Ademan555have you tried taking away the pixel perfect-ness and just checked if the rects are overlapping? (probably a good place to start) and in what case does it detect a collision when there isnt one?

Looks like he's already checking for overlapping boxes before he checks by the pixel, which is the smart way to do it. Smarter still would be to have a parameter where you could choose to do bounding box only checking or pixel-checking. That way you could shut the slow checking off for stuff where it makes no sense (like a rectangular sprite or bullet).

My advice would be to break out the debugger. Break at the points where it's about to return a positive on the collision, then look at the variables and figure out why it returned a positive.

##### Share on other sites
i didnt really care, thats why theres big fat comments -- to learn. A nice small comment like /*Amir Taaki - genjix at gmail.com*/ would be nice, but its not mandatory. I wasnt offended (otherwise i wouldnt have helped you).

johnhattan: the problem in the one above is that he hadnt defined TRANS as his transparent color (i.e #define TRANS 0xff0000), ive released a newer version anyway where it gets their transprent color from the surfaces themselves (surface->format->colorkey).

Also johnhattan, there are bounding box collision tests in that library if you look.

basically the function works like this. get 4 corners of each surface in world space (i.e x,y and x1,y1) of each surface. see if surfaces overlap (as if sprites have collided, bounding boxes have to intersect). then compute where they overlap (i use real world co-ordinates, not offsets, as dont like choosing preference for 1 surface over another). then loop through every pixel in that area of overlap and test if 2 pixels from each surface is not transparent. when loop is finished, you know no to pixels overlapped and so no collision (even though bounding boxes intersected).

if you want to speed it up (over accuracy), you can simple edit the iteration value in the for loop (i.e instead of incrementing 1 at a time, change it to skip 2 pixels...).

##### Share on other sites
maybe:

	//Set right and bottom co-ordinates	int Ax2 = Ax1 + SA->w - 1;	int Ay2 = Ay1 + SA->h - 1;	int Bx2 = Bx1 + SB->w - 1;	int By2 = By1 + SB->h - 1;

	//Set right and bottom co-ordinates	int Ax2 = Ax1 + SA->w;	int Ay2 = Ay1 + SA->h;	int Bx2 = Bx1 + SB->w;	int By2 = By1 + SB->h;

?

##### Share on other sites

ah yes, good point AP, guess i didnt see that :(. Wanna give me your name so you have a place in the credits?