• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ballmar

DirectXMath vector operations precision

5 posts in this topic

Hello.

 

I'm having strange results of XMVector3AngleBetweenVectors function. Consider this code:

 

float angle = XMConvertToDegrees(XMVectorGetX(
        XMVector3AngleBetweenVectors(GMathFV(XMFLOAT3(0.0f, 100.0f, 0.0f)), 
        GMathFV(XMFLOAT3(0.0f, 200.0f, 0.0f)))));
 

 

It's looking for angle between two 3D vectors, described by XMFLOAT3 structures. GMathFV is user-defined function which converts XMFLOAT3 to XMVECTOR as follows:

 

inline XMVECTOR GMathFV(XMFLOAT3& val)
{
    return XMLoadFloat3(&val);    
}
 

 

Everything else is directxmath.h library. Here everything is fine and result angle is 0.00000 just as expected.

 

But for other vectors with negative y-axis value, for example:

 

float angle = XMConvertToDegrees(XMVectorGetX(
        XMVector3AngleBetweenVectors(GMathFV(XMFLOAT3(0.0f, -100.0f, 0.0f)), 
        GMathFV(XMFLOAT3(0.0f, -99.0f, 0.0f)))));
 

 

Result is 0.0197823402, which I can hardly call a zero angle.

 

Please someone help me figure out the problem. Is it negative number precision, too close vector coordinates or maybe something else?

 

UPD: It's very strange, because it gives 0.0197823402 for a(0.0f, 100.0f, 0.0f) x b(0.0f, 99.0f, 0.0f), but 0.000000 for a(0.0f, 101.0f, 0.0f) x b(0.0f, 100.0f, 0.0f)

Edited by GuardianX
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you want to find the angle, make sure that your vector are normalize first. Otherwise you will need to divide each vector by it's length first, which is the same as normalizing them.

Edited by BornToCode
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you want to find the angle, make sure that your vector are normalize first. Otherwise you will need to divide each vector by it's length first, which is the same as normalizing them.

 

Wow, thank you! It looks like working now. But it doesnt make any sense to me actually - why do they provide XMVector3AngleBetweenNormals then as separate function, if it's similar to XMVector3AngleBetweenVectors?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of code for DirectXMath is provided inline in the header files, so if you want to see what's going on then you only need to look. Here's what XMVector3AngleBetweenVectors looks like (partially cleaned up for readibility):

 

inline XMVECTOR XMVector3AngleBetweenVectors(FXMVECTOR V1, FXMVECTOR V2)
{
    XMVECTOR L1 = XMVector3ReciprocalLength(V1);
    XMVECTOR L2 = XMVector3ReciprocalLength(V2);

    XMVECTOR Dot = XMVector3Dot(V1, V2);

    L1 = XMVectorMultiply(L1, L2);

    XMVECTOR CosAngle = XMVectorMultiply(Dot, L1);
    CosAngle = XMVectorClamp(CosAngle, g_XMNegativeOne.v, g_XMOne.v);

    return XMVectorACos(CosAngle);
}


So what they've done here is they compute 1/||V1|| * 1 / ||V2||, and then they multiply that with the result of the dot product. So basically you end up with 1/||V1|| * 1/||V2||  * ||V1|| * ||V2|| * cos(Angle), which simplifies out to just cos(Angle). Then they compute acos(cos(Angle)) to get the actual angle itself. I'm not entirely sure why they implemented it this way, since it would seem that you could start to run into precision problems as ||V1|| and ||V2|| get larger.

 
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem might be a floating point issue ...

 

for example there is no way of computing the value of (0.1) squared with binary numbers, you would expect the result (0.01) but that is not what happens, instead you get a value close to (0.01). The information is all on here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_point#Accuracy_problems

Edited by ray_intellect
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0