• 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
captacha

std::vector issues

11 posts in this topic

In the last week or so, I've been attempting to implement pathfinding for my first time. I've been reading a tutorial on the general concept and have been trying to implement it on my own. For the Closed List and Open List, I use std::vector. The guide says once I find the optimal node to delete it from the Open List and add it to the Closed List. I'm doing that with this code:

 

closedList.push_back(openList[lowF]);
openList.erase(openList.begin()+
lowF);

 

The issue is that the wrong node is being deleted from the Open List, causing the pathfinding calculations to flow in an infinite loop. For Instance:

 

Closed List = (9,4)

Open List = (9,3) (10,4)

 

After the code I posted above executes, the vectors look like this:

 

Closed List = (9,4) (9,3)

Open List = (9,3)

 

While they should look like this

 

Closed List = (9,4) (9,3)

Open List = (10,4)

 

I checked the lowF value, and it is 0. So openList.erase(openList.begin()+lowF) should be the same as openList.erase(openList.begin()). For some reason, that line of code is deleting the second element in the vector instead of the first. I'm attaching a error log file I printed out. I'd appreciate any help. ty

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From your log file, it is removing the last element (not second element) of your open list regardless of your other settings.

Will you post the surrounding code of those two push_back() and erase() lines? Edited by frob
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 int lowF = 0;
 Node tmp;
 Node currentNode(Position(currentPos.x, currentPos.y), 0);
 vector<Node> openList;
 vector<Node> closedList;
 closedList.push_back(currentNode);
 
 while(closedList[closedList.size()-1].pos.x != pathDest.x && closedList[closedList.size()-1].pos.y != pathDest.y)
 {
  getChildNodes(closedList[closedList.size()-1], closedList, openList, wallCords);

  for(int i=0;i<openList.size();i++)
  {
   if(openList[lowF].getF(pathDest) > openList[i].getF(pathDest))
    lowF = i;
  }
  closedList.push_back(openList[lowF]);
  openList.erase(openList.begin()+(lowF));
 }
  
 path.push_front(closedList[closedList.size()-1]);
 tmp = closedList[closedList.size()-1];

 while(!(tmp == currentNode))
 {
  tmp = *tmp.parent;
  path.push_front(tmp);
 }
 path.push_front(tmp);

 

Here's the entire function. My node class contains a Node* parent, int g, and a Position class which has x and y integers

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it does. openList is passed as vector<Node>& openList. Here's the general algorithm for it. The functions in the if statement's body don't affect either list.

 

 

Node* tmp;
if(!hasWall(parentNode.pos.x, parentNode.pos.y-1, wallCords) && !onClosedList(Position(parentNode.pos.x, parentNode.pos.y-1), closedList))
{
    tmp = new Node(Position(parentNode.pos.x, parentNode.pos.y-1), &parentNode);
    openList.push_back(*tmp);
}

 

Edited by Captacha
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a copy constructor on the Nodes?  Not sure what would cause this but that's the only thing I can think of, everything else looks pretty typical.  

 

Edit:

Check assignment constructor also.  Failing that you could just break on it in the debugger and just keep clicking "step into" through all the compiler mumbo jumbo to see if anything comes up.  

 

Edit #2 (for reals this time) :

It's an assignment operator, not a constructor.   I think that's what's broken, there's a typo in there that's keeping stuff from getting moved over.  vector.erase(iter) moves everything after iter over, and iter is basically just a pointer.  If this is no good, you can use a vector of pointers to Nodes, or a std::list of nodes (I'm not sure that's guaranteed not to copy on erase, but I have never seen it do it).  

Edited by DaDweeDow
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is basically at the point where you'll need to step through every line with a debugger.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first time I've actually ever used operator overloading before. I didn't really kow what I was doing. Here's the function:

 

Node Node::operator=(Node copy)
{
    return copy;
}

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah that's a no op assignment.  So node1 = node2 doesn't do anything.  Not sure a memcpy(this, &copy, sizeof(Node)) is legal, probably better to just assign all the fields.  You don't need a deep copy though, at least not for this purpose, you could just copy the pointers, since the old copy is going to be dead in a nanosecond.  

 

Edit:

whoops, I realized that was bad advice.  If the destructor of frees an allocated resource, you are going to be dereferencing an invalid pointer (probably, unless that memory gets reused) when you later try to use the copy.  Sorry about that, hope it didn't cause any problems.  

Edited by DaDweeDow
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I fixed my operator=, which fixed the rest. Here's my new function:

 

Node Node::operator=(Node copy)
{
    this->pos.x = copy.pos.x;
    this->pos.y = copy.pos.y;
    this->parent = copy.parent;
    this->g = copy.g;
    return *this;
}

 

Thanks for all the help

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It should return a Node reference, to avoid mistakenly modifying a temporary if you use the return value. Also, the parameter should be a const reference to prevent an unnecessary copy.

And I suspect that if you did not define the = operator, the compiler generated one would do the right thing.
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