• 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
EricsonWillians

Bounding Box Collision Glitching Problem (Pygame)

4 posts in this topic

So far the "Bounding Box" method is the only one that I know. It's efficient enough to deal with simple games. Nevertheless, the game I'm developing is not that simple anymore and for that reason, I've made a simplified example of the problem. (It's worth noticing that I don't have rotating sprites on my game or anything like that. After showing the code, I'll explain better).

Here's the whole code:

from pygame import *

DONE = False
screen = display.set_mode((1024,768))
class Thing():
    def __init__(self,x,y,w,h,s,c):
        self.x = x
        self.y = y
        self.w = w
        self.h = h
        self.s = s
        self.sur = Surface((64,48))
        draw.rect(self.sur,c,(self.x,self.y,w,h),1)
        self.sur.fill(c)
    def draw(self):
        screen.blit(self.sur,(self.x,self.y))
    def move(self,x):
        if key.get_pressed()[K_w] or key.get_pressed()[K_UP]:
            if x == 1:
                self.y -= self.s
            else:
                self.y += self.s
        if key.get_pressed()[K_s] or key.get_pressed()[K_DOWN]:
            if x == 1:
                self.y += self.s
            else:
                self.y -= self.s
        if key.get_pressed()[K_a] or key.get_pressed()[K_LEFT]:
            if x == 1:
                self.x -= self.s
            else:
                self.x += self.s
        if key.get_pressed()[K_d] or key.get_pressed()[K_RIGHT]:
            if x == 1:
                self.x += self.s
            else:
                self.x -= self.s
    def warp(self):
        if self.y < -48:
             self.y = 768
        if self.y > 768 + 48:
             self.y = 0
        if self.x < -64:
             self.x = 1024 + 64
        if self.x > 1024 + 64:
             self.x = -64
r1 = Thing(0,0,64,48,1,(0,255,0))
r2 = Thing(6*64,6*48,64,48,1,(255,0,0))
while not DONE:
    screen.fill((0,0,0))
    r2.draw()
    r1.draw()
    # If not intersecting, then moves, else, it moves in the opposite direction.
    if not ((((r1.x + r1.w) > (r2.x - r1.s)) and (r1.x < ((r2.x + r2.w) + r1.s))) and (((r1.y + r1.h) > (r2.y - r1.s)) and (r1.y < ((r2.y + r2.h) + r1.s)))):
        r1.move(1)
    else:
        r1.move(0)
    r1.warp()
    if key.get_pressed()[K_ESCAPE]:
        DONE = True
    for ev in event.get():
        if ev.type == QUIT:
            DONE = True
    display.update()
quit()

The problem:

 

In my actual game, the grid is fixed and each tile has 64 by 48 pixels. I know how to deal with collision perfectly if I moved by that size. Nevertheless, obviously, the player moves really fast.

In the example, the collision is detected pretty well (Just as I see in many examples throughout the internet). The problem is that if I put the player to move WHEN IS NOT intersecting, then, when it touches the obstacle, it does not move anymore. Giving that problem, I began switching the directions, but then, when it touches and I press the opposite key, it "glitches through". My actual game has many walls, and the player will touch them many times, and I can't afford letting the player go through them.

The code-problem illustrated:

 

When the player goes towards the wall (Fine).

 

PisxG.jpg

 

When the player goes towards the wall and press the opposite direction. (It glitches through).

 

o3oIs.jpg

 

Here is the logic I've designed before implementing it:

 

Ddlez.jpg

I don't know any other method, and I really just want to have walls fixed in a grid, but move by 1 or 2 or 3 pixels (Slowly) and have perfect collision without glitching-possibilities. What do you suggest?

Edited by EricsonWillians
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disclaimer: I just woke up, my brain might not have fully started yet.

 

I think this isn't due to your intersection test, but due to your movement logic.

Consider what happens if you are intersecting (i.e. fail the intersection test), and you attempt to move right.

 

Intersect is true, so move(0) will be called.

K_Right is pressed.

x is not 1, so you will subtract the speed.

 

Result: You go left.

 

While there are probably more elegant solutions (see disclaimer above), I do have a suggestion which I believe will work in your case.

Note that if movement speed is too high (if you move more than a wall's dimensions) you'll go through.

 

Do the movement, then check for intersection. If there was intersection, clamp your position based on the intersected object's dimensions.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much for your answer lactose. I think I understood what you mean. I'll try to apply it in this test-code. In my actual game, I gave up this idea. Way too much headache. Instead, I'm moving by 64w and 48h pixels. I could not do this because of the speed of the movement, but then I've found a decent solution to the problem in this question of gamedev.stackexchange.

 

I'm using a "cooldown" logic based on the clock.tick() at each frame. The movement is not as smooth as if I was moving by 1 or 3 pixels each (Of course), but the collisions are perfect and I can move through my maze, touching the walls randomly without having to worry myself.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, you should separate your actual moving of the object from checking the input.

 

What I mean is, instead of calling only Move, call HandleInput() on your Thing() class (for the player only, obviously), then call move.  In HandleInput(), check for key presses, and set the Thing's velocity to speed*(Keypress Idrection).  In Move, you test: if the object is moved by velocity, does it intersect?  If so, don't change the object's location, otherwise, go ahead and change the object's location and continue.

 

In pseudocode

HandleInput():
  # reset velocity since we don't know key states
  self.Velocity = 0
  if KeyPressed(MOVE_UP):
    self.Velocity.y = -self.Speed
  if KeyPressed(MOVE_RIGHT):
    self.Velocity.x = self.Speed

  if KeyPressed(MOVE_DOWN):
    self.Velocity.y = self.Speed

  if KeyPressed(MOVE_LEFT):
    self.Velocity.x = -self.Speed
 
Move():
  self.x += self.Velocty.x
  self.y += self.Velocity.y
  # This would check against all other Thing's in the world
  If (IsIntersectingWithOtherObjects(self):
    # it's hit something, move it back to where it was
    self.x -= self.Velocity.x
    self.y -= self.Velocity.y


 

If you were making a platformer type game, I'd suggest you split the move and test intersecting checks by changing x, then testing, and then changing y and testing.  That way, if only the x intersects, you don't stop both x and y movements.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that if you do that, with large velocities, you can end up with never being able to get very close to a wall. E.g. if there's a 20 unit gap, and your movement speed is 25 units, moving towards the collision thing will make you stay at that 20 gap distance, instead of closing the gap and touching the wall.

 

Other than that, I agree with splitting input handling and movement logic.

1

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