• 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
Telanor

Pathfinding for large units

19 posts in this topic

Well I gave it a try, and it ends up taking around 4 minutes to compute for the initially loaded area for N = 5.  Not the best, but not terrible either.  I'm not sure how I'm supposed to use the data though.  For example, an area like this:  0 1 2 2 1 0 could fit up to a 2 radius unit, but the waypoint has to be placed between the 2 voxels.  With an odd number of spaces, you get: 0 1 2 3 2 1 0 which can fit up to a 2.5 radius unit (not 3 as the number indicates) and the waypoint would be in the middle.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Four minutes? Are you simulating an entire solar system or something? :-P


I described how the data works earlier. You assign the edges between voxel nodes those numbers. If an edge has a number that is smaller than a unit's radius, the edge is not pathable for that unit. This is literally two lines of code in your A* implementation.


[edit] The more I think about it, the more I wonder if I really want to say "diameter" instead of "radius" at a few points in my earlier post. Shouldn't be too hard to figure out. Edited by ApochPiQ
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the regions are 32x128x32 voxels, and there's 400 regions loaded around the player.  Each voxel needs to look at 8 neighboring voxels when computing its value.  And it does that 5 times, plus the initial seeding of 1/0s.  So that's about 2.1 billion checks it has to do.  Also I ran it on background threads set to low priority so it wouldn't slow down the main loading threads, so that contributed to some of the slow down.

I guess I misunderstood you.  I went and took a look at some pathfinding articles and I think I understand what your referring to with the edges now.  I guess normally you'd build a graph with all the edges between the nodes and their weight values.  Thing is, I don't have that in my implementation.  I have a large, 3d array of voxel 'type ids' and the pathfinding searches through that to build a path.  It calculates the weights and determines what is and isn't walkable on the fly.  The voxel array alone takes up about 200MB for a single player.  If I were to make a graph storing the radius values for the 4 connections of each node, that'd be another 200MB.  It might be fine for 1 player, but if you have 10 players all spread out in different areas, now you're looking at something like 4GB of ram usage just for those 2 sets of data.

So I'm not sure it's a feasible solution given the storage requirements.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have your voxels stored in an octree or similar structure? If a large chunk is solid, that would at least allow you to ignore a lot of voxels when calculating your distance metric. Plus if you have a reasonable maximum unit size, a large enough empty space could be generally marked as passable.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's just stored in an array.  We tried using an octree before but ran into problems.  I forget what the issue was.  Earthmark made a post on here a while ago about it but we never did get it working right

Edited by Telanor
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do you think you need an actual graph data structure?

When you do your path search, you consider a cube-cube connection as passable if (besides your other checks) its distance score is at least the diameter of the unit you're searching for. Whether you model the edges in data or not is totally irrelevant.



By the way: 2.1 billion compare/update operations comes out to something in the handful-of-seconds range on a modern CPU. If you use SIMD (why aren't you using SIMD?) you can quarter that, or better if you're willing to target only more recent hardware.

Throw in the optimizations of ignoring known large empty volumes, and you should be able to easily build this thing at map load time and maintain it in realtime as the geometry changes. Edited by ApochPiQ
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, that's a shame. I believe you had trouble rendering voxel octrees. You could create an octree purely for collisions and pathing, although it's a little bit of a waste using it only for that. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wrote some code that computes the size of the largest square that fits, in a 2D situation (because I am not entirely sure how your 3D world works). What I compute exactly is, for each cell, the size of the largest square that has its lower-right corner at this spot and doesn't include any walls. I think that's what I would use if I wanted to do pathfinding with large units.

The code takes only about 12 milliseconds to run on my laptop for a 2048x2048 grid. I only show a small fraction of the map, but the computation is for the whole grid.

#include <iostream>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <algorithm>

int const height = 2048;
int const width = 2048;

int map[height][width];

int main() {
  for (int i=0; i<height; ++i) {
    for (int j=0; j<width; ++j)
      map[i][j] = (std::rand() % 100) < 80;
  }
  
  for (int i=0; i<20; ++i) {
    for (int j=0; j<20; ++j)
      std::cout << (int) map[i][j] << ' ';
    std::cout << '\n';
  }
  
  std::cout << "***************\n";
  
  for (int i=1; i<height; ++i) {
    for (int j=1; j<width; ++j) {
      if (map[i][j] > 0)
	map[i][j] = std::min(std::min(map[i-1][j-1], map[i-1][j]), map[i][j-1]) + 1;
    }
  }
  
  for (int i=0; i<20; ++i) {
    for (int j=0; j<20; ++j)
      std::cout << (int) map[i][j] << ' ';
    std::cout << '\n';
  }
}
I am sure you can adapt that code for your 3D case, and it should be very very fast.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think you need an actual graph data structure?

When you do your path search, you consider a cube-cube connection as passable if (besides your other checks) its distance score is at least the diameter of the unit you're searching for. Whether you model the edges in data or not is totally irrelevant.


I'm not sure if you're suggesting I compute it as needed and save the results, or if it should still be precomputed. If it is precomputed, its quite a bit of data to store.
 

By the way: 2.1 billion compare/update operations comes out to something in the handful-of-seconds range on a modern CPU. If you use SIMD (why aren't you using SIMD?) you can quarter that, or better if you're willing to target only more recent hardware.

Throw in the optimizations of ignoring known large empty volumes, and you should be able to easily build this thing at map load time and maintain it in realtime as the geometry changes.


I'm not using SIMD because C# doesn't (yet) support it tongue.png. I'm not sure how I'd know where large empty volumes are without an octree. You can take a look at my code if you like, maybe I'm doing something terribly inefficiently.

private static void BuildPathingData(object o)
{
	var region = (Region) o;
	var sw = System.Diagnostics.Stopwatch.StartNew();

	if(region.RegionState != Region.States.Loaded)
		return;

	for(var i = 0; i < Region.SizeX * Region.SizeY * Region.SizeZ; i++)
	{
		var type = region[i];

		if(BlockInformation.IsWalkable(type))
			region.PathingInfo[i] = 1;
		else
			region.PathingInfo[i] = 0;
	}

	for(var i = 0; i < MaxUnitSize; i++)
	{
		for(var index = 0; index < Region.SizeX * Region.SizeY * Region.SizeZ; index++)
		{
			var value = region.PathingInfo[index];

			if(value > 0 && value < MaxUnitSize)
			{
				byte smallest = MaxUnitSize;
				var index3D = new RegionIndex(index);
				var pos = region.GetVectorPosition(index3D);

				foreach(var direction in directions)
				{
					var neighborPos = pos + direction;
					var r = new RegionPosition(neighborPos, region.World);
					var pathValue = r.SelectedRegion.PathingInfo[r.Index];

					if(pathValue < smallest)
						smallest = pathValue;
				}

				region.PathingInfo[index] = (byte) Math.Min(smallest + 1, MaxUnitSize);
			}
		}
	}

	sw.Stop();
	Core.Log("Path building took {0}", sw.Elapsed.TotalMilliseconds);
}
RegionIndex and RegionPosition are both structs, so neither of those 'new's are actually allocating anything.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, that's a shame. I believe you had trouble rendering voxel octrees. You could create an octree purely for collisions and pathing, although it's a little bit of a waste using it only for that.


Yea, something like that. Its something I'll have to look into again at some point.

I wrote some code that computes the size of the largest square that fits, in a 2D situation (because I am not entirely sure how your 3D world works). What I compute exactly is, for each cell, the size of the largest square that has its lower-right corner at this spot and doesn't include any walls. I think that's what I would use if I wanted to do pathfinding with large units.

The code takes only about 12 milliseconds to run on my laptop for a 2048x2048 grid. I only show a small fraction of the map, but the computation is for the whole grid.


Interesting. But when building a path from that, wouldn't the path for large units end up being placed along the right most wall, rather than through the middle? The large NPCs wouldn't be able to reach the waypoints if they're all up against the wall like that. Also since my map is essentially infinite, the top and left edges will all be 0/1 for each subdivision (regions as I call them) which would prevent large units from moving along region boundaries. Actually now that I think about it, my implementation of Apoch's suggestion probably has that same issue... I'm not sure how to deal with that.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote some code that computes the size of the largest square that fits, in a 2D situation (because I am not entirely sure how your 3D world works). What I compute exactly is, for each cell, the size of the largest square that has its lower-right corner at this spot and doesn't include any walls. I think that's what I would use if I wanted to do pathfinding with large units.

The code takes only about 12 milliseconds to run on my laptop for a 2048x2048 grid. I only show a small fraction of the map, but the computation is for the whole grid.


Interesting. But when building a path from that, wouldn't the path for large units end up being placed along the right most wall, rather than through the middle? The large NPCs wouldn't be able to reach the waypoints if they're all up against the wall like that.


No, it just means that in order to determine whether a unit fits at a particular location or not, you need to query the map at the lower-right corner. This has nothing to do with the path; it's just a low-level detail of the implementation, which should not have any high-level observable consequences.

Also since my map is essentially infinite, the top and left edges will all be 0/1 for each subdivision (regions as I call them) which would prevent large units from moving along region boundaries. Actually now that I think about it, my implementation of Apoch's suggestion probably has that same issue... I'm not sure how to deal with that.


I am not sure what you mean by "essentially infinite", but I suggest you avoid complicating things beyond what you can handle. It looks like you have a hard enough time making this work on reasonably-sized finite maps, so I wouldn't try to go beyond that.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's hard to say for sure without disassembling the IR for your code, but my two guesses for your worst performance hits would be (A) doing a lot of redundant work when calculating indices into your voxel arrays; and (B) that inner foreach doing something weird, which I can't see for sure without knowing what the definition of the "directions" variable looks like.

Also, note that casting a byte to a double to call Math.Min() and re-cast to a byte is a really painful operation. Just write out the code longhand for the min check, it'll probably be faster.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to say for sure without disassembling the IR for your code, but my two guesses for your worst performance hits would be (A) doing a lot of redundant work when calculating indices into your voxel arrays; and (B) that inner foreach doing something weird, which I can't see for sure without knowing what the definition of the "directions" variable looks like.

Also, note that casting a byte to a double to call Math.Min() and re-cast to a byte is a really painful operation. Just write out the code longhand for the min check, it'll probably be faster.


The directions variable is just a small array of 8 Vector3 offsets. The casting is actually going to happen no matter what because C# doesn't support addition of bytes. It always casts them up to an int32. I'll try replacing the Math.Min call with an if statement though and maybe see if I can do something about the index calculations.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I fiddled around with the code a bit, made some of the supporting code a bit more efficient. The time is down to about 15s now. Not exactly sure what I changed that made such a big difference, since I got nothing useful out of the profiler and I had to change a lot of things all at once.

In any case, the storage requirements are still an issue if I need to store multiple edge values for each block. Using a dictionary to store only non-zero values doesn't help in the least bit since there end up being around 90k entries and apparently each entry costs around 20 bytes.

I suppose the next thing I could try is to compute it on the fly and store only a small subset.
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