• 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.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

178 Neutral

About pandaa

  • Rank
  1. Yes, I wrote a demo to test the two algorithms, refer to the open source: https://github.com/arirahikkala/astar-jps   I found a thread here that people discuss jps performance: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=92732.0
  2. I tested the Jump point search algorithm(http://harablog.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/jump-point-search/) and the classic AStar,  and found that JPS is slow than classic AStar. The paper said jps is 2-30 times faster than classic AStar, I don't know why. The biggest comsumption is jump function, because it need visit so many tiles to find jump point, I highlight all the visited tiles in jump function.    The dashed lines are the horizontal and vertical lines that are checked while checking the diagonal.
  3. http://aigamedev.com/open/article/clearance-based-pathfinding/ Is it possible to handle dynamic obstacle in clearance-based pathfinding? how about the performance?
  4. [quote name='IADaveMark' timestamp='1348619116' post='4983814'] Uh... why are steering behaviors not good for stationary unit avoidance? [/quote] I don't want to use steering behavior because it can cause jitter and oscillation. StarCraft2 use steering behavior, but it push the stationary units away in physical simulation.
  5. I tested steering behavior and RVO for collision avoidance in my rts game, but they are not good for stationary unit avoidance. Is there any good solutions?
  6. I am developing a RTS game, and replaced the grid pathfing with navmesh for the performance reason. But the new problems comes, handling dynamic obstacle is not so effecient in navmesh.
  7. RVO work well in collision avoidance between moved agents, but when moved agents avoid stationary agents, it will get stuck sometimes.
  8. Thank you! I'm trying to understand RVO solution.
  9. Two agents, A(position:Vector3, velocity:Vector3), B(position:Vector3, velocity:Vector3), Move to Goal: Vector3, How to calculate the Velocity Obstacle? thanks!
  10. [quote name='LorenzoGatti' timestamp='1343038258' post='4962193'] [quote name='pandaa' timestamp='1343021813' post='4962144'] steering behavior is force-based, RVO is velocity-based [/quote] Not really. Velocity obstacle algorithms use velocities as an input to compute regions in the plane; control of your entity in order to avoid those regions is a conceptually separate step and it is achieved by applying forces, exactly like in the case of traditional steering behaviours and any other type of physically decent dynamic simulation. You might be confused by the fact that many steering behaviours compute forces rather directly by adding up components instead of explicitly computing the appropriate acceleration for a desired velocity and location like in typical VO setups, but they have an equally advisory value; for example, these forces should be realistically clipped to a certain maximum force, further reduced to avoid exceeding velocity limits, and so on. You can combine RVOs and steering behaviours in a number of ways, most likely by giving priority to RVO-based collision avoidance: for example, you might compute the force your steering behaviours[i] would like[/i] to apply and correct it by braking and by swerving towards the "best" side of the RVO if it would cause a collision. [/quote] thanks, I'll have a try.
  11. steering behavior is force-based, RVO is velocity-based
  12. Replace the obstacle avoidance of steering behavior with RVO, is it possible?