Struggeling translating the position of the mouse to the location of the tiles in my grid. When it's all flat, the math looks like this:
this.position.x = Math.floor(((pos.y - 240) / 24) + ((pos.x - 320) / 48));
this.position.y = Math.floor(((pos.y - 240) / 24) - ((pos.x - 320) / 48));
where pos.x and pos.y are the position of the mouse, 240 and 320 are the offset, 24 and 48 the size of the tile. Position then contains the grid coordinate of the tile I'm hovering over. This works reasonably well on a flat surface.
Now I'm adding height, which the math does not take into account.
This grid is a 2D grid containing noise, that's being translated to height and tile type. Height is really just an adjustment to the 'Y' position of the tile, so it's possible for two tiles to be drawn in the same spot.
I don't know how to determine which tile I'm hovering over.
edit:
Made some headway... Before, I was depending on the mouseover event to calculate grid position. I just changed this to do the calculation in the draw loop itself, and check if the coordinates are within the limits of the tile currently being drawn. creates some overhead tho, not sure if I'm super happy with it but I'll confirm if it works.
edit 2018:
I have no answer, but since this ha[sd] an open bounty, help yourself to some code and a demo
The grid itself is, simplified;
let grid = [[10,15],[12,23]];
which leads to a drawing like:
for (var i = 0; i < grid.length; i++) {
for (var j = 0; j < grid[0].length; j++) {
let x = (j - i) * resourceWidth;
let y = ((i + j) * resourceHeight) + (grid[i][j] * -resourceHeight);
// the "+" bit is the adjustment for height according to perlin noise values
}
}
edit post-bounty:
See GIF. The accepted answer works. The delay is my fault, the screen doesn't update on mousemove (yet) and the frame rate is low-ish. It's clearly bringing back the right tile.
Source
Intresting task.
Lets try to simplify it - lets resolve this concrete case
Solution
Working version is here: https://github.com/amuzalevskiy/perlin-landscape (changes https://github.com/jorgt/perlin-landscape/pull/1 )
Explanation
First what came into mind is:
Just two steps:
find an vertical column, which matches some set of tiles
iterate tiles in set from bottom to top, checking if cursor is placed lower than top line
Step 1
We need two functions here:
Detects column:
function getColumn(mouseX, firstTileXShiftAtScreen, columnWidth) {
return (mouseX - firstTileXShiftAtScreen) / columnWidth;
}
Function which extracts an array of tiles which correspond to this column.
Rotate image 45 deg in mind. The red numbers are columnNo. 3 column is highlighted. X axis is horizontal
function tileExists(x, y, width, height) {
return x >= 0 & y >= 0 & x < width & y < height;
}
function getTilesInColumn(columnNo, width, height) {
let startTileX = 0, startTileY = 0;
let xShift = true;
for (let i = 0; i < columnNo; i++) {
if (tileExists(startTileX + 1, startTileY, width, height)) {
startTileX++;
} else {
if (xShift) {
xShift = false;
} else {
startTileY++;
}
}
}
let tilesInColumn = [];
while(tileExists(startTileX, startTileY, width, height)) {
tilesInColumn.push({x: startTileX, y: startTileY, isLeft: xShift});
if (xShift) {
startTileX--;
} else {
startTileY++;
}
xShift = !xShift;
}
return tilesInColumn;
}
Step 2
A list of tiles to check is ready. Now for each tile we need to find a top line. Also we have two types of tiles: left and right. We already stored this info during building matching tiles set.
function getTileYIncrementByTileZ(tileZ) {
// implement here
return 0;
}
function findExactTile(mouseX, mouseY, tilesInColumn, tiles2d,
firstTileXShiftAtScreen, firstTileYShiftAtScreenAt0Height,
tileWidth, tileHeight) {
// we built a set of tiles where bottom ones come first
// iterate tiles from bottom to top
for(var i = 0; i < tilesInColumn; i++) {
let tileInfo = tilesInColumn[i];
let lineAB = findABForTopLineOfTile(tileInfo.x, tileInfo.y, tiles2d[tileInfo.x][tileInfo.y],
tileInfo.isLeft, tileWidth, tileHeight);
if ((mouseY - firstTileYShiftAtScreenAt0Height) >
(mouseX - firstTileXShiftAtScreen)*lineAB.a + lineAB.b) {
// WOHOO !!!
return tileInfo;
}
}
}
function findABForTopLineOfTile(tileX, tileY, tileZ, isLeftTopLine, tileWidth, tileHeight) {
// find a top line ~~~ a,b
// y = a * x + b;
let a = tileWidth / tileHeight;
if (isLeftTopLine) {
a = -a;
}
let b = isLeftTopLine ?
tileY * 2 * tileHeight :
- (tileX + 1) * 2 * tileHeight;
b -= getTileYIncrementByTileZ(tileZ);
return {a: a, b: b};
}
Please don't judge me as I am not posting any code. I am just suggesting an algorithm that can solve it without high memory usage.
The Algorithm:
Actually to determine which tile is on mouse hover we don't need to check all the tiles. At first we think the surface is 2D and find which tile the mouse pointer goes over with the formula OP posted. This is the farthest probable tile mouse cursor can point at this cursor position.
This tile can receive mouse pointer if it's at 0 height, by checking it's current height we can verify if this is really at the height to receive pointer, we mark it and move forward.
Then we find the next probable tile which is closer to the screen by incrementing or decrementing x,y grid values depending on the cursor position.
Then we keep on moving forward in a zigzag fashion until we reach a tile which cannot receive pointer even if it is at it's maximum height.
When we reach this point the last tile found that were at a height to receive pointer is the tile that we are looking for.
In this case we only checked 8 tiles to determine which tile is currently receiving pointer. This is very memory efficient in comparison to checking all the tiles present in the grid and yields faster result.
One way to solve this would be to follow the ray that goes from the clicked pixel on the screen into the map. For that, just determine the camera position in relation to the map and the direction it is looking at:
const camPos = {x: -5, y: -5, z: -5}
const camDirection = { x: 1, y:1, z:1}
The next step is to get the touch Position in the 3D world. In this certain perspective that is quite simple:
const touchPos = {
x: camPos.x + touch.x / Math.sqrt(2),
y: camPos.y - touch.x / Math.sqrt(2),
z: camPos.z - touch.y / Math.sqrt(2)
};
Now you just need to follow the ray into the layer (scale the directions so that they are smaller than one of your tiles dimensions):
for(let delta = 0; delta < 100; delta++){
const x = touchPos.x + camDirection.x * delta;
const y = touchPos.y + camDirection.y * delta;
const z = touchPos.z + camDirection.z * delta;
Now just take the tile at xz and check if y is smaller than its height;
const absX = ~~( x / 24 );
const absZ = ~~( z / 24 );
if(tiles[absX][absZ].height >= y){
// hanfle the over event
}
I had same situation on a game. first I tried with mathematics, but when I found that the clients wants to change the map type every day, I changed the solution with some graphical solution and pass it to the designer of the team. I captured the mouse position by listening the SVG elements click.
the main graphic directly used to capture and translate the mouse position to my required pixel.
https://blog.lavrton.com/hit-region-detection-for-html5-canvas-and-how-to-listen-to-click-events-on-canvas-shapes-815034d7e9f8
https://code.sololearn.com/Wq2bwzSxSnjl/#html
Here is the grid input I would define for the sake of this discussion. The output should be some tile (coordinate_1, coordinate_2) based on visibility on the users screen of the mouse:
I can offer two solutions from different perspectives, but you will need to convert this back into your problem domain. The first methodology is based on coloring tiles and can be more useful if the map is changing dynamically. The second solution is based on drawing coordinate bounding boxes based on the fact that tiles closer to the viewer like (0, 0) can never be occluded by tiles behind it (1,1).
Approach 1: Transparently Colored Tiles
The first approach is based on drawing and elaborated on here. I must give the credit to #haldagan for a particularly beautiful solution. In summary it relies on drawing a perfectly opaque layer on top of the original canvas and coloring every tile with a different color. This top layer should be subject to the same height transformations as the underlying layer. When the mouse hovers over a particular layer you can detect the color through canvas and thus the tile itself. This is the solution I would probably go with and this seems to be a not so rare issue in computer visualization and graphics (finding positions in a 3d isometric world).
Approach 2: Finding the Bounding Tile
This is based on the conjecture that the "front" row can never be occluded by "back" rows behind it. Furthermore, "closer to the screen" tiles cannot be occluded by tiles "farther from the screen". To make precise the meaning of "front", "back", "closer to the screen" and "farther from the screen", take a look at the following:
.
Based on this principle the approach is to build a set of polygons for each tile. So firstly we determine the coordinates on the canvas of just box (0, 0) after height scaling. Note that the height scale operation is simply a trapezoid stretched vertically based on height.
Then we determine the coordinates on the canvas of boxes (1, 0), (0, 1), (1, 1) after height scaling (we would need to subtract anything from those polygons which overlap with the polygon (0, 0)).
Proceed to build each boxes bounding coordinates by subtracting any occlusions from polygons closer to the screen, to eventually get coordinates of polygons for all boxes.
With these coordinates and some care you can ultimately determine which tile is pointed to by a binary search style through overlapping polygons by searching through bottom rows up.
It also matters what else is on the screen. Maths attempts work if your tiles are pretty much uniform. However if you are displaying various objects and want the user to pick them, it is far easier to have a canvas-sized map of identifiers.
function poly(ctx){var a=arguments;ctx.beginPath();ctx.moveTo(a[1],a[2]);
for(var i=3;i<a.length;i+=2)ctx.lineTo(a[i],a[i+1]);ctx.closePath();ctx.fill();ctx.stroke();}
function circle(ctx,x,y,r){ctx.beginPath();ctx.arc(x,y,r,0,2*Math.PI);ctx.fill();ctx.stroke();}
function Tile(h,c,f){
var cnv=document.createElement("canvas");cnv.width=100;cnv.height=h;
var ctx=cnv.getContext("2d");ctx.lineWidth=3;ctx.lineStyle="black";
ctx.fillStyle=c;poly(ctx,2,h-50,50,h-75,98,h-50,50,h-25);
poly(ctx,50,h-25,2,h-50,2,h-25,50,h-2);
poly(ctx,50,h-25,98,h-50,98,h-25,50,h-2);
f(ctx);return ctx.getImageData(0,0,100,h);
}
function put(x,y,tile,image,id,map){
var iw=image.width,tw=tile.width,th=tile.height,bdat=image.data,fdat=tile.data;
for(var i=0;i<tw;i++)
for(var j=0;j<th;j++){
var ijtw4=(i+j*tw)*4,a=fdat[ijtw4+3];
if(a!==0){
var xiyjiw=x+i+(y+j)*iw;
for(var k=0;k<3;k++)bdat[xiyjiw*4+k]=(bdat[xiyjiw*4+k]*(255-a)+fdat[ijtw4+k]*a)/255;
bdat[xiyjiw*4+3]=255;
map[xiyjiw]=id;
}
}
}
var cleanimage;
var pickmap;
function startup(){
var water=Tile(77,"blue",function(){});
var field=Tile(77,"lime",function(){});
var tree=Tile(200,"lime",function(ctx){
ctx.fillStyle="brown";poly(ctx,50,50,70,150,30,150);
ctx.fillStyle="forestgreen";circle(ctx,60,40,30);circle(ctx,68,70,30);circle(ctx,32,60,30);
});
var sheep=Tile(200,"lime",function(ctx){
ctx.fillStyle="white";poly(ctx,25,155,25,100);poly(ctx,75,155,75,100);
circle(ctx,50,100,45);circle(ctx,50,80,30);
poly(ctx,40,70,35,80);poly(ctx,60,70,65,80);
});
var cnv=document.getElementById("scape");
cnv.width=500;cnv.height=400;
var ctx=cnv.getContext("2d");
cleanimage=ctx.getImageData(0,0,500,400);
pickmap=new Uint8Array(500*400);
var tiles=[water,field,tree,sheep];
var map=[[[0,0],[1,1],[1,1],[1,1],[1,1]],
[[0,0],[1,1],[1,2],[3,2],[1,1]],
[[0,0],[1,1],[2,2],[3,2],[1,1]],
[[0,0],[1,1],[1,1],[1,1],[1,1]],
[[0,0],[0,0],[0,0],[0,0],[0,0]]];
for(var x=0;x<5;x++)
for(var y=0;y<5;y++){
var desc=map[y][x],tile=tiles[desc[0]];
put(200+x*50-y*50,200+x*25+y*25-tile.height-desc[1]*20,
tile,cleanimage,x+1+(y+1)*10,pickmap);
}
ctx.putImageData(cleanimage,0,0);
}
var mx,my,pick;
function mmove(event){
mx=Math.round(event.offsetX);
my=Math.round(event.offsetY);
if(mx>=0 && my>=0 && mx<cleanimage.width && my<cleanimage.height && pick!==pickmap[mx+my*cleanimage.width])
requestAnimationFrame(redraw);
}
function redraw(){
pick=pickmap[mx+my*cleanimage.width];
document.getElementById("pick").innerHTML=pick;
var ctx=document.getElementById("scape").getContext("2d");
ctx.putImageData(cleanimage,0,0);
if(pick!==0){
var temp=ctx.getImageData(0,0,cleanimage.width,cleanimage.height);
for(var i=0;i<pickmap.length;i++)
if(pickmap[i]===pick)
temp.data[i*4]=255;
ctx.putImageData(temp,0,0);
}
}
startup(); // in place of body.onload
<div id="pick">Move around</div>
<canvas id="scape" onmousemove="mmove(event)"></canvas>
Here the "id" is a simple x+1+(y+1)*10 (so it is nice when displayed) and fits into a byte (Uint8Array), which could go up to 15x15 display grid already, and there are wider types available too.
(Tried to draw it small, and it looked ok on the snippet editor screen but apparently it is still too large here)
Computer graphics is fun, right?
This is a special case of the more standard computational geometry "point location problem". You could also express it as a nearest neighbour search.
To make this look like a point location problem you just need to express your tiles as non-overlapping polygons in a 2D plane. If you want to keep your shapes in a 3D space (e.g. with a z buffer) this becomes the related "ray casting problem".
One source of good geometry algorithms is W. Randolf Franklin's website and turf.js contains an implementation of his PNPOLY algorithm.
For this special case we can be even faster than the general algorithms by treating our prior knowledge about the shape of the tiles as a coarse R-tree (a type of spatial index).
Related
I want to reverse my gravitational force algorithm to produce locations in the "past" of multiple bodies interacting. It's trivial to produce locations in the future by running the algorithm multiple times on the set of bodies but reversing this to write out positions of bodies' previous positions has stumped me. I don't want to store the past positions and since this is deterministic, it should be possible to somehow run the algorithm backwards but I'm not sure how.
In the snippet element each of the bodies that are tested from universe in the loop, tick is the delta time.
function forces(other) {
if (element === other) {
return;
}
var distancePoint = element.point.sub(other.point);
var normal = Math.sqrt(100.0 + distancePoint.lengthSq());
var mag = GravatationalConstant /
Math.pow(normal, 3);
var distPointMulOtherMass = distancePoint
.mul(mag * other.mass);
element.acceleration = element.acceleration.sub(distPointMulOtherMass);
other.acceleration = other
.acceleration
.add(distancePoint
.mul(mag * element.mass)
);
}
element.acceleration = new Point(0,0,0,0);
universe.forEach(forces);
element.velocity = element.velocity.add(element.acceleration.mul(ticks));
element.point = element.point.add(element.velocity.mul(0.5 * ticks));
I tried sending a negative tick as well as negative gravitational constant, but the positions it produces for the "past" didn't seem to follow what the elements appeared to do in the real past.
I don't know much about physics but I was wondering if there is a small change that could be done to reverse this algorithm.
Update
Thanks to Graeme Niedermayer, I've updated my gravity algorithm to the inverse square law and using negative time it appears to produce positions in the past!
function forces(other) {
if (element === other) {
return;
}
var distancePoint = element.point.sub(other.point);
const forceElementMass = GravatationalConstant * element.mass * other.mass /
Math.pow(element.mass,2)
const forceOtherMass = GravatationalConstant * element.mass * other.mass /
Math.pow(other.mass,2)
element.acceleration = element.acceleration
.sub(distancePoint.mul(forceOtherMass))
other.acceleration = other.acceleration
.add(distancePoint.mul(forceElementMass))
}
const ticks = forwards ? dt : -dt;
element.acceleration = new Point(0,0,0,0);
universe.forEach(forces);
element.velocity = element.velocity.add(element.acceleration.mul(ticks));
element.point = element.point.add(element.velocity.mul(0.5 * ticks));
Outlined circles are at the current position and the "past" positions are others fading out to zero opacity.
Update 2
Realised that I used the wrong equation in Update 1 (both force constants used the same mass object). I looked into a few more examples and have updated the code, but now I'm not sure where i should add the delta time ticks which is currently just set to 1 for forwards and -1 back backwards. Below is an image of what is looks like if I multiply the acceleration by ticks before adding it to the velocity each frame body.velocity = body.velocity.add(body.acceleration.mul(ticks)) or if I make one of the masses negative const force = G * body.mass * (forward ? other.mass : -other.mass) / d ** 2.
As you can see the "past" positions (red outline) of the green body go over to the left and above. I was hoping to have them appear to "follow" the current position but I'm not sure how to reverse or invert the equation to show the "past" positions, basically if the body was traveling in the opposite direction. Is there a way to do this?
In this next image I have multiplied the velocity by delta time ticks before adding it to the position body.point = body.point.add(body.velocity.mul(ticks)) this results in a similar path to a recorded path the body traveled (by writing each position to an array and drawing a line between those positions) but it is slightly off. This solution is similar to what I was seeing in Update 1. Is there a reason that this is "almost" correct?
Code below is without any additions to reverse the position.
function forces(other, ticks) {
if (body === other) {
return;
}
// Calculate direction of force
var distanceVector = other.point.sub(body.point)
// Distance between objects
var d = distanceVector.mag()
// Normalize vector (distance doesn't matter here, we just want this vector for direction)
const forceNormalized = distanceVector.normalized()
// Calculate gravitational force magnitude
const G = 6.674
const force = G * body.mass * other.mass / d ** 2
// Get force vector --> magnitude * direction
const magDirection = forceNormalized.mul(force)
const f = magDirection.div(body.mass)
body.acceleration = body.acceleration.add(f)
}
body.acceleration = body.acceleration.mul(0)
universe.forEach(body => forces(body, ticks))
body.velocity = body.velocity.add(body.acceleration)
body.point = body.point.add(body.velocity)
Update 3
I ended up removing the negative mass and the velocity multiplied by ticks and just reversed the way the acceleration is applied to the position:
if (forward) {
universe.forEach(body => forces(body, ticks));
body.velocity = body.velocity.add(body.acceleration)
body.point = body.point.add(body.velocity)
} else {
body.point = body.point.sub(body.velocity)
universe.forEach(body => forces(body, ticks));
body.velocity = body.velocity.sub(body.acceleration)
}
Resulting in being able to generate positions forwards and backwards in time from the current position. In the image it appears so the "past" positions follow the recorded trail of the current position.
To generate a step in the "past" it subtracts the current velocity from the current position, putting it in the last position it was in. Next it gets the acceleration by checking the forces from other bodies then subtracts the new acceleration (using negative mass would do the same) from the velocity so the next position in the "past" will be correct.
You should be able to make one of the masses negative.
The reason why negative time doesn't work is because you are implicit using euler's method. Euler's method is unstable when using negative steps.
Also the physics you using is also a little weird. Gravity is usually a squared law.
I'm trying to test if two rectangle objects, one of which being rotated, are colliding in JavaScript.
Here's the screen shot of what I'm on about.
After hours of online research, I'm still wondering what's the best way (algorithm) to detect if the laser-ish lime object is overlapping with the blue square.
I'd appreciate any advice.
You can use the separating axis theorem for this. Basically, if 2 convex polygons (e.g. rectangles) do NOT intersect, then there should be at least one line (formed by the edges of one of the polygons extended to infinity) where all the corners from one polygon are on one side of it, and all the corners from the other polygon are on the other side.
You can test which side of a line a point is on using a dot product. One vector should be the normal to the line, and the other vector should be a vector from a point on the line to the point you are testing.
If you specify your rectangle corner vertices with a constant winding order (e.g. always clockwise or always counter clockwise) then you'll know the sign that the dot product should be when the points from the other rectangle are on the side of the line corresponding to the outside of the rectangle.
pseudo-code:
function hasSeparatingAxis(a, b)
{
// test each side of a in turn:
for(i = 0; i < a.side_count; i++)
{
normal_x = a.verts[(i+1)%a.side_count].y - a.verts[i].y;
normal_y = a.verts[i].x - a.verts[(i+1)%a.side_count].x;
for(j = 0; j < b.side_count; j++)
{
dot_product = ((b.vert[j].x - a.verts[i].x) * normal_x) +
((b.vert[j].y - a.verts[i].y) * normal_y);
if(dot_product <= 0.0) // change sign of test based on winding order
break;
if(j == b.side_count-1)
return true; // all dots were +ve, we found a separating axis
}
}
return false;
}
function intersects(a, b)
{
return !hasSeparatingAxis(a, b) && !hasSeparatingAxis(b, a);
}
This question already has an answer here:
HTML5 canvas zoom where mouse coordinates
(1 answer)
Closed 8 years ago.
I make program like a paint with HTML5 canvas and javascript. Drawing takes place on the background image. How to zoom my drawing on the background together.
Before zoom it:
After zoom it (need this result):
Note: zoom should be where clicked with the mouse on the background image
I've done this before!
First of all, I set a zoom level attribute on my canvas.
Main.canvas.zoomX = 1;
Main.canvas.zoomY = 1;
I also retain the original size of the canvas for reference.
Main.canvas.originW = Main.canvas.width;
Main.canvas.originH = Main.canvas.height;
I also retain the original left and top of the canvas for reference.
Main.canvas.gLeftStart = 0;
Main.canvas.gTopStart = 0;
I then set a zoom percentage. The zoom level will be adjusted by this amount every time that the zoom event occurs.
Main.canvas.zoomPerc = 0.05;
Next, I set an event listener on my canvas to watch for mousewheel.
Main.canvas.addEventListener('wheel', zoom, true);
Now, I'm going to write a quick function to retrieve the zoom, then I'll explain it.
function zoom(evt)
{
var x;
var y;
Main.canvas.xLayerS = (evt.layerX + (Main.canvas.gLeftStart * -1)) / (Main.canvas.originW * Main.canvas.zoomX);
Main.canvas.yLayerS = (evt.layerY + (Main.canvas.gTopStart * -1)) / (Main.canvas.originH * Main.canvas.zoomY);
Main.canvas.leftPerc = Main.canvas.gLeftStart / (Main.canvas.originW * Main.canvas.zoomX);
Main.canvas.topPerc = Main.canvas.gTopStart / (Main.canvas.originH * Main.canvas.zoomY);
if(evt.deltaY > 1)
{
Main.canvas.zoomX *= 1 + Main.canvas.zoomPerc;
Main.canvas.zoomY *= 1 + Main.canvas.zoomPerc;
}
else
{
Main.canvas.zoomX *= 1 - Main.canvas.zoomPerc;
Main.canvas.zoomY *= 1 - Main.canvas.zoomPerc;
}
var iiDS;
var cmd;
Main.canvas.xLayer = Main.canvas.xLayerS * (Main.canvas.originW * Main.canvas.zoomX);
Main.canvas.yLayer = Main.canvas.yLayerS * (Main.canvas.originH * Main.canvas.zoomY);
Main.context.clearRect(0, 0, Main.canvas.width, Main.canvas.height);
Main.context.beginPath();
Main.canvas.gLeftStart = (evt.layerX - Main.canvas.xLayer);
Main.canvas.gTopStart = (evt.layerY - Main.canvas.yLayer);
for(iiDS = 0; iiDS < Main.dataPoints.length; iiDS++)
{
if(iiDS === 0)
{
cmd = 'moveTo';
}
else
{
cmd = 'lineTo';
}
Main.dataPoints[iiDS].xPerc = Main.dataPoints[iiDS].x / Main.range.x;
Main.dataPoints[iiDS].yPerc = Main.dataPoints[iiDS].y / Main.range.y;
x = Main.canvas.gLeftStart + (Main.dataPoints[iiDS].xPerc * (Main.canvas.originW * Main.canvas.zoomX));
y = Main.canvas.gTopStart + (Main.dataPoints[iiDS].yPerc * (Main.canvas.originH * Main.canvas.zoomY));
Main.context[cmd](x, y);
}
Main.context.stroke();
}
Now that your canvas has been re-sized, you will need to redraw whatever was in it. Remember, any time that you re-size a canvas, you clear the canvas. If your canvas was holding an image, then that's simple, redraw that image at that size. If you canvas was holding data points (like a chart) then I would suggest that you make your data points have percentage like (probably a word for that) positions along your chart, not pixel positions.
More importantly though, I do not suggest that you ever re-size and re-position your canvas on zoom. Your page can get jumbled up and sloppy that way. Instead, use the percentages for size (like I showed you) and use the values for left and top positioning as starting points in your drawing. If a data point was a certain percentage of a way across a chart, it can be drawn at any size. Plus, you can draw outside of your canvas, it just won't be visible. Your canvas would then be more like a view-port.
You can do some really impressive charting this way, which a lot of companies pay a lot of money for. Have fun!
Did you try Context2d.scale(x, y)? You could do the following
var canvas = document.getElementById('myCanvas');
var context = canvas.getContext('2d');
context.scale(2, 2);
paintBackGround(context);
paintForeGround(context);
scale(factorWidth, factorHeight) Scales all coordinates in the canvas by the factors, so it will scale the background and the drawing. The example would double the size. You don't have to scale your coordinates by yourself, just let canvas do that for you.
Here is an example :
http://www.html5canvastutorials.com/advanced/html5-canvas-transform-scale-tutorial/
The only problem here: you need to scale before you draw, so you need a model that contains the original drawing in original unscaled coordinates, that can be drawn after scaling (paintForeGround() in my example)
Scale() is part of so called Transformations. You can Translate (move along a vector) rotate and scale the content of a canvas by using buildin functions of canvas. Just take a look at the html5canvastutorials. This works with matrix-mutliplications in the background, but it is really simple to use.
I'm unsure how to go about defining the area for a collision detection function when I have a polygon that looks like:
______
/ _____|
/ /
/ /
---
I draw the polygon using lineTo() a few times before fill/stroke call so I know the x,y co-ords of all the points.
Currently I just check if the ball is beyond certain areas of points:
if(tmpParticle.y <= platformBottom) {
if(tmpParticle.x < leftPipe_middleX || tmpParticle.x > rightPipe_middleX) {
tmpParticle = particleCollision(tmpParticle, platformBottom);
}
}
if(tmpParticle.y <= pipeBottom && tmpParticle.y >= pipeBottom - 30) {
if(tmpParticle.x < leftPipe_bottomRightX && tmpParticle.x > leftPipe_bottomLeftX) {
tmpParticle = particleCollision(tmpParticle, pipeBottom);
} else if (tmpParticle.x < rightPipe_bottomRightX && tmpParticle.x > rightPipe_bottomLeftX) {
tmpParticle = particleCollision(tmpParticle, pipeBottom);
}
}
platformHeight would be the Y value for the 'top horizontal line'
platformBottom would be the Y value for the 'horizontal line just below platformHeight'
rightPipe* is for the example shown. leftPipe* is for the same polygon except in the other direction (to form a pipe, where you must shoot the balls through without colliding).
My particleCollision() function just takes the tmpParticle and inverses the direction based on the Y value (2nd parameter, i.e. pipeBottom). This works fine for now though I may need to improve it later on.
I just need to figure out a better way to define the area for collisions.
You may consider splitting your pipe into triangles and then finding triangle - circle intersection area. If they do intersect the intersection will always be a convex polygon (area is easy to calculate by splitting into triangles again) and a segment (area is easy to calculate too - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_segment). The other case is the triangle itself, in case it lies inside the circle completely (a simple case again).
I've got a script that creates a gradient by shading cells based on their distance from a set of coordinates. What I want to do is make the gradient circular rather than the diamond shape that it currently is. You can see an en example here: http://jsbin.com/uwivev/9/edit
var row = 5, col = 5, total_rows = 20, total_cols = 20;
$('table td').each(function(index, item) {
// Current row and column
var current_row = $(item).parent().index(),
current_col = $(item).index();
// Percentage based on location, always using positive numbers
var percentage_row = Math.abs(current_row-row)/total_rows;
var percentage_col = Math.abs(current_col-col)/total_cols;
// I'm thinking this is what I need to change to achieve the curve I'm after
var percentage = (percentage_col+percentage_row)/2;
$(this).find('div').fadeTo(0,percentage*3);
});
If you can give me hand with the right maths function to get the curve I'm after that would be great! Thanks!
Darren
// Current row and column
var current_row = $(item).parent().index(),
current_col = $(item).index();
// distance away from the bright pixel
var dist = Math.sqrt(Math.pow(current_row - row, 2) + Math.pow(current_col - col, 2))
// do something with dist, you might change this
var percentage = dist / total_cols;
$(this).find('div').fadeTo(0,percentage*3);
You can use the square of the distance formula:
((current_row - row)*(current_row - row) + (current_col - col)*(current_col - col))
then multiply it by whatever scale factor you need.
Here is a circle drawing procudure I wrote many moons ago in Pascal which you can use as pseudo code to understand how to color pixels at the radius from an (X,Y) and work your way in. Multiple shrinking circles should cover the entire area you need. The code also gives you the formula for accessing the radius.
PROCEDURE DrawCircle(X,Y,Radius:Integer);
VAR A,B,Z:LongInt;
BEGIN
Z:=Round(Sqrt(Sqr(LongInt(Radius))/2));
FOR A:=Z TO Radius DO
FOR B:=0 TO Z DO
IF Radius=Round(Sqrt(A*A+B*B)) THEN
BEGIN
PutPixel(X+A,Y+B,8);
PutPixel(X+A,Y-B,9);
PutPixel(X-A,Y+B,10);
PutPixel(X-A,Y-B,11);
PutPixel(X+B,Y+A,12);
PutPixel(X+B,Y-A,13);
PutPixel(X-B,Y+A,14);
PutPixel(X-B,Y-A,15);
END;
END;
NB: "Longint()" is a compiler typecast for larger numeric computations so don't let that worry you.
NB: Inner-most brackets are executed first.