I am working on a game written in javaScript / jQuery. Part of my code draws a random polygon (an island) on a tile grid. I need to check if a point is inside the polygon.
I am using a point-in-polygon intersection script which I found in several places on Stack Overflow (original here). This works fine in Firefox. In Chrome, there are points inside the polygon which the script says are not inside it.
In Firefox:
In Chrome (the island is different because they are randomly generated):
Please take a look at the source here, particularly the pointPolygonIntersect function:
Point in Polygon Hit Test
Can anyone figure out why this is happening? The original script is in C, and I am using a JavaScript version - could this be causing the problem?
Pick an island and stick with it. Trace the code in both browsers and see where they differ. There's no reason to fight against the randomness that you can easily remove...
I gave it a quick look. Couldn't track the app flow, but what seems strange is the
c = !c;
line of code. Why dont you just set it to true, or directly return true, if you meet the conditions the first time? I'm assuming, that chrome goes to "true" and then inverts it the next time its within the x/y bounds.
I'm not familiar with Raphael or SVG, but it seems your polygons are squares, thus you could do a simple within test
//original found here http://www.gamedev.net/topic/483716-point-inside-of-rectangle/
function inside( x, y, l, r, b, t ){ //x,y are the point, l,r,b,t are the extents of the rectangle
return x > l && x < r && y > b && y < t;
}
Related
I'm working on a modification to vis.js's Graph3d to do a filled line graph, like this:
The hard part - unsurprisingly - is working out the rendering order for the polygons. I think I can do this by checking whether a ray from the viewer to a given line B crosses line A:
In this example, since line A is "in the way" of line B, we should draw line A first. I'll use a snippet of code from How do you detect where two line segments intersect? to check whether the lines cross.
However, I haven't figured how to find the position of the user's view. I kind of assumed this would be the camera object, so wrote a little bit of debug code to draw the camera on the graph:
var camera = this._convert3Dto2D(this.camera.getCameraLocation());
ctx.strokeStyle = Math.random()>0.5 ? 'ff0000' : '00ff00';
ctx.beginPath();
ctx.moveTo(camera.x, camera.y);
ctx.lineTo(camera.x, camera.y+5);
ctx.stroke();
In fact, the camera co-ordinates as measured by this are always at 0,0,0 on the graph (which would be the far top right on the above screengrab). What I need, I think, is effectively the bottom of the screen.
How can I find this? Or is there a better way to achieve what I'm trying to do?
I don't know if this is still an active issue, but FWIW, Graph3D has internal handling of the sort ordering.
All graph points are sorted with respect to the viewpoint, using a representative coordinate called point.bottom. The rendering is then done using this ordering, with the most distant elements drawn first. This works fine as long as none of the elements intersect; in that case, you can expect artefacts.
Basically, all you need to do, is define point.bottom per graph polygon, and Graph3D will then pick it up from there.
If you are still interested in working on this:
This happens in Graph3d.js, method Graph3d.prototype._calcTranslations(). For an example, have a look at how the Grid and Surface graph elements are initialized in Graph3d.prototype._getDataPoints(). The relevant code is:
obj = {};
obj.point = point3d;
obj.trans = undefined;
obj.screen = undefined;
obj.bottom = new Point3d(x, y, this.zRange.min);
Leading up from this question Detecting mouse coordinates with precision, I have learnt quite a bit in the past few days. Here are what I picked as best learning resources on this topic:
http://gamedev.tutsplus.com/tutorials/implementation/quick-tip-use-quadtrees-to-detect-likely-collisions-in-2d-space/
http://www.gamedev.net/page/resources/_/technical/graphics-programming-and-theory/quadtrees-r1303
http://jsfiddle.net/2dchA/2/
The code in (3) works in JSFiddle but breaks at this section in my testing environment (VS2012):
var myTree = new Quadtree({
x: 0,
y: 0,
width: 400,
height: 300
});
with the message Quadtree is undefined in IE. FF & Chrome just gloss over it and display an empty page. I couldn't sort it out. Question 1: Can someone help out with that?
My main question:
I have a region (parcels of land like a map) with about 1500 parcels drawn in html5, not jpg or png images. It is a lot of lines of code to complete that but the rendering is great, so I am keeping it that way. I intend to have a mouseover event tell me which parcel I am standing on when the mouse stops. As you will see in the previous question referred my previous attempts were not impressive. Based on the learning I have been doing, and thanks to Ken J's answer/comments, I would like to go with this new approach of slicing up my canvas into say 15 quads of 100 objects each. However, I would like some guidance before I take another wild dive the wrong way.
Question 2: Should I slice it up at creation or should the slicing happen when the mouse is over a region, ie, trail the mouse? The latter sounds better to me but I think I can do with some advice and, if possible, some start out code. The quadtree concept is completely new to me. Thanks.
Can't help with question 1.
You should definitely build the tree as early as possible, given that the objective is to get the page to respond as quick as possible once the user clicks somewhere.
Keep the tree for as long as the user interacts with the 2d area. Updating a quad tree shouldn't be too hard, so even if the area changes contents, you should be able to reuse the existing tree (just update it).
Given the fact that your draw area is well know i see no advantage in a QuadTree over a spacial hash function. This function will give you an integer out of an (x,y) point.
var blocWidth = 20;
var blocHeight = 20;
var blocsPerLine = ( 0 | ( worldWidth / blocWidth) ) + 1 ;
function hashPoint(x,y) {
return ( 0 | (x/blocWidth)) + blocsPerLine*(0|(y/blocHeight));
}
once you built that, hash all your parcels within an array :
parcelHash = [];
function addHash(i,p) {
if (!parcelHash[i]) { parcelHash[i]=[ p ]; return; }
if (parcelHash[i].indexOf(p) != -1 ) return;
parcelHash[i].push(p);
}
function hashParcel (p) {
var thisHash = hashPoint(p.x,p.y); // upper left
addHash( thisHash, p);
thisHash = hashPoint(p.x+width, p.y); // upper right
addHash(thisHash, p);
thisHash = hashPoint(p.x, p.y+p.height); // lower left
addHash(thisHash, p);
thisHash = hashPoint(p.x+width, p.y+p.height); // lower right
addHash(thisHash, p);
};
for (var i=0; i<allParcels.length; i++) { hashParcel(allParcels[i]) };
now if you have a mouse position, you can retrieve all the parcels in the
same block with :
function getParcels(x,y) {
var thisHash = hashPoint(x,y);
return parcelHash[thisHash];
}
I'll just give you few tips in addition to what others have said.
... have a mouseover event tell me which parcel I am standing on ...
From your other messages I conclude that parcels will have irregular shapes. Quadtrees in general work with rectangles, so you'd have to calculate the bounding rectangle around the shape of the parcel and insert that rectangle in the quadtree. Then are when you want to determine whether mouse is over a parcel, you'll query the quadtree which will give you a set of parcels that might be under the mouse, but you'll have to then do a more precise check on your own to see if it indeed is.
... when the mouse stops.
From your other questions I saw that you try to detect when the mouse has "stopped". Maybe you should look at it this way: mouse cursor is never moving, it's teleporting around the screen from previous point to next. It's always stopped, never moving. This might seem a bit philosophical, but it'll keep your code simpler. You should definitely be able to achieve what you intended without any setTimeout checks.
... slicing up my canvas into say 15 quads of 100 objects each.
... Should I slice it up at creation or should the slicing happen when the mouse is over a region
You won't (and can't) do slicing, quadtree implementation does that automatically (that's its purpose) when you insert or remove items from it (note that moving the item is actually removing then re-inserting it).
I didn't look into the implementation of quadtree that you're using, but here are two MX-CIF quadtree implementations in case that one doesn't work out for you:
https://github.com/pdehn/jsQuad
https://github.com/bjornharrtell/jsts/tree/master/src/jsts/index/quadtree
The problem in question 1 probably happens because jsfiddle (http) page is trying access quadtree.js which is on https
I'm trying to do a Tiny Wings like in javascript.
I first saw a technique using Box2D, I'm using the closure-web version (because of the memory leaks fix).
In short, I explode the curve into polygons so it looks like that:
I also tried with Chipmunk-js and I use the segment shape to simulate my ground like that:
In both cases, I'm experiencing some "crashes" or "bumps" at the common points between polygons or segments when a circle is rolling.
I asked about it for Chipmunk and the author said he implemented a radius property for the segment to reduce this behavior. I tried and it indeed did the trick but it's not perfect. I still have some bumps(I had to set to 30px of radius to get a positive effect).
The "bumps" append at the shared points between two polygons :
Using, as illandril suggested to me, the edging technique (he only tested with polygon-polygon contact) to avoid the circle to crash on an edge:
Also tried to add the bullet option as Luc suggested and nothing seems to change.
Here the demo of the issue.
You can try to change the value to check :
bullet option
edge size
iterations count
the physics
(only tested on latest dev Chrome)
Be patient (or change the horizontal gravity) and you'll see what I mean.
Here the repo for the interested.
The best solution is edge shapes with ghost vertices, but if that's not available in the version/port you're using, the next best thing is like the diagram in your question called 'edging', but extend the polygons further underground with a very shallow slope, like in this thread: http://www.box2d.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7917
I first thought the problem could come from the change of slope between two adjacent segments, but since on a flat surface of polygons you still have bumps I think the problem is rather hitting the corner of a polygon.
I don't know if you can set two sets of polygons, overlapping each other ? Just use the same interpolation calculations and generate a second set of polygons just like in the diagram hereafter : you have the red set of polygons built and add the green set by setting the left vertices of a green polygon in the middle of a red polygon, and its right vertices in the middle of the next red polygon.
![diagram][1]
This should work on concave curves and... well you should be flying over the convex ones anyway.
If this doesn't work try setting a big number of polygons to build the slope. Use a tenth of the circle's radius for the polygon's width, maybe even less. That should reduce your slope discontinuities.
-- Edit
In Box2D.js line 5082 (in this repo at least) you have the PreSolve(contact, manifold) function that you can override to check if the manifolds (directions in which the snowball are impulsed when colliding the polygons) are correct.
To do so, you would need to recover the manifold vector and compare it to the normal of the curve. It should look like that (maybe not exactly) :
Box2D.Dynamics.b2ContactListener.prototype.PreSolve = function (contact, oldManifold) {
// contact instanceof Box2D.Dynamics.Contacts.b2Contact == true
var localManifold, worldManifold, xA, xB, man_vect, curve_vect, normal_vect, angle;
localManifold = contact.GetManifold();
if(localManifold.m_pointCount == 0)
return; // or raise an exception
worldManifold = new Box2D.Collision.b2WorldManifold();
contact.GetWorldManifold( worldManifold );
// deduce the impulse direction from the manifold points
man_vect = worldManifold.m_normal.Copy();
// we need two points close to & surrounding the collision to compute the normal vector
// not sure this is the right order of magnitude
xA = worldManifold.m_points[0].x - 0.1;
xB = worldManifold.m_points[0].x + 0.1;
man_vect.Normalize();
// now we have the abscissas let's get the ordinate of these points on the curve
// the subtraction of these two points will give us a vector parallel to the curve
var SmoothConfig;
SmoothConfig = {
params: {
method: 'cubic',
clip: 'mirror',
cubicTension: 0,
deepValidation: false
},
options: {
averageLineLength: .5
}
}
// get the points, smooth and smooth config stuff here
smooth = Smooth(global_points,SmoothConfig);
curve_vect = new Box2D.Common.Math.b2Vec2(xB, smooth(xB)[1]);
curve_vect.Subtract(new Box2D.Common.Math.b2Vec2(xA, smooth(xA)[1]));
// now turn it to have a normal vector, turned upwards
normal_vect = new Box2D.Common.Math.b2Vec2(-curve_vect.y, curve_vect.x);
if(normal_vect.y > 0)
normal_vect.NegativeSelf();
normal_vect.Normalize();
worldManifold.m_normal = normal_vect.Copy();
// and finally compute the angle between the two vectors
angle = Box2D.Common.Math.b2Math.Dot(man_vect, normal_vect);
$('#angle').text("" + Math.round(Math.acos(angle)*36000/Math.PI)/100 + "°");
// here try to raise an exception if the angle is too big (maybe after a few ms)
// with different thresholds on the angle value to see if the bumps correspond
// to a manifold that's not normal enough to your curve
};
I'd say the problem has been tackled in Box2D 2.2.0 , see its manual, section 4.5 "Edge Shapes"
The thing is it's a feature of the 2.2.0 version, along with the chainshape thing, and the box2dweb is actually ported from 2.2.1a - don't know about box2dweb-closure.
Anything I've tried by modifying Box2D.Collision.b2Collision.CollidePolygonAndCircle has resulted in erratic behaviour. At least a part of the time (e.g. ball bumping in random directions, but only when it rolls slowly).
I'm having a problem with what should be simple additon in Javascript.
Take a look at this firebug output:
What I'm making is a 2D tile map in canvas, and for objects in the map that are greater than one tile in size, they have their width and height set to negative numbers, to tell me how many tiles offset in x/y they are to get to the tile with the relevant data.
This works fine for all cases, except when adding zero to a number. This results in strange numbers.
In the image above, there are two click events fired, each starting with "clicking on X x Y" and ending with "modified x/y into X Y". As you can see, clicking on a tile with a -3 for the Y offset works fine, but clicking on a tile with 0 for the Y offset results in 247!??? I've been going over and over this without getting any closer to an answer. All data seems fine, right up to the point when I try and add 0 to the variable y. If that wasn't weird enough, adding zero to the x variable works fine!
Here's the snippet of code that outputs the debug messages and causes the error. x and y are parameters to a function call, and cityMap is a global 3D array.
if (cityMap[x][y]['typeID']<0)
{
// get deffered tile pos
console.debug("Offset x = "+cityMap[x][y]['width']);
console.debug("Offset y = "+cityMap[x][y]['height']);
x += parseInt(cityMap[x][y]['width'], 10);
y += parseInt(cityMap[x][y]['height'], 10);
console.debug("modified x/y into x:"+x+" y:"+y);
}
I'm completely lost for ideas here. Does anyone know what else I can try to stop Javascript doing this?
+1 For all those developers that solve their own questions! I got this one, but I read then your comment so the answer is yours and I'm not writing it down.
I've been doing web development for years now and I'm slowly getting myself involved with game development and for my current project I've got this isometric map, where I need to use an algorithm to detect which field is being clicked on. This is all in the browser with Javascript by the way.
The map
It looks like this and I've added some numbers to show you the structure of the fields (tiles) and their IDs. All the fields have a center point (array of x,y) which the four corners are based on when drawn.
As you can see it's not a diamond shape, but a zig-zag map and there's no angle (top-down view) which is why I can't find an answer myself considering that all articles and calculations are usually based on a diamond shape with an angle.
The numbers
It's a dynamic map and all sizes and numbers can be changed to generate a new map.
I know it isn't a lot of data, but the map is generated based on the map and field sizes.
- Map Size: x:800 y:400
- Field Size: 80x80 (between corners)
- Center position of all the fields (x,y)
The goal
To come up with an algorithm which tells the client (game) which field the mouse is located in at any given event (click, movement etc).
Disclaimer
I do want to mention that I've already come up with a working solution myself, however I'm 100% certain it could be written in a better way (my solution involves a lot of nested if-statements and loops), and that's why I'm asking here.
Here's an example of my solution where I basically find a square with corners in the nearest 4 known positions and then I get my result based on the smallest square between the 2 nearest fields. Does that make any sense?
Ask if I missed something.
Here's what I came up with,
function posInGrid(x, y, length) {
xFromColCenter = x % length - length / 2;
yFromRowCenter = y % length - length / 2;
col = (x - xFromColCenter) / length;
row = (y - yFromRowCenter) / length;
if (yFromRowCenter < xFromColCenter) {
if (yFromRowCenter < (-xFromColCenter))--row;
else++col;
} else if (yFromRowCenter > xFromColCenter) {
if (yFromRowCenter < (-xFromColCenter))--col;
else++row;
}
return "Col:"+col+", Row:"+row+", xFC:"+xFromColCenter+", yFC:"+yFromRowCenter;
}
X and Y are the coords in the image, and length is the spacing of the grid.
Right now it returns a string, just for testing.. result should be row and col, and those are the coordinates I chose: your tile 1 has coords (1,0) tile 2 is(3,0), tile 10 is (0,1), tile 11 is (2,1). You could convert my coordinates to your numbered tiles in a line or two.
And a JSFiddle for testing http://jsfiddle.net/NHV3y/
Cheers.
EDIT: changed the return statement, had some variables I used for debugging left in.
A pixel perfect way of hit detection I've used in the past (in OpenGL, but the concept stands here too) is an off screen rendering of the scene where the different objects are identified with different colors.
This approach requires double the memory and double the rendering but the hit detection of arbitrarily complex scenes is done with a simple color lookup.
Since you want to detect a cell in a grid there are probably more efficient solutions but I wanted to mention this one for it's simplicity and flexibility.
This has been solved before, let me consult my notes...
Here's a couple of good resources:
From Laserbrain Studios, The basics of isometric programming
Useful article in the thread posted here, in Java
Let me know if this helps, and good luck with your game!
This code calculates the position in the grid given the uneven spacing. Should be pretty fast; almost all operations are done mathematically, using just one loop. I'll ponder the other part of the problem later.
def cspot(x,y,length):
l=length
lp=length+1
vlist = [ (l*(k%2))+(lp*((k+1)%2)) for k in range(1,y+1) ]
vlist.append(1)
return x + sum(vlist)