I am making a platformer game with all the basic code that is usualy found in godot platformers(kinimaticbody2d,move_and_slide, etc). the problem is that the character can climb really steep slopes which I dont like.
for example the character can move up the slope shown in the picture simply by pressing left(no jumping) he just slowly slides up
but when i make the slope just a little bit steeper the character cant scale the slope.
my question is there a way to set the maximum angle of a slope that a character can climb? thx in advance
If you are using move_and_slide you need to:
Specify an up_direction vector, which goes into the second parameter of move_and_slide. Without it, everything is considered a wall, and no sliding happens. Since, you are experiencing sliding, I suspect you already have this.
And specify floor_max_angle float, which goes into the fifth parameter of move_and_slide. This controls how inclined can be a surface and still be considered a floor/slope. If a surface is more steep that this angle, it will be considerad a wall, and no sliding happens. The angle is measured between the normal of the surface and the up_direction vector provided.
By default the value of floor_max_angle is 0.785398 (it is in radians, by the way) which is equivalent to 45º.
The situation you are suggest you are using a number closer to a quarter turn (i.e π/2 - approx 1.57 - radians). Probably something like 1.2 or 1.3? You want a smaller value.
By the way, you can convert from radians to degrees with rad2deg and viceversa with deg2rad.
I'll quickly go over a couple more issues you may find along the way:
The character slides down when idle due to gravity. To prevent this, you want to set stop_on_slope to true. This is the third parameter of move_and_slide.
The character have jitter and move more than desired when going down the slope with user input (caused by very little jumps usually perceived as jitter). And this is why you would want to move_and_slide_with_snap, which has an extra snap vector parameter which allows you to specify a direction the character should stick to the ground while moving. By the way, you may want to use get_slide_collision to figure out on what surface the character did slide, if any, and what is its normal.
Related
I have this fun idea of a project i'd like to do, but i'm not really sure about the math part of it. Here is the idea:
Make a plastic card that would simulate a 9 finger multitouch gesture when it is held against a capacitive screen
Based on the "9 finger" placement, determine some sort of a unique string and use it as an encryption/decryption key for an app
This way i could just open an app, touch the screen with the card and it would get authorized.
But here's the problem:
It shouldn't matter where you place the card on a screen, because the card would be pretty small to fit various screen sizes
The rectangle in which we can randomly position the 9 "fingers" would optimally be 4.5cm x 3cm
The "finger" itself is only recognized as a touch if it is about a 6mm circle (not sure if this can be made smaller)
I figured we could find the left-top "finger" and get every other "finger's" X and Y difference from it. Then concatenate the resulting numbers into a string and use it as a decryption/encryption key. So basically:
key = concat(X2 - X1, Y2 - Y1, X3 - X1, Y3 - Y1, ...)
But i think such an approach would have very few possible combinations (given a relatively small card size and a relatively big "finger") and one could easily write a program to generate all possible combinations and break the key in no time. Am i right about this? If so, how could i improve this?
Thanks for your thoughts
UPDATE 1: actually tried it out on iOS. The result is not promising, since the "fingers" get detected differently each time. The distance between them varies significantly (by as much as 40 pixels!). So i guess this is not as easy as i expected, since the OS seems to detect the touch differently each time for the same two circles.
Your question is lacking some relevant information: how far apart need the circles be so that the system can still distinguish them? What resolution can you realistically expect for the circle centers? And by “6mm circle”, do you mean 6mm diameter or radius (or even circumference)?
Lacking details, I'll make some pretty rough approximations. I'll start by requiring that two of the circles will be placed in opposite corners of the card. That way, you can find them by looking for a pair with maximal distance, and from that compute the orientation and size of the card and correct for that. This leaves 7 fingers to be placed randomly. I'll assume 1mm resolution, and restrict myself to a 45×30mm area. Which means 39×24=936 positions per circle, for a total of 9367≈6,3×1020≈269 combinations. OK, this does not exclude overlapping circles. But since the card is still rather sparsely covered, that shouldn't amount to too much. I'd say 64 bit of entropy (i.e. 264 possible combinations) should be reasonable even if you enforce non-overlapping circles. If you can really detect the circle centers with the required resolution, that is. This should be sufficient security for most applications. Far better than 8-letter passwords, but worse than the symmetric keys usually used for e.g. AES.
Since all of this depends very much on the resolution, it might be worthwhile to investigate that aspect first. Usually you'll get pixel coordinates for your finger positions, but it would be expecting too much to assume that you'd always get the pixel coordinate closest to the center of your circle. So you might start by writing a small application which draws a 6mm circle and records coordinates it receives. Then place a 6mm artificial circle in that drawn one a large number of times. Look how far the recorded positions differ from the center of circle. Take the maximum of those differences, perhaps after removing outliers. I'd add a pixel or two to that, to account for rounding errors due to the rotation of the card. Then turn that pixel count back into a metric length. This is the resolution you can expect. You might have to do this for several devices. If you do perform these experiments, let me know what you find and I'll update my answer accordingly.
Currently I am drawing a 3D curve consisting of 1200...1500 straight micro-lines directed by an array of 3D points (x,y,z), but rendering is a bit slow regardless of used technology (Adobe Flash, Three.js).
The curve is a kind of 3D arc with a 180 degree loop at the end, so I thought that skipping some points in places where the curve is more smooth and predictable will speed up rendering.
Could you suggest some algorithm which can determine how close to a straight line the specific piece of 3D curve is?
Update
I tried to make Three.js to render these points as a single curve and it works really fast. But the different pieces of this curve should be differently colored, so I have to draw it as a bunch of separate lines and the only thing I can do to speed it up is to skip every second point in a region where line is close to a straight line.
I can not use OpenGL (WebGL) because not all browsers support it.
The difference between three points and a straight line can be quantified from the distance of the middle one from the line on which the other two rest. Probably getting the two lengths along the line from either end point to the middle one, dividing the distance by both and summing the two results is the easiest way to turn it into a single number.
So:
as the middle point gets closer to the line, the number goes down;
as the line segment grows longer, variations by the mid point need to be proportionally more extreme; and
greater local slope (as if the middle point were very close to either end) produces a greater error.
You can get the distance from a position to a line by obtaining the vector from any point on the line to the position, using the dot product to work out how much of that is movement along the line and then subtracting that from the total. If you don't normalise your vector along the line first you end up having multiplied by the square of it, so no need for a square root operation on that account. Then for the implied length calculation you can just keep and compare all of those as squared.
Given an input of 2D points, I would like to segment them in lines. So if you draw a zig-zag style line, each of the segments should be recognized as a line. Usually, I would use OpenCV's
cvHoughLines or a similar approach (PCA with an outlier remover), but in this case the program is not allowed to make "false-positive" errors. If the user draws a line and it's not recognized - it's ok, but if the user draws a curcle and it comes out as a square - it's not ok. So I have an upper bound on the error - but if it's a long line and some of the points have a greater distance from the approximated line, it's ok again. Summed up:
-line detection
-no false positives
-bounded, dynamically adjusting error
Oh, and the points are drawn in sequence, just like hand drawing.
At least it does not have to be fast. It's for a sketching tool. Anyone has an idea?
This has the same difficulty as voice and gesture recognition. In other words, you can never be 100% sure that you've found all the corners/junctions, and among those you've found you can never be 100% sure they are correct. The reason you can't be absolutely sure is because of ambiguity. The user might have made a single stroke, intending to create two lines that meet at a right angle. But if they did it quickly, the 'corner' might have been quite round, so it wouldn't be detected.
So you will never be able to avoid false positives. The best you can do is mitigate them by exploring several possible segmentations, and using contextual information to decide which is the most likely.
There are lots of papers on sketch segmentation every year. This seems like a very basic thing to solve, but it is still an open topic. The one I use is out of Texas A&M, called MergeCF. It is nicely summarized in this paper: http://srlweb.cs.tamu.edu/srlng_media/content/objects/object-1246390659-1e1d2af6b25a2ba175670f9cb2e989fe/mergeCF-sbim09-fin.pdf.
Basically, you find the areas that have high curvature (higher than some fraction of the mean curvature) and slow speed (so you need timestamps). Combining curvature and speed improves the initial fit quite a lot. That will give you clusters of points, which you reduce to a single point in some way (e.g. the one closest to the middle of the cluster, or the one with the highest curvature, etc.). This is an 'over fit' of the stroke, however. The next stage of the algorithm is to iteratively pick the smallest segment, and see what would happen if it is merged with one of its neighboring segments. If merging doesn't increase the overall error too much, you remove the point separating the two segments. Rinse, repeat, until you're done.
It has been a while since I've looked at the new segmenters, but I don't think there have been any breakthroughs.
In my implementation I use curvature median rather than mean in my initial threshold, which seems to give me better results. My heavily modified implementation is here, which is definitely not a self-contained thing, but it might give you some insight. http://code.google.com/p/pen-ui/source/browse/trunk/thesis-code/src/org/six11/sf/CornerFinder.java
I'm using Löve2D for writing a small game. Löve2D is an open source game engine for Lua. The problem I'm encountering is that some antialias filter is automatically applied to your sprites when you draw it at non-integer positions.
love.graphics.draw( sprite, x, y )
So when x or y is not round (for example, x=100.24), the sprite appears blurred. The same happens when the sprite size is not even, because (x,y) points to the center of the sprite. For example, a sprite which is 31x30 big will appear blurred again, because its pixels are painted in non-integer positions.
Since I am using pixel art, I want to avoid this all the way, otherwise the art is destroyed by this effect. The workaround I am using so far is to force the coordinates to be round by littering the code with calls to math.floor(), and forcing all the sprites to have even sizes by adding a row or column of transparent pixels with the paint program, if needed.
Is there some command to deactivate the antialiasing I can call at program startup?
If you turn off anti-aliasing you will just get aliasing, hence the name! Why are you drawing at non-integral positions, and what do you want it to do about those fractional parts? (Round them to the nearest value? Truncate them? What about if they're negative?)
Personally I would leave the low level graphics alone and alter your code to use accessors for x and y that perform the rounding or truncation that you require. This guarantees your pixel art ends up drawn on integer boundaries while keeping the anti-aliasing on that you might need later.
Another possible work around may be to use math.floor() to round your integers as a cheap workaround.
In case anyone is interested, I've been asking in other places and found out that what I am asking is already requested as feature: http://love2d.org/forum/tracker.php?p=2&t=7
So, the current version of Löve that I'm using (0.5.0) still doesn't allow to disable the antialias filter, but the feature is already in the SVN version of the engine.
you can turn off anti-aliasing by adding love.graphics.setDefaultFilter("nearest", "nearest", 1) to love.load()
Crayon Physics Deluxe is a commercial game that came out recently. Watch the video on the main link to get an idea of what I'm talking about.
It allows you to draw shapes and have them react with proper physics. The goal is to move a ball to a star across the screen using contraptions and shapes you build.
While the game is basically a wrapper for the popular Box2D Physics Engine, it does have one feature that I'm curious about how it is implemented.
Its drawing looks very much like a Crayon. You can see the texture of the crayon and as it draws it varies in thickness and darkness just like an actual crayon drawing would look like.
(source: kloonigames.com)
(source: kloonigames.com)
The background texture is freely available here.
What kind of algorithm would be used to render those lines in a way that looks like a Crayon? Is it a simple texture applied with a random thickness and darkness or is there something more going on?
I remember reading (a long time ago) a short description of an algorithm to do so:
for the general form of the line, you split the segment in two at a random point, and move this point slightly away from it's position (the variation depending on the distance of the point to the extremity). Repeat recursively/randomly. In this way, you lines are not "perfect" (straight line)
for a given segment you can "overshoot" a little bit, by extending one extremity or the other (or both). In this way, you don't have perfect joints. If i remember well, the best was to extends the original extremities, but you can do this for the sub-segment if you want to visibly split them.
draw the lines with pattern/stamp
there was also the (already mentioned) possibility to drawn with different starting and ending opacity (to mimic the tendency to release the pen at the end of drawing)
You can use a different size for the stamp on the beginning and the end of the line (also to mimic the tendency to release the pen at the end of drawing). For the same effect, you can also draw the line twice, with a small variation for one of the extremity (be careful with the alpha in this case, as the line will be drawn twice)
Last, for a given line, you can do the previous modifications several times (ie draw the line twice, with different variations) : human tend to repeat a line if they make some mistakes.
Regards
If you blow the image up you can see a repeating stamp-pattern .. there's probably a small assortment that it uses as it moves from a to b - might even rotate them ..
The wavering of the line can't be all that difficult to do. Divide into a bunch of random segments, pick positions slightly away from the direct route and draw splines.
Here's a paper that uses a lot of math to simulate the deposition of wax on paper using a model of friction. But I think your best bet is to just use a repeating pattern, as another reader mentioned, and vary the opacity according to pressure.
For the imperfect line drawing parts, I have a blog entry describing how to do it using bezier curves.
You can base darkness on speed. That's just measuring the distance traveled by the cursor between this frame and the last frame (remember Pythagorean theorem) and then when you go to draw that line segment on screen, adjust the alpha (opacity) according to the distance you measured.
There is a paper available called Mimicking Hand Drawn Pencil Lines which covers a bit of what you are after. Although it doesn't present a very detailed view of the algorithm, the authors do cover the basics of the steps that they used.
This paper includes high level descriptions of how they generated the lines, as well as how they generated the textures for the lines, and they get results which are similar to what you want.
This article on rendering chart series to look like XKCD comics has an algorithm for perturbing lines which may be relevant. It doesn't cover calculating the texture of a crayon drawn line, but it does offer an approach to making a straight line look imperfect in a human-like way.
Example output:
I believe the easiest way would simply be to use a texture with random darkness (some gradients, maybe) throughout, and set size randomly.