Im trying to implement a* path-finding for my 3d game
I have implemented it and it works
But there is that cutting corner problem
This is when doing diagonal jumps (checking diagonal neighbor nodes).
In 2d it can be prevented by doing some checks, like if up and right is blocked, don't take up-right neighbour for calculations,
but in 3d thous check become a bit to much and to tedious.. so if I still want diagonal paths, what could be a smart solution?
Related
I would like to create a program that can identify arrows in a video feed and determine the direction they are pointing at (left or right). My aim is to use this program with an arduino robot in order to determine the direction in which the bot should move.
my problem is which method to use. I ve narrowed my options down to template matching or SURF. template matching is good because it is rotation independent, therefore it can determine between left and right arrows. However since the bot will be moving, the size of the template arrow might not be equal to that of the video feed, resulting in no matches.
SURF solves this problem however it is rotation invariant. This means that Left arrows and right arrows will be considered as the same thing.
Can anyone please suggest an approach I can use for this program.
Thanks in advance for any help
P.S I will be using OpenCV for implementation.
I managed to solve the problem by using canny edge detection and HoughLinesP. The system works pretty well but has a limited rotation range at which it will detect the direction correctly (approx 15 degrees).
basically I first performed colour detection to detect the arrow, then used houghlinesp to find its outline. Out of these lines, I eliminated all those which are horizontal or vertical, leaving just the ones at the tip as shown in red. I then used the end points of each line to determine the direction.
Using GPUImage, I am able to detect corners of a book/page in an image. But sometimes, it will pass more than 4 points, in which case I will need to process and figure out the best rectangle out of these points. Here's an example:
What's the most efficient way to figure out the best rectangle in this case?
Thanks
If you're using a corner detection algorithm, then you can filter results based on the relative strength of the detected corner. The contrast at the book corners relative to your current background appears to be much stronger than the contrast at the point found in the wood grain. Are there relative magnitudes associated with each point, or do you just get the points? Setting thresholds for edge strengths can mean a lot of fiddling unless the intensities of the foreground and background are relatively constant.
Your sample image could be blurred or morphed. For example, the right morphological "close" on light pixels could eliminate the texture in the wood grain without having an effect on the size and shape of the book. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_morphology)
Another possibility is to shrink the image to a much smaller size and then perform detection on that. Resizing the image will tend to wipe out tiny details such as whatever wood grain pattern is currently being detected.
Picking the right lens and lighting can make the image easier to process. Try to simplify the image as much as possible before processing it. As mentioned above, "dark field" lighting that would illuminate just the book edges would present a much simpler image for processing. Writing down the constraints can make it more obvious which solution will be most robust and simplest to implement. Finding any rectangle anywhere in an image is very difficult; it's much easier to find a light rectangle on a dark background if the rectangle is at least 100 x 100 pixels in size, rotated no more than 15 degrees from square to the image edges, etc.
More involved solutions can be split into two approaches:
Solving the problem using given only 4 or more (x,y) points.
Using a different image processing technique altogether for the sample image.
1. Solving the program given only the points
If you generally only have 5 or 6 points, and if you are confident that 4 of those points will belong to the corners of the rectangles that you want, then you can try this:
Find the convex hull of all points. The convex hull is the N-gon that completely encompasses all points. If the points were pegs sticking up, and if you stretched a rubber band around them and let it snap into place, then the final shape of the rubber band is a convex hull. Algorithms that find convex hulls typically return a list of points that ordered counterclockwise from the bottom leftmost point.
Make a copy of your point list and remove points from the copy until only four points remain. These four remaining points will still be ordered counterclockwise.
Calculate the angle formed by each set of three successive points: points 1, 2, 3, then 2, 3, 4, then 3, 4, 1, and so on.
If an angle is outside a reasonable tolerance--less than 70 degrees or greater than 110 degrees--skip back to step 2 and remove the next point (or set of points).
Store the min and max angles for each set of 4 points.
Repeat steps 2 - 6, removing a different point (or points) each time.
Track the set of points for which the min and max angles are closest to 90 degrees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convex_hull
There are a number of other checks and constraints that could be introduced. For example, if the point-to-point distances for 3 successive points in the convex hull (pts N to N+1, and N+1 to N+2) are close to the expected width and height of the book, then you might mark these as known good points and only test the remaining points to see which is the fourth point.
The technique above can get unwieldy if you get quite a few points, but it may work if two or three of the book corner points are expected to be found on the convex hull.
For any geometric problem, I always recommend checking out GeometricTools.com, which has a lot of great, optimized source code for all sorts of problems. It's very handy to have the book as well, especially if you can find a cheap copy using AddAll.com.
http://www.geometrictools.com/
2. Other image processing techniques for your sample image
Although I could be wrong, it appears that GPUImage doesn't have many general-purpose image processing algorithms. Some other image processing algorithms could make this problem much simpler to solve.
Though there isn't space to go into it here, one of the keys to successful image processing is appropriate lighting. Make sure you're lighting is consistent. A diffuse light that evenly illuminates the book and the background would work well. You can simplify the problem using funkier lighting: if you have four lights (or a special ring light), you can provide horizontal illumination from the top, bottom, left, and right that will cause the edges of the book to appear bright and other surfaces to appear dark.
http://www.benderassoc.com/mic/lighting/nerlite/Darkfield.htm
If you can use some other GPU libraries to do image processing, then one of the following techniques could work nicely:
Connected component labeling (a.k.a. finding blobs). It shouldn't be too hard to use either binary thresholding or a watershed algorithm to separate the white blob that is the book from the rest of the background. Once the blob for the book is identified, finding the corners is easier. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connected-component_labeling) In OpenCV you can find the "contours."
Generate an list of edge points, then have four separate line-fitting tools search from top to bottom, right to left, bottom to top, and left to right to find the four strong (and mostly straight) edges associated with the book. In your sample image, though, either the book cover is slightly warped or the camera lens has introduced barrel distortion.
Use a corner detector designed to find light corners on a dark background. If you will always be looking for a white book on a wood grain background, you can create a detector to find white corners on a brown background.
Use a Hough technique to find the four strongest lines in the image. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hough_transform)
The algorithmic technique that works best will depend on your constraints: are you looking for rectangles only of a certain size? is the contrast between foreground and background consistent? can you introduce lighting to simplify the appearance of the image? and so on.
I'm working on a 2D Platform game, and I was wondering what's the best (performance-wise) way to implement Surface (Collision) Detection.
So far I'm thinking of constructing a list of level objects constructed of a list of lines, and I draw tiles along the lines.
alt text http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/1704/lines.png
I'm thinking every object holds the ID of the surface that he walks on, in order to easily manipulate his y position while walking up/downhill.
Something like this:
//Player/MovableObject class
MoveLeft()
{
this.Position.Y = Helper.GetSurfaceById(this.SurfaceId).GetYWhenXIs(this.Position.X)
}
So the logic I use to detect "droping/walking on surface" is a simple point (player's lower legs)-touches-line (surface) check
(with some safety approximation
- let`s say 1-2 pixels over the line).
Is this approach OK?
I`ve been having difficulty trying to find reading material for this problem, so feel free to drop links/advice.
Having worked with polygon-based 2D platformers for a long time, let me give you some advice:
Make a tile-based platformer.
Now, to directly answer your question about collision-detection:
You need to make your world geometry "solid" (you can get away with making your player object a point, but making it solid is better). By "solid" I mean - you need to detect if the player object is intersecting your world geometry.
I've tried "does the player cross the edge of this world geometry" and in practice is doesn't work (even though it might seem to work on paper - floating point precision issues will not be your only problem).
There are lots of instructions online on how to do intersection tests between various shapes. If you're just starting out I recommend using Axis-Aligned Bounding Boxes (AABBs).
It is much, much, much, much, much easier to make a tile-based platformer than one with arbitrary geometry. So start with tiles, detect intersections with AABBs, and then once you get that working you can add other shapes (such as slopes).
Once you detect an intersection, you have to perform collision response. Again a tile-based platformer is easiest - just move the player just outside the tile that was collided with (do you move above it, or to the side? - it will depend on the collision - I will leave how to do this is an exercise).
(PS: you can get terrific results with just square tiles - look at Knytt Stories, for example.)
Check out how it is done in the XNA's Platformer Starter Kit Project. Basically, the tiles have enum for determining if the tile is passable, impassable etc, then on your level you GetBounds of the tiles and then check for intersections with the player and determine what to do.
I've had wonderful fun times dealing with 2D collision detection. What seems like a simple problem can easily become a nightmare if you do not plan it out in advance.
The best way to do this in a OO-sense would be to make a generic object, e.g. classMapObject. This has a position coordinate and slope. From this, you can extend it to include other shapes, etc.
From that, let's work with collisions with a Solid object. Assuming just a block, say 32x32, you can hit it from the left, right, top and bottom. Or, depending on how you code, hit it from the top and from the left at the same time. So how do you determine which way the character should go? For instance, if the character hits the block from the top, to stand on, coded incorrectly you might inadvertently push the character off to the side instead.
So, what should you do? What I did for my 2D game, I looked at the person's prior positioning before deciding how to react to the collision. If the character's Y position + Height is above the block and moving west, then I would check for the top collision first and then the left collision. However, if the Character's Y position + height is below the top of the block, I would check the left collision.
Now let's say you have a block that has incline. The block is 32 pixels wide, 32 pixels tall at x=32, 0 pixels tall at x=0. With this, you MUST assume that the character can only hit and collide with this block from the top to stand on. With this block, you can return a FALSE collision if it is a left/right/bottom collision, but if it is a collision from the top, you can state that if the character is at X=0, return collision point Y=0. If X=16, Y=16 etc.
Of course, this is all relative. You'll be checking against multiple blocks, so what you should do is store all of the possible changes into the character's direction into a temporary variable. So, if the character overlaps a block by 5 in the X direction, subtract 5 from that variable. Accumulate all of the possible changes in the X and Y direction, apply them to the character's current position, and reset them to 0 for the next frame.
Good luck. I could provide more samples later, but I'm on my Mac (my code is on a WinPC) This is the same type of collision detection used in classic Mega Man games IIRC. Here's a video of this in action too : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKQM8vCNUTM
You can try to use one of physics engines, like Box2D or Chipmunk. They have own advanced collision detection systems and a lot of different bonuses. Of course they don't accelerate your game, but they are suitable for most of games on any modern devices
It is not that easy to create your own collision detection algorithm. One easy example of a difficulty is: what if your character is moving at a high enough velocity that between two frames it will travel from one side of a line to the other? Then your algorithm won't have had time to run in between, and a collision will never be detected.
I would agree with Tiendil: use a library!
I'd recommend Farseer Physics. It's a great and powerful physics engine that should be able to take care of anything you need!
I would do it this way:
Strictly no lines for collision. Only solid shapes (boxes and triangles, maybe spheres)
2D BSP, 2D partitioning to store all level shapes, OR "sweep and prune" algorithm. Each of those will be very powerfull. Sweep and prune, combined with insertion sort, can easily thousands of potentially colliding objects (if not hundreds of thousands), and 2D space partitioning will allow to quickly get all nearby potentially colliding shapes on demand.
The easiest way to make objects walk on surfaces is to make then fall down few pixels every frame, then get the list of surfaces object collides with, and move object into direction of surface normal. In 2d it is a perpendicular. Such approach will cause objects to slide down on non-horizontal surfaces, but you can fix this by altering the normal slightly.
Also, you'll have to run collision detection and "push objects away" routine several times per frame, not just once. This is to handle situations if objects are in a heap, or if they contact multiple surfaces.
I have used a limited collision detection approach that worked on very different basis so I'll throw it out here in case it helps:
A secondary image that's black and white. Impassible pixels are white. Construct a mask of the character that's simply any pixels currently set. To evaluate a prospective move read the pixels of that mask from the secondary image and see if a white one comes back.
To detect collisions with other objects use the same sort of approach but instead of booleans use enough depth to cover all possible objects. Draw each object to the secondary entirely in the "color" of it's object number. When you read through the mask and get a non-zero pixel the "color" is the object number you hit.
This resolves all possible collisions in O(n) time rather than the O(n^2) of calculating interactions.
I'm trying to render 6 spot lights to create a point light for a shadow mapping algorithm.
I'm not sure if I'm doing this right, I've more or less followed the instructions here when setting up my view and projection matrices but the end result looks like this:
White areas are parts which are covered by one of the 6 shadow maps, the darker areas are ones which aren't covered by the shadowmaps. Obviously I don't have a problem with the teapots and boxes having their shadows projected onto the scene, however as you can see the 6 shadow maps have blindspots. Is this how a cubed shadow map is supposed to look? It doesn't look like a shadowmap of a point light source...
Actually you can adjust your six spots to have cones that perfectly fill each face of your cubemap. You can achieve this by setting each cone's aperture to create a circumscribed circle around each cubemap face. In this case you don't have to worry about overlapping, since the would be overlapping parts are out of the faces' area.
In other terms: adjust the lights' projection matrix' FOV, so it won't the view frustum that includes the light cone, but the cone will include the view frustum.
The a whole implementation see this paper.
What you're seeing here are a circle and two hyperbolas -- conic sections -- exactly the result you might expect if you took a double ended cone and intersected it with a plane.
This math may seem removed from the situation but it explains your problem. A spotlight creates a cone of light, and you can't entirely fill a solid space with a bunch of cones coming from the same point. (I'd suggest rolling up a bunch of pieces of paper and taping them together at the points to try it out.)
However, as you get far from the origin of your simulated-point-source, the cones converge to their assymptotes, and there is an infinitesimally-narrow gap in the light.
One option to solve this is to change the focus of the cones so that they overlap slightly -- this will create areas that are overexposed, but the overexposure will only become obvious as you get farther away. So long as all of your objects are near the point light source, this might not be much of an issue.
Another option is to move the focus of all of the lights much closer to their sources. This way, they'd converge to their assymptotes more quickly.
I'm implementing a small game and am having trouble getting the physics working properly.
In this game, there is one ball (a circle which moves from frame to frame, and may change radius) and several walls (line segments which also change and move from frame to frame). I can detect collisions properly, and making the ball bounce off in the correct direction is no problem.
Difficulties arise in situations where the ball intersects a line in one frame, then intersects it again in the subsequent frame, causing a double bounce. I could move the ball back along the normal of the line until it is in a valid position, but this causes really weird behaviour when the line in question is being hit along its axis (imagine a ping pong ball falling down on an upright toothpick and suddenly shifting aside so that it is on one side of the toothpick...). There are also a few issues when the ball intersects more than one line in a given frame (imagine four lines together making a rectangle and the ball intersecting the corner of said rectangle) -- which direction should it bounce off? In which direction should it shift?
I don't really have a specific question, but am looking for tips or some useful tutorials. All the 2D ones I've managed to find so far only cover rectangle intersections.
I'm using XNA if it makes any difference.
Thanks,
Cameron
This is an universal problem with most physics libraries. If you google for "penetration depth" (together with "physics", I suggest, or you might find something entirely different :D) you will find that even these libraries use tricks like yours.
There are two solutions to this:
The cheap one is to increase your update frequency. Move objects in 10 smaller steps instead of a single big one and you will have less penetration, so fixing it by offsetting the ball away from the wall will be less visible.
The expensive one is continuous collision detection. There are algorithms that can tell you, given a moving and a stationary object, the exact point in time both will will intersect. Google "swept sphere rectangle intersection" to find some of these.
You can then update like this: ball needs to move by 1.0 units. Check for collision. Collision occurs after 0.25 units, so move ball by 0.25 units, calculate reflection vector (so the ball bounces off the wall), repeat collision check with remaining 0.75 units (until you know the final position of the ball). This avoids penetrations entirely and even if your ball is moving so fast that it would normally skip over the wall in a single update, the collision will be detected.
It's generally accepted that, because of the timestep your collisions will intersect past an acceptable point in between updates.
Basically, you have to interpolate back to the point in between the last and current frame where the collision truly happened, move the object back to that point, and then calculate the forces, etc.