The problem is simple: I want to move (and later, be able to rotate) an image. For example, every time i press the right arrow on my keyboard, i want the image to move 0.12 pixels to the right, and every time i press the left arrow key, i want the image to move 0.12 pixels to the left.
Now, I have multiple solutions for this:
1) simply add the incremental value, i.e.:
image.x += 0.12;
this is of course assuming that we're going to the right.
2) i multiplicate the value of a single increment by the times i already went into this particular direction + 1, like this:
var result:Number = 0.12 * (numberOfTimesWentRight+1);
image.x = result;
Both of these approaches work but produce similiar, yet subtly different, results. If we add some kind of button component that simply resets the x and y coordinates of the image, you will see that with the first approach the numbers don't add up correctly.
it goes from .12, .24, .359999, .475 etc.
But with the second approach it works well. (It's pretty obvious as to why though, it seems like += operations with Numbers are not really precise).
Why not use the second approach then? Well, i want to rotate the image as well. This will work for the first attempt, but after that the image will jump around. Why? In the second approach we never took the original position of the image in account. So if the origin-point shifts a bit down or up because you rotated your image, and THEN you try to move the image again: it will move to the same position as if you hadn't rotated before.
Alright, to make this short:
How can i reliably move, scale and rotate images for 1/10 of a pixel?
Short answer: I don't know! You're fighting with floating point math!
Luckily, I have a workaround, if you don't mind.
You store the location (x and y) of the image in a separate variable... at a larger scale. Such as 100x. So 123.45 becomes 12345, and you then divide by 100 to set the attribute that flash uses to display.
Yes, there are limits to number sizes too, but if you're willing to accept some error rate, and the fact that you'll be limited to, I dunno, a million pixels in each direction, you can fit it in a regular int. The only rounding error you will encounter will be a single rounding error when you divide by 100 (or the factor you used). So instead of the compound rounding error which you described (0.12 * 4 = 0.475), you should see things like 0.47999999. Which doesn't matter because it's, well, so small.
To expand on #Pimgd answer a bit, you're probably hitting a floating point error (multiple +='s will exaggerate the error more than one *='s) - Numbers in Flash are 53-bit precision.
There's also another thing to keep in mind, which is probably playing a bigger role with such small movement values; Flash positions all objects using twips, which is roughly about 1/20th of a pixel, or 0.05, so all values are rounded to this. When you say image.x += 0.12, it's actually the equivalent of image.x += 0.10, hence which the different becomes apparent; you're losing 0.02 of a pixel with every move.
You should be able to get around it by moving to another scale, as #Pimgd says, or just storing your position separately - i.e. work from a property _x rather than image.x so you're not losing that precision everytime:
this._x += 0.12;
image.x = this._x;
Related
I have some experience with Metal and quite a bit with Unity and am familiar with setting up meshes, buffers, and the backing data for drawing; but not so much the math/shader side. What I'm struggling with is how to get an endless scrolling world. So if I pan far to the right side I can see the left side and keep going.
The application of this would be a seamless terrain that a player could scroll in any direction forever and have it just wrap.
I don't want to duplicate everything on draw and offset it, that seems horrendously inefficient. I am hoping for a way to either use some magic matrix math or some sort of shader to get things wrapping/drawing where they should when panning the map. I've searched all over for some sort of guide or explanation of how to get this working but haven't come up with anything.
I know a lot of old (dos) games did this somehow, is it still possible? Is there a reason why it seems the industry has migrated away from this type of scrolling (bounding to edges vs wrapping)?
I have created a simple example demonstrating what you're looking for (I think).
The basic idea of it is that you draw the map in a repeating grid, using the drawPrimitives(type:vertexStart:vertexCount:instanceCount:) method on MTLRenderCommandEncoder. As the instance count you want to pass in the number of identical maps you want to draw, extending it as far as needed to not see where it ends. In my example I used a simple 5x5 grid.
To not have the user see the edge of the map, we're gonna calculate their position modulo 1 (or whatever size your map is):
func didDrag(dx: CGFloat, dy: CGFloat) {
// Move user position on drag, adding 1 to not get below 0
x += Float(dx) * draggingSpeed + 1
z += Float(dy) * draggingSpeed + 1
x.formTruncatingRemainder(dividingBy: 1)
z.formTruncatingRemainder(dividingBy: 1)
}
This is how it looks:
Just a follow up on what I have actually implemented. First I essentially have an array of x,y points with altitude, terrain type and all that jazz. Using some simple % and additions/subtractions it is trivial to get the nodes around a point to generate triangles
On a draw I calculate the first showing point and the last showing point and calculate the groups of triangles shown between those points. The first/last point take into account wrapping, it is then pretty trivial to have an endless wrapping world. For each group a translation offset is passed via a uniform matrix for that group which will position that section where it should belong.
I set it via renderEncoder.setVertexBytes(&uniform, length:..., offset:...)
I'm playing with an optimized game of life implementation in swift/mac_os_x. First step: randomize a big grid of cells (50% alive).
code:
for(var i=0;i<768;i++){
for(var j=0;j<768;j++){
let r = Int(arc4random_uniform(100))
let alive = (aliveOdds > r)
self.setState(alive,cell: Cell(tup:(i,j)),cells: aliveCells)
}
}
I expect a relatively uniform randomness. What I get has definite patterns:
Zooming in a bit on the lower left:
(I've changed the color to black on every 32 row and column, to see if the patterns lined up with any power of 2).
Any clue what is causing the patterns? I've tried:
replacing arc4random with rand().
adding arc4stir() before each arc4random_uniform call
shifting the display (to ensure the pattern is in the data, not a display glitch)
Ideas on next steps?
You cannot hit period or that many regular non-uniform clusters of arc4random on any displayable set (16*(2**31) - 1).
These are definitely signs of the corrupted/unininitialized memory. For example, you are initializing 768x768 field, but you are showing us 1024xsomething field.
Try replacing Int(arc4random_uniform(100)) with just 100 to see.
I would like the images to appear more randomly than they do with this code:
//placing images on the screen
-(void)PlaceImage {
RandomImagePosition = arc4random() %1000;
Image.center = CGPointMake(570, RandomImagePosition);
// the higher the number (570) the farther to the right the platforms appear
}
They appear in different positions but most of the time towards to top of the screen. There will be a few times when the image is placed towards the bottom of the screen. I would like there to be more randomness.
Use arc4random_uniform to generate a random integer in a specified range. Never use arc4random mod something; that is indeed biased and will produce suboptimal results.
If you have further issues with "randomness" the you should look carefully at how you are using your random value. Notably, people's perceptions of "random" are often quite different from mathematical random: for instance, people expect "random" coin flips to switch between heads and tails much more frequently than actual random will produce. Therefore, to make something perceptually random, you may have to fudge the output a bit (e.g. to reduce the chance that a value will repeat twice).
You are likely experiencing modulo bias and should be using arc4_random_uniform(700). From man arc4random:
arc4random_uniform() will return a uniformly distributed random number
less than upper_bound. arc4random_uniform() is recommended over con-
structions like ``arc4random() % upper_bound'' as it avoids "modulo bias"
when the upper bound is not a power of two.
I've ran in to an issue concerning generating floating point coordinates from an image.
The original problem is as follows:
the input image is handwritten text. From this I want to generate a set of points (just x,y coordinates) that make up the individual characters.
At first I used findContours in order to generate the points. Since this finds the edges of the characters it first needs to be ran through a thinning algorithm, since I'm not interested in the shape of the characters, only the lines or as in this case, points.
Input:
thinning:
So, I run my input through the thinning algorithm and all is fine, output looks good. Running findContours on this however does not work out so good, it skips a lot of stuff and I end up with something unusable.
The second idea was to generate bounding boxes (with findContours), use these bounding boxes to grab the characters from the thinning process and grab all none-white pixel indices as "points" and offset them by the bounding box position. This generates even worse output, and seems like a bad method.
Horrible code for this:
Mat temp = new Mat(edges, bb);
byte roi_buff[] = new byte[(int) (temp.total() * temp.channels())];
temp.get(0, 0, roi_buff);
int COLS = temp.cols();
List<Point> preArrayList = new ArrayList<Point>();
for(int i = 0; i < roi_buff.length; i++)
{
if(roi_buff[i] != 0)
{
Point tempP = bb.tl();
tempP.x += i%COLS;
tempP.y += i/COLS;
preArrayList.add(tempP);
}
}
Is there any alternatives or am I overlooking something?
UPDATE:
I overlooked the fact that I need the points (pixels) to be ordered. In the method above I simply do scanline approach to grabbing all the pixels. If you look at the 'o' for example, it would grab first the point on the left hand side, then the one on the right hand side. I would need them to be ordered by their neighbouring pixels since I want to draw paths with the points later on (outside of opencv).
Is this possible?
You should look into implementing your own connected components labelling. The concept is very simple: you scan the first line and assign unique labels to each horizontally connected strip of pixels. You basically check for every pixel if it is connected to its left neighbour and assign it either that neighbour's label or a new label. In the second row you do the same, but you also check against the pixels above it. Sometimes you need a label merge: two strips that were not connected in the previous row are joined in the current row. The way to deal with this is either to keep a list of label equivalences or use pointers to labels (so you can easily do a complete label change for an object).
This is basically what findContours does, but if you implement it yourself you have the freedom to go for 8-connectedness and even bridge a single-pixel or two-pixel gap. That way you get "almost-connected components labelling". It looks like you need this for the "w" in your example picture.
Once you have the image labelled this way, you can push all the pixels of a single label to a vector, and order them something like this. Find the top left pixel, push it to a new vector and erase it from the original vector. Now find the pixel in the original vector closest to it, push it to the new vector and erase from the original. Continue until all pixels have been transferred.
It will not be very fast this way, but it should be a start.
How to make a 2d world with fixed size, which would repeat itself when reached any side of the map?
When you reach a side of a map you see the opposite side of the map which merged togeather with this one. The idea is that if you didn't have a minimap you would not even notice the transition of map repeating itself.
I have a few ideas how to make it:
1) Keeping total of 3x3 world like these all the time which are exactly the same and updated the same way, just the players exists in only one of them.
2) Another way would be to seperate the map into smaller peaces and add them to required place when asked.
Either way it can be complicated to complete it. I remember that more thatn 10 years ago i played some game like that with soldiers following each other in a repeating wold shooting other AI soldiers.
Mostly waned to hear your thoughts about the idea and how it could be achieved. I'm coding in XNA(C#).
Another alternative is to generate noise using libnoise libraries. The beauty of this is that you can generate noise over a theoretical infinite amount of space.
Take a look at the following:
http://libnoise.sourceforge.net/tutorials/tutorial3.html#tile
There is also an XNA port of the above at: http://bigblackblock.com/tools/libnoisexna
If you end up using the XNA port, you can do something like this:
Perlin perlin = new Perlin();
perlin.Frequency = 0.5f; //height
perlin.Lacunarity = 2f; //frequency increase between octaves
perlin.OctaveCount = 5; //Number of passes
perlin.Persistence = 0.45f; //
perlin.Quality = QualityMode.High;
perlin.Seed = 8;
//Create our 2d map
Noise2D _map = new Noise2D(CHUNKSIZE_WIDTH, CHUNKSIZE_HEIGHT, perlin);
//Get a section
_map.GeneratePlanar(left, right, top, down);
GeneratePlanar is the function to call to get the sections in each direction that will connect seamlessly with the rest of your world.
If the game is tile based I think what you should do is:
Keep only one array for the game area.
Determine the visible area using modulo arithmetics over the size of the game area mod w and h where these are the width and height of the table.
E.g. if the table is 80x100 (0,0) top left coordinates with a width of 80 and height of 100 and the rect of the viewport is at (70,90) with a width of 40 and height of 20 you index with [70-79][0-29] for the x coordinate and [90-99][0-9] for the y. This can be achieved by calculating the index with the following formula:
idx = (n+i)%80 (or%100) where n is the top coordinate(x or y) for the rect and i is in the range for the width/height of the viewport.
This assumes that one step of movement moves the camera with non fractional coordinates.
So this is your second alternative in a little bit more detailed way. If you only want to repeat the terrain, you should separate the contents of the tile. In this case the contents will most likely be generated on the fly since you don't store them.
Hope this helped.