Similar to the game Factorio im trying to create "3D" terrain but of course in 2D Factorio seems to do this very well, creating terrain that looks like this
Where you can see edges of terrain and its very clearly curved. In my own 2D game Ive been trying to think of how to do the same thing, but all the ways I can think of seem to be slow or CPU intensive. Currently my terrain looks like this:
Simply 2D quads textured and drawn on screen, each quad is 16x16 (except the water thats technically a background but its not important now), How could I even begin to change my terrain to look more like a Factorio or other "2.5D" games, do they simply use different textures and check where the tile would be relative to other tiles? Or do they take a different approach?
Thanks in advance for your help!
I am a Factorio dev but I have not done this, so I can only tell you what I know generally.
There is a basic way to do it and then there are optional improvements.
Either way you will need two things
Set of textures for every situation you want to handle
Set of rules "local topology -> texture"
So you have your 2d tile map, and you move a window across it and whenever it matches a pattern, you apply an appropriate texture.
You probably wouldn't want to do that on the run in every tick, but rather calculate it all when you generate the map (or map segment - Factorio generates new areas when needed).
I will be using your picture and my imba ms paint skills to demonstrate.
This is an example of such rule. Green is land, blue is water, grey is "I don't care".
In reality you will need a lot of such rules to cover all cases (100+ I believe).
In your case, this rule would apply at the two highlighted spots.
This is all you need to have a working generator.
There is one decision that you need to make here. As you can see, the shoreline runs inside the tile, not between tiles. So you need to chose whether it will run through the last land tile, or the last water tile. The picture can therefore be a result of these two maps (my template example would be from the left one):
Both choices are ok. In fact, Factorio switched from the "shoreline on land" on the left to the "shoreline on water" on the right quite recently. Just keep in mind that you will need to adjust the walking/pathfinding to account for this.
Now note that the two areas matched by the one pattern in the example look different. This can be a result of two possible improvements that make the result nicer.
First is that for one case you can have more different textures and pick a random one. You will need to keep that choice in the game save so that it looks the same after load.
Another one is more advanced. While the basic algorithm can already give you pretty good results, there are things it can't do.
You can use larger templates and larger textures that span over several tiles. That way you can draw larger compact pieces of the terrain without being limited by the fact that all the tiles need to be connectable to all (valid) others.
The example you provided are still 2D textures (technically). But since the textures themselves are 'fancy 3D', they appear to be 3D/2D angled.
So your best bet would be to upgrade your textures. (and add shadow to entities for extra depth).
Edit:
The edges you asked about are probably layed-out by checking if a 'tile' is an edge, and if so it adds an edge-texture on top the background. While the actual tile itself is also a flat image (just like the water). Add some shadow afterwards and the 3D illusion is complete.
I hope this answers your question, otherwise feel free to ask clarification.
Related
I've been trying various ways of creating a two-dimensional tile-based game for a few months now. I have always had each tile be a separate object of a 'Tile' class. The tile objects are stored in a two-dimensional array of objects. This has proven to be extremely impractical, mostly in terms of performance with many tiles being rendered at once. I have aided in this by only allowing tiles within a certain distance of the player being rendered, but this isn't that great either. I have also had problems with the objects returning a null-pointer exception when I try to edit the tile's values in-game. This has to do with the objects in the 2D array not being properly initialized.
Is there any other, simpler way of doing this? I can't imagine every tile-based game uses this exact way, I must be overlooking something.
EDIT: Perhaps LWJGL just isn't the correct library to use? I am having similar problems with implementing a font system with LWJGL... typing out more than a sentence will bring down the FPS by 100 or even more.
For static objects (not going anywhere, staying where they are) 1 tile = 1 object is OK. That's how it was done in Wolf3d. For moving objects you have multiple options.
You can, if you really really want to, store object sub-parts in adjacent cells/tiles when an object isn't contained fully within just one of them and crosses one or more cell/tile boundaries. But that may be not quite handy as you'd need to split your objects into parts on the fly.
A more reasonable approach is to not store moving objects in cells/tiles at all and process them more or less independently of the static objects. But then you will need to have some code to determine object visibility. Actually, in graphics the most basic performance problems come from unnecessary calculations and rendering. Generally, you don't want to even try to render what's invisible. Likewise, if some computations (especially complex ones) can be moved outside of the innermost loops, they should be.
Other than that it's pretty hard to give any specific advice given so little details about what you're doing, how you're doing it and seeing the actual code. You should really try to make your questions specific.
A two-dimensional array of Tile objects should be fine........ this is what most 2D games use and you should certainly be able to get good enough performance out of OpenGL / LWJGL to render this at a good speed (100FPS+).
Things to check:
Make sure you are clipping to only deisplay the visible set of tiles (According to the screen width and height and the player's position)
Make sure the code to draw each tile is fast... ideally you should be drawing just one textured square for each tile. In particular, you shouldn't be doing any complex operations on a per-tile basis in your rendering code.
If you're clever, you can draw multiple tiles in one OpenGL call with VBOs / clever use of texture coordinates etc. But this is probably unnecessary for a tile-based game.
So I'm writing a sort of particle simulator, like a "falling sand game" if you know what that is, and I've kind of hit a roadblock now. The way I'm doing this is I have a particle object that basically as of now has an position (int x, int y) and that's it. The way I'm drawing/moving them, is with a thread and the onDraw event for an android panel. Each time onDraw is called I loop through all the particles, move them down one pixel unless they hit the bottom and then draw them, this is pretty smooth until I get to about 200 particles, then the fps drops significantly. I know this is computation heavy the way I'm doing it, there's no debate about it, but is there any way I could do this to allow a lot more particles to be drawn and with less lag?
Thanks in advance.
I take it you're using an individual-pixel drawing function for this? That would indeed be slow.
I see a couple ways to improve it. First is to put the pixels into an in-memory bitmap then draw the whole bitmap at the same time. Second, since particles are always just going down one pixel, you can scroll part of the bitmap instead of replotting everything. If Android doesn't have a scroll then just draw the bitmap one pixel down and start a new bitmap for the particles above the scroll. You'll have to fix up the particles on the bottom, but there are fewer of those.
I've never done things like this before, but I have done some complex cellular automata. Sorry if this is too vague.
The basic idea here is to mark all particles that should "keep falling" or "not move" and exclude them from complex processing (with a special short/fast processor for the "falling" list - all you need to do is drop each one by a pixel).
The acceleration for non-moving particles - static particles (I'll call them S particles), is that they don't move. Mark it for all non-moving regions (like a gravity-immune "wall" or "bowl" that a user might make. Mark particles above it S if they are stable, so for example for liquid, if it has S particles under, and to both sides of itself, it will not move. For something like sand that forms piles, if it has an S in each of the three spots under it, it makes a pile, you'll get nice 45-degree piles like this, I'm sure you can change it to make some things form steeper, or less-steep piles. Do S mapping bottom-up.
The acceleration for particles with no particle under them is falling - F particles. Particles with an F particle under them are also F particles. Mark these bottom-up as well.
Particles unmarked F or S are complex, they may start falling, stop falling, or roll, use the slow processor, which you already have, to deal with them, there shouldn't be many.
In the end what you will have is many many fast particles. Those in a pile/lake and those raining down. The leftover particles are those on the edge of slopes, on the top of lakes, or in other complex positions. There shouldn't be nearly as many as there will be fast particles.
Visually mark each kind of particle with some colour, complex particles being bright red. Find cases where it is still slow, and see what other kinds of fast processors you should make. For example you may find that making lots of piles of sand creates lots of red areas along slopes, you may want to invest in speeding up "rolling zones" along the slopes of piles.
Hope it makes sense. Don't forget to come back and edit once you've figured something out!
You may want to look into OpenGL ES hardware acceleration and renderscript. It doesn't give you a more efficient solution code wise (see the other answers for that). It does open up a lot more processing power for you to use however. You can even run the entire simulation on the GPU (possibly, don't know your implementation details).
Edit
Also, if you still decide to do the processing in java, you should look at Method Profiling in DDMS. This will help you visualize where your performance bottlenecks are.
If you blur your image a bit, then you could just move half particule at a time, maybe one fourth only and print them all.. that would cut computation and the user wouldn't see it, getting the feeling all particules move.
But what ever you choose, I think you should be put a strong limit, not all users have powerfull android devices.
Regards,
stéphane
I think if particles are close each other, you can create objects that represent 3 or more particles.
When displaying several particles on screen, sets of grains maybe gets unnoticed.
Im making a game in Java with a few other people but we are stuck on one part of it, making the collision detection. The game is an RPG and I know how to do the collision detection with the characters using Rectangles, but what I dont know how to do is the collision detection for the maps. What I mean by that is like so the character cant walk over trees or water and that stuff but using rectangles doesnt seem like the best option here.
Well to explain what the game maps are gonna look like, here is an example http://i980.photobucket.com/albums/ae287/gordsmash/7-8.jpg
Now I could use rectangles to get bounds and stop the player from walking over the trees and water but that would take a lot of them.
But is there another easier way to prevent the player from walking over the trees and obstacles besides using Rectangles?
Here's a simple way but it uses more memory and you do the work up front... just create a background collision mask that denotes the permissible areas for characters to walk on in a binary form. You can store that in some sort of compressed bitmap form. The lookup then is very simple and very quick.
Rectangle collision detection seems to make sense; However, alternatively you may also try sphere-sphere collision detection, which can detect collision much quicker. You don't even need a square root for distance computations since you can compare the squared distances to see if the spheres overlap. This is a very fast method, and given the nature of your game could work very well.
ALSO! Assuming you have numerous tiles which you are colliding against, consider some method of spacial partitioning. Let me give you an easy example - subdivide your map into several rectangles (http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/qiuhua.liang/Research/Pic_research/mine_grid.jpg) and then depending on which rectangular area your player is currently residing in - check collision only against the tiles which are located within that area.
You may take it a step further - if you have more tiles in any given area than the threshold that you set - subdivide that area further to make more smaller areas within it.
The idea behind such subdivision is called Quadtree, and there is a huge quantity of papers and tutorials on the subject, you'll catch on very quickly.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
There are many solutions to this type of problem, but for what you're doing I believe the best course of action would be to use a tile engine. This would have been commonly used in similar games in the past (think any RPG on the SNES) and it provides you with a quick and easy means of both level/map design and collision detection.
The basic concept of a tile engine is that objects are stored in a 2D array and when your player (or any other moving game entity) attempts to move into a new tile you perform a simple check to see if the object in that tile is passable or not (for instance, if it's grass, the player may move; if it's a treasure chest, the player cannot move). This will greatly simplify checking for collisions (as a naive check of a list of entities will have O(n^2) performance). This picture might give you an idea of what I'm talking about. The lines have been added to illustrate a point, but of course when you're playing the game you don't actively think of everything as being composed of individual 32x32 pixel tiles.
While I don't personally have any experience with tile engines in Java, it looks like Mappy supports Java, and I've heard good things about PulpCore. You're more than welcome to create your own engine, of course, but you have to decide if your effort is better spent reinventing the wheel (but, of course, it will be your wheel then, and that is rather satisfying) or spend your time making a better game.
I'm trying to develop side scrolling game for android involving many many textures so I was thinking if I could create a separate layer, all a single unique color (very similar to a green screen effect) make a collidable and make it invisible to the player.
(foreground layer) visual Image
(2nd layer)collidable copy of foreground layer with main character
(3rd layer)Background image
I not sure if this is possible or how to implement it efficiently, the idea just came to me randomly one day.
Future regards, Thanks
I assume your game is entirely 2D, using either bit-blits or quads (two 3D triangles always screen-aligned) as sprites. Over the years there have been lots of schemes for doing collision detection using the actual image data, whether from the background or the sprite definition itself. If you have direct access to video RAM, reading one pixel position can quickly tell if you've collided or not, giving pixel-wise accuracy not possible with something like bounding boxes. However, there are issues greatly complicating this: figuring out what you've collided with, or if your speed lands you many pixels into a graphical object, or if it is thin and you pass through it, or how to determine an angle of deflection, etc.
Using 3D graphics hardware and quads, you could potentially change render states, rendering in monochrome to an off-screen texture, yielding the 2nd collidable layer you described. Yet that texture is then resident in graphics memory, which isn't freely/easily accessible like your system memory is. And getting that data back/forth over the bus is slow. It's also costly, requiring an entire additional render pass (worst case, halving your frame rate) plus you have all that extra graphics RAM used up... all just to do something like collision-detect. Much better schemes exist, especially using data structures.
It's better to use bounding boxes, or even a hierarchy of sub-bounding boxes. After that, you can determine if you've landed on the other side of, say, a sloped line, requiring only division/addition operations. Your game already manages all the sprites you're moving, so integrate some data structures to help your collision detection. For instance, I just suggested in another thread the use of linked lists to limit the objects you must collision-detect against one another.
Ideas like yours might not always work, but your continual creative thinking will lead to ones that do. Sometimes you just have to try coding them to find out!
I am planning to develop a jigsaw puzzle game.
Now I already have images and image pieces, so we don't need algorithm to cut the image in pieces.
On the UI side there would be two sections
First section contains the broken images in random order.
Second section contains the outline of the full image. User need to drag and drop the the cut images onto the outline image.
I am not sure how can the pieces be matched on the the outline image?
Any idea about the algorithm or the starting pointers?
Allow the user to drag each piece into the outline area. Allow the piece to be rotated in 90 degree increments.
Option 1:
If a piece is in the correct location in the overall puzzle, and at the correct angle, AND connected to another piece, then snap it into place with some user feedback. The outside edge of the puzzle can count for a connection to edge pieces.
Option 2:
A neighbor is an adjacent puzzle piece when the puzzle is assembled. When the puzzle pieces are mixed up, they still have the same neighbors. Each puzzle piece (except the edge pieces) has four neighbors.
If a piece is near one of its neighbors at the correct angle relative to that neighbor, then snap it to the other piece. Then allow the two (or more) pieces to be dragged around as a unit, as is done with a single piece. This would allow the user to assemble subsections of the puzzle in any area, much like is done with a physical jigsaw puzzle, and connect the subsections with one another.
You can check the piece being moved to its four neighbors to see if they are close enough to snap together. If a piece has its proper edge close enough to the proper edge of its neighbor, at the same angle, then they match.
There are several ways to check relative locations. One way would be to temporarily rotate the coordinates of the piece you are testing so it is upright, then rotate the coordinates of all its desired neighbors, also temporarily, to the same angle. (Use the same center of rotation for all the rotations.) Then you can easily test to see if they are close enough to match. If the user is dragging a subassembly, then you will need to check each unmatched edge in the subassembly.
Option 2 is more complex and more realistic. Option 1 can be further simplified by omitting the rotation of pieces and making every piece the proper angle initally.
For a regular shapes you can go with a matrix. I recommend this as the first approach. Dividing the puzzle is as simple as defining X,Y dimensions of the matrix. For each piece you have a series of four values then, one for each side, saying whether it is flat, pointing out, or pointing in. This will give you a very classic jigsaw puzzle setup.
How the pieces actually look becomes a strict GUI thing. Now, for the first draft I recommend getting it working with perfectly square pieces. Taking rectangular bits of an image should be easy to do in any GUI framework.
To go to shaped pieces you'll need a series of templates. These will become masks that you apply to the image. Each mask clips out a tiny portion of the image to produce your piece. You'll probably need to dynamically create the masks in order to fit them to the puzzle. At first start with simply triangular connections. Once you have that working you can do the math to get nice bulbous connector shapes. Look up "clip" and "mask" in your GUI framework.
If you wish to do irregular polygon shapes that don't follow a general matrix layout, then you need to do a lot more work. This is why I recommend getting the square first working as a good example. Now you'll need to delve into graph theory and partitioning. Pick up some books on 3D programming -- focusing on algorithms, as they do partitioning all the time. Though I wouldn't doubt if there is a book with this exact topic in it.
Have fun.
the data structure is simple I guess- each peace will point to it's neighbors and will hold the actual shape to display.
on the MMI (UI) of the app - what is your developing environment ?
If it's windows - I would go with c# and winforms or even better wpf.
if it's unix, you'll have to get someone else's advise, as I'm not an expert there.
1) How to break image into random polygons
It seems that you have figured out this part. (from : "Now I already have images and image pieces, so we don't need algorithm to cut the image in pieces.")
2) what kind of data structure can solve the problem
You can create a Class Piece like Scribble class in this example and your pieces would be array of objects of Piece class.
So, you will have two arrays,
(i) actual image pieces array
(ii) image piece outline array
So, whenever you drag and drop one piece on to the full outline of image, it will check whether the image piece object is intersecting more than 80% and ID (member variable of Piece object) of actual image piece and image piece outline matches, then you got the right piece at right place...
3) UI implementation
Check this out.
You could make an array of objects of the class "PuzzleTile"
Every such tile has an image and an integer
After every move, check if the integers are sorted correctly, means:
123
456
789
You could make a function for that which returns a bool.
Note: I'm currently developing under C#, that's why it's probably easiest to realize especially this concept under C#, although other platforms need none up to barely some modification to this.