I'm working on a 2D side-scrolling physics-based game.
The maps for this game are created following a tile-based system that reads from a text file, and blocks are created on the game to draw the level. Some objects, using physics' gravity, need to "slide" across sections of multiple blocks placed together (like floors, but built from different blocks, due to the tile-based system).
Even though blocks are placed "mathematically" exactly one by the other, because each block has its own BoxCollider2D, the physics engine still detects the "edge" sometimes, and the object that should be sliding across the multiple block section (which also has a BoxCollider2D, plus a RigidBody2D) just crazily bounces off off the surface (I'm assuming because of edge / edge collision).
I've tried adding a small edge radius, but it doesn't really work. Is there any way in which I could easily "link" those block sections together, or to "smooth" the edges in such a way that the physics engine wouldn't realise they are there?
I'm attaching 4 images to make everything more understandable and clear:
Floor block BoxCollider2D inspector properties.
Moving object BoxCollider2D and RigidBody2D properties.
Game screenshot (moving object standing on a "floor" formed by various independent blocks; note that the sprite is rounded, by the BoxCollider2D attached to the object is not).
Game screenshot on editor, with various blocks highlighted to show how their BoxCollider2D boxes (supposedly) overlap, which shouldn't leave any edge for the moving object to collide with.
Thanks in advance!
Related
I used to have a game object used as a sword with sprites with a specific size, despite including quite a bit of transparent space, to ensure these are aligned properly with the player game object:
This ensures the sword follows the player as he jumps by making use of the hero transition like this transform.position = hero.transform.position; , and though there may be issues with sprite changes I would address these later.
However, since I want to have several different equipment, and other sprites of this same sword might need a bigger dimension to look good (such as a sword attack while standing on the ground), I could either make even bigger sprites which would eventually affect performance due to transparent pixels loading, or I thought of making sprites with specific sizes:
(if this works I'd make sure to draw and put them close together instead of being separate)
And although when I prepare the animation I make sure to shift the position of the new sword to where it would be based on the player sprite on its own air attack animation (thus I had to modify this frame by frame,
The sword doesn't seem to follow the player, even when its game object still uses the script that makes use of the player's transform position:
I'm assuming something else has to be changed frame by frame, but what could it be? Is there a way to align or anchor a smaller sprite to follow the pivot of a bigger sprite?
All rotation or changing of sprites is done relative to the sprite's Pivot Point.
When you currently swap your sprites, your sword looks like it is rotating on it's blade rather than the handle.
Change the Pivot point to the handle, and it will do most of the work.
The rest is just making sure the handle of the sword follows the character's hands.
I have been building a 2D sprite based game for which I want to have the player be able to customize their equipment. This means that although I am fine with drawing the content, I'd need to ensure animations in the game run fine on top of each other. For this, I have been preparing a game object with several children to account for the equipment:
Each of the children runs a single animation and should have to follow the player, which I accomplish by using transform.localPosition = Vector2.zero; on the Update of the script each takes, so they hook to the parent's pivot and follow the player. While this has worked for the most part, there are moments in which all of the objects are not synchronized and as such sometimes the parent object (the body) is seen where it shouldn't since the other game objects should render on top:
Aside from that, to make it easy for the children to follow the parent position I had made sprites which are all the same size, which risks me having to load a lot of transparent space per sprite.
Another problem that I just noticed as I'm trying to address the issue of loading too many useless pixels involves the positioning with other objects such as the Sword game object, which doesn't follow the player fully if I use sprites that are not perfect squares (see this question for details How to align sprites of smaller sizes to a moving gameobject sprite? and this one Sibling sprite doesn't appear to follow main GameObject sprite even when transform.position updates)
I tried to fix this by making the Sword a child of the Hero, but even then changing the position through a function that sets values to add on to transform values of the sword game object only change the position of it relative to the initial value. I attempted changing the pivot of the sword sprites to a custom value to guess where the center of it would align with the main game object and appear in the right position, but even that doesn't seem to work.
I'm kind of getting tired with my current process, as I have to rely on several animations for each of the game objects, both parent and children, so that these obey to different layers in a single animator (or in the case of the sword, a separate animator), all to ensure there is some synchronization that doesn't always occur:
I really don't mind the web that is turning out in what I'm doing, but the fact that I have to repeat it across multiple layers with no real guarantee that all the objects would appear right on top of each other due to the fact of having multiple animations playing, and loading multiple sprites with empty space is becoming more of a chore than enjoyment.
So I think I came up with a possible solution: If I could make a single animation for the whole equipment used at any given point (whether only wearing pants or wearing full equipment), then having this single animation could guarantee synchronization across parent and children without the need for animator layers or special functions to update position or worrying about pivots or square sprites if I can set the position of non-square sprites in the animation, with the downside that I would need to account for every single animation for each possible equipment variation (so if I had even 3 of each sword, pants, boots, etc. that would mean 3^6 animations) and make a more complex web of animator states. The only thing I'd be worried about in this case, however, would be the performance, if having too many animations for a player would affect how fast these load. But at the benefit of eliminating the other problems mentioned, my question boils down to this:
Is it better to have a single game object with animations that change multiple sprites across children game objects and a single animator that chooses states based on multiple variables, or game objects with multiple animations that change a single sprite for each, and a single or multiple animators with multiple layers that choose states based on multiple variables?
There isn't really a set answer for something like this. It really just depends on how good your/the players computer is when playing the game. Sorry if this isn't what you wanted.
I'm looking for ways to clip an entire unity scene to a set of 4 planes. This is for an AR game, where I want to be able to zoom into a terrain, yet still have it only take up a given amount of space on a table (i.e: not extend over the edges of the table).
Thus far I've got clipping working as I want for the terrain and a water effect:
The above shows a much larger terrain being clipped to the size of the table. The other scene objects aren't clipped, since they use unmodifed standard shaders.
Here's a pic showing the terrain clipping in the editor.
You can see the clipping planes around the visible part of the terrain, and that other objects (trees etc) are not clipped and appear off the edge of the table.
The way I've done it involves adding parameters to each shader to define the clipping planes. This means customizing every shader I want to clip, which was fine when I was considering just terrain.
While this works, I'm not sure it's a great approach for hundreds of scene objects. I would need to modify whatever shaders I'm using, and then I'd have to be setting additional shader parameters every update for every object.
Not being an expert in Unity, I'm wondering if there are other approaches that are not "per shader" based that I might investigate?
The end goal is to render a scene within the bounds of some plane.
One easy way would be to use Box Colliders as triggers on each side of your plane. You could then turn off Renderers on objects staying in the trigger with OnTriggerEnter/OnTriggerStay and turn them on with OnTriggerExit.
You can also use Bounds.Contains.
When implementing a large hexagonal grid (256x256) of tiles in a Unity game, the game becomes very slow and hardly able to function. The hexagons are in a prefab. A script controls the size of the grid and the spacing between each hexagon. How does one go about rendering a 1024x1024 grid of Unity objects?
When the game is built on Win64 it is also still quite slow.
This is an image of hexagons rendered:
http://i.imgur.com/UbA6USt.png
Try making the grid elements static and make sure static batching is turned ON in player settings. This will optimize their rendering significantly. You probably should even go as far as combining them all into a single mesh (see tools like this one for that purpose).
If you can show us the actual scene hierarchy and the actual structure of your grid nodes then we can help even more.
Because of how Unity works, non-static objects have a tendency to get heavy - they each end up with their own transforms and end up getting drawn even when they're not on screen.
It's the reason more minecraft clones aren't seen coming out of Unity.
If you can't set the hexagons to static for some reason (i.e.: creating procedural levels etc), you'll have to perhaps simulate the hexagons through creative shader manipulation (like saving each mesh into a single array of vertices with a second that tracks a corresponding mesh id) or by writing a script that creates/adds vertices and faces to a single mesh on a single game object.
You may also speed up the scene by creating smaller levels and loading/unloading them as the player moves towards them. See: Application.LoadLevelAdditive
I'm making a 2D plane fighting game for the iPhone in cocos2d. I'm trying to make it so when you shoot an enemy plane, it breaks into a couple of separated pieces that will fall out of sight. What is generally the best practice for breaking one sprite up into many? should I create new images for each separate piece, or treat the initial image like a sprite sheet, and make a new sprite from segments?
Please look at this tutorial
It makes a grid of points then moves the internal (not-edge) ones around randomly a bit so it's not all perfect triangles. Then each update it moves/rotates the triangles separately--then draws them all at once.
You treat the whole thing as a sprite, so can run any of the usual actions on it. This example uses CCMoveBy to move the whole group down off the bottom.