I'm creating my game with dynamicly generated terrain. It is very simple idea. There are always three parts of terrain: segment on which stands a player and two next to it. When the player is moving(always forward) to the next segment new one is generated and the last one is cut off. It works wit flat planes, but i don't know how to do it with more complex terrain. Should I just make it have the same edge from both sides(for creating assets I'm using blender)? Or is there any other option? Please note that I'm starting to make games with unity.
It depends on what you would like your terrain to look like. If you want to create the terrain pieces in something external, like Blender, then yes all those pieces will have to fit together seamlessly. But that is a lot of work as you will have to create a lot of pieces that fit together for the landscape to remain interesting.
I would suggest that you rather generate the terrain dynamically in Unity. You can create your own mesh using code. You start by creating an object (in code), and then generating vertex and triangle arrays to assign to the object, for it to have a visible and sensible mesh. You first create vertices at specific positions and then add triangles that consist of 3 vertices at a time. If you want a smooth look instead of a low poly look, you will reuse some vertices for the next triangle, which is a little trickier.
Once you have created your block's mesh, you can begin to change your code to specify how the height of the vertices could be changed, to give you interesting terrain. As long as the first vertices on your new block are at the same height (say y position) as the last vertices on your current block (assuming they have the same x and z positions), they will line up. That said, you could make it even simpler by not using separate blocks, but by rather updating your object mesh to add new vertices and triangles, so that you are creating a terrain that is just one part that changes, rather than have separate blocks.
There are many ways to create interesting terrain. One of the most often used functions to generate semi-random and interesting terrain, is Perlin Noise. Another is his more recent Simplex noise. Like most random generator functions, it has a seed value, which you can keep track of so that you can create interesting terrain AND get your block edges to line up, should you still want to use separate blocks rather than a single mesh which dynamically expands.
I am sure there are many tutorials online about noise functions for procedural landscape generation. Amit Patel's tutorials are good visual and interactive explanations, here is one of his tutorials about noise-based landscapes. Take a look at his other great tutorials as well. There will be many tutorials on dynamic mesh generation as well, just do a google search -- a quick look tells me that CatLikeCoding's Procedural Grid tutorial will probably be all you need.
Related
I am currently in High School, and I am in an APCSP (AP Computer Science Principles) class, which in my case is learning in Scratch programming. I am confused and have practically no idea what I'm doing. Scratch is very confusing and I feel like it's pointless to learn.
My question is this: Can anyone help me on how to make a Maze Generator on Scratch, as this is my project and it's giving me struggles.
Thank you.
It's actually possible to build with scratch but depends on what you are looking for. I assume you want to generate a simple maze like in old fashioned 8-bit games like boulder dash.
First decide on the size of your maze: for example 5 x 5 blocks.
If you want to create a maze, imagine drawing it on a grid on paper. Blocks are either "empty" or filled in. Our maze can be represented by numbers. The empty blocks are represented by a 0 and the filled blocks with a 1.
You could visualize that matrix like this if all blocks are empty:
0,0,0,0,0,
0,0,0,0,0,
0,0,0,0,0,
0,0,0,0,0,
0,0,0,0,0
Adding a border wall while keeping the inside empty would look like:
1,1,1,1,1,
1,0,0,0,1,
1,0,0,0,1,
1,0,0,0,1,
1,1,1,1,1
Using a "list" variable to store this information would fit best within the possibilities of MIT Scratch.
In this case, you need to understand that each block in our maze is represented by a position in above matrix. You could draw numbers on a piece of paper in the shape and size of your grid / matrix as a reference to remember the position of each block if that makes it easier.
We also need to look at how our maze will relate to the Stage size. The width and height in pixels of a default scratch project is 480x360.
A 5 x 5 maze is divided in blocks of 480 / 5 = 96 width and 360 / 5 = 72 height. In other words, a block needs to be 96x72 pixels, based on a full screen maze.
Next step, is creating a sprite representing the visualization of the blocks of the maze. I would keep the first "costume" of our block sprite empty, and create a fully filled block to represent the walls of the maze.
After that, we need to programmatically create our maze. I made an example you can explore of random drawing of the blocks of a maze:
https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/278731659/
(You can change the rows & columns value to see it scale up, but remember the limit to the amount of clones the block sprite can have is 300)
This is just to get you started and by no means a complete solution. I just hope this helps you think in the right direction.
You can make this more advanced, by adding a function to explore and correct our randomly drawn grid to generate a walkable path from position x to position y. A rule you can program is for example: Every empty position in the grid should have at least two other empty positions in the spaces above, below, left and right of it.
There are many different ways to do this; whether this is with sprites and stamp or 2D lists and pen. Either way, the main component is the algorithm. This wikipedia page gives details on how maze generation works and few different algorithms. There is also a video series by The Coding Train here where he creates a maze generator with the 2D list method from above (this method is a bit harder on scratch, however). Either way, the best thing to do is to look at examples others have made, figure out how they work, and try to recreate them or make them better. Here's a good place to get started.
Scratch IS truly pointless! A simple maze generator would have you use the pen to draw predefined shapes (Such as a long hallway or intersection). You should also make (invisible) squares to separate everything and have the program draw in the squares.
I will put a link later that leads to a sample project that has the code.
Check out this video by griffpatch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22Dpi5e9uz8
This was one of my projects, and the instructor provided this video for everyone to follow and expand from.
A recent question here made me think of SceneKit again, and I remembered a problem I never solved.
My app displays antenna designs using SK. Most antennas use metal rods and mesh reflectors so I used SCNCylinder for the rods, SCNPlane for the reflector and SCNFloor for the ground. The whole thing took a couple of hours, and I'm utterly noob at 3D.
But some antennas use wires bent into arcs or helixes, and I punted here and made crappy segmented objects using several cylinders end-to-end. It looks ass-tastic.
Ideally I would like a single object that renders the arc or helix with a cylindrical cross section. Basically SCNTorus, but with a start and end angle. This post talks about using a UIBezierPath in SK, but it uses extrude to produce a ribbon-like shape. Is there a way to do something similar but with a cylinder cross section (like a partial SCNTorus)?
I know I can make a custom shape by creating the vertexes (and normals and such) but I'm hoping I missed a simpler solution.
An arc you can do with SCNShape. Start with the technique from my other answer to get an extruded, ribbon-like arc. You'll want to make sure that the part where your path traces back on itself is offset by a distance the same as your extrusion depth, so you end up with a shape that's square in cross section.
To make it circular in cross section, use the chamferProfile property — give it a path that's a quarter circle, and set the chamfer radius equal to half the extrusion depth, and the four quarter-circle chamfers will meet, forming a circular cross section.
A helix is another story. SCNShape takes a planar path — one that varies in only two dimensions — and extrudes it to make a three-dimensional solid. A helix is a path that varies in three dimensions to start with. SceneKit doesn't have anything that describes a shape in such terms, so there's no super simple answer here.
The shader modifier solution #HalMueller alludes to is interesting, but problematic. It's simple to use a modifier at the geometry entry point to make a simple bend — say, offset every y coordinate by some amount, even by an amount that's a function of why. But that's a one-dimensional transform, so you can't use it to wrap a wire around on itself. (It also changes the cross section.) And on top of that, shader modifiers happen on the GPU at render time, so their effects are an illusion: the "real" geometry in SceneKit's model is still a cylinder, so features like hit testing apply to that and not to the transformed geometry.
The best solution to making something like a helix is probably custom geometry — generating your own vertex data (SCNGeometrySource). The math for finding the set of points on a helix is pretty simple if you follow that shape's definition. To wrap a cross section around it, follow the Frenet formulas to create a local coordinate frame at each point on the helix. Then make an index buffer (SCNGeometryElement) to stitch all those points into a surface with triangles or tristrips. (Okay, that's a lot of hand-waving around a deep topic, but a full tutorial is too big for an SO answer. This should be enough of a breadcrumb to get started, though...)
Here are some starting points that might help.
One approach would be to use more cylinders and make them shorter. That's the same idea behind the various segmentCount properties on the SCNGeometry primitives. Can we see a screenshot of the current linked cylinders version?
If you increase the heightSegmentCount, you could use the approach outlined here: scenekit, how to bend an object.
I just took a look at SCNShape. I was thinking you could use a shader modifier to warp the extruded shape into a circular cross section. But SCNShape doesn't seem to expose a segment count property, which I think you'd need to create enough extrusion segments for a good look. The chamferRadius and chamferProfile properties look interesting. I wonder if you could use those to create an extrusion that looks good.
This question is (mostly) game engine independent but I have been unable to find a good answer.
I'm creating a turn-based tile game in 3D space using Unity. The levels will have slopes, occasional non-planar geometry, depressions, tunnels, stairs etc. Each level is static/handcrafted so tiles should never move. I need a good way to keep track of tile-specific variables for static levels and i'd like to verify if my approaches make sense.
My ideas are:
Create 2 Meshes - 1 is the complex game world, the second is a reference mesh overlay that will have minimal geometry; it will not be rendered and will only be used for the tiles. I would then Overlay the two and use the 2nd mesh as a grid reference.
Hard-code the tiles for each level. While tedious it will work as a brute force approach. I would, however, like to avoid this since it's not very easy to deal with visually.
Workaround approach - Convert the 3d to 2D textures and only use 1 mesh.
"Project" a plane down onto the level and record height/slope to minimize complexity. Also not ideal.
Create individual tile objects for each tile manually (non-rendered). Easiest solution i could think of.
Now for the Unity3D specific question:
Does unity allow selecting and assigning individual Verts/Triangles/Squares of a mesh and adding componenets, scripts, or variables to those selections; for example, selecting 1 square in the 10x10 unity plane and telling unity the square of that plane now has a new boolean attached to it? This question mostly refers to idea #1 above, where i would use a reference mesh for positional and variable information that were directly assigned to the mesh. I have a feeling that if i do choose to have a reference mesh, i'd need to have the tiles be individual objects, snap them in place using the reference, then attach relevant scripts to those tiles.
I have found a ton of excellent resources (like http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~amitp/gameprog.html) on tile generation (mostly procedural), i'm a bit stuck on the basics due to being new to unity and im not looking for procedural design.
In my web application I only need to add static objects to my scene. It worked slow so I started searching and I found that merging geometries and merging vertices were the solution. When I implemented it, it indeed worked a lot better. All the articles said that the reason for this improvement is the decrease in number of WebGL calls. As I am not very familiar with things like OpenGL and WebGL (I use Three.js to avoid their complexity), I would like to know why exactly it reduces the WebGL calls?
Because you send one large object instead of many littles, the overhead reduces. So I understand that loading one big mesh to the scene goes faster than many small meshes.
BUT I do not understand why merging geometries also has a positive influence on the rendering calculation? I would also like to know the difference between merging geometries and merging vertices?
Thanks in advance!
three.js is a framework that helps you work with the WebGL API.
What a "mesh" is to three.js, to webgl, it's a series of low level calls that set up state and issue calls to the GPU.
Let's take a sphere for example. With three.js you would create it with a few lines:
var sphereGeometry = new THREE.SphereGeometry(10);
var sphereMaterial = new THREE.MeshBasicMaterial({color:'red'});
var sphereMesh = new THREE.Mesh( sphereGeometry, sphereMaterial);
myScene.add( sphereMesh );
You have your renderer.render() call, and poof, a sphere appears on screen.
A lot of stuff happens under the hood though.
The first line, creates the sphere "geometry" - the cpu will a bunch of math and logic describing a sphere with points and triangles. Points are vectors, three floats grouped together, triangles are a structure that groups these points by indecis (groups of integers).
Somewhere there is a loop that calculates the vectors based on trigonometry (sin, cos), and another, that weaves the resulting array of vectors into triangles (take every N , N + M , N + 2M, create a triangle etc).
Now these numbers exist in javascript land, it's just a bunch of floats and ints, grouped together in a specific way to describe shapes such as cubes, spheres and aliens.
You need a way to draw this construct on a screen - a two dimensional array of pixels.
WebGL does not actually know much about 3D. It knows how to manage memory on the gpu, how to compute things in parallel (or gives you the tools), it does know how to do mathematical operations that are crucial for 3d graphics, but the same math can be used to mine bitcoins, without even drawing anything.
In order for WebGL to draw something on screen, it first needs the data put into appropriate buffers, it needs to have the shader programs, it needs to be setup for that specific call (is there going to be blending - transparency in three.js land, depth testing, stencil testing etc), then it needs to know what it's actually drawing (so you need to provide strides, sizes of attributes etc to let it know where a 'mesh' actually is in memory), how it's drawing it (triangle strips, fans, points...) and what to draw it with - which shaders will it apply on the data you provided.
So, you need a way to 'teach' WebGL to do 3d.
I think the best way to get familiar with this concept is to look at this tutorial , re-reading if necessary, because it explains what happens pretty much on every single 3d object in perspective, ever.
To sum up the tutorial:
a perspective camera is basically two 4x4 matrices - a perspective matrix, that puts things into perspective, and a view matrix, that moves the entire world into camera space. Every camera you make, consists of these two matrices.
Every object exists in it's object space. TRS matrix, (world matrix in three.js terms) is used to transform this object into world space.
So this stuff - a concept such as "projective matrix" is what teaches webgl how to draw perspective.
Three.js abstracts this further and gives you things like "field of view" and "aspect ratio" instead of left right, top bottom.
Three.js also abstracts the transformation matrices (view matrix on the camera, and world matrices on every object) because it allows you to set "position" and "rotation" and computes the matrix based on this under the hood.
Since every mesh has to be processed by the vertex shader and the pixel shader in order to appear on the screen, every mesh needs to have all this information available.
When a draw call is being issued for a specific mesh, that mesh will have the same perspective matrix, and view matrix as any other object being rendered with the same camera. They will each have their own world matrices - numbers that move them around around your scene.
This is transformation alone, happening in the vertex shader. These results are then rasterized, and go to the pixel shader for processing.
Lets consider two materials - black plastic and red plastic. They will have the same shader, perhaps one you wrote using THREE.ShaderMaterial, or maybe one from three's library. It's the same shader, but it has one uniform value exposed - color. This allows you to have many instances of a plastic material, green, blue, pink, but it means that each of these requires a separate draw call.
Webgl will have to issue specific calls to change that uniform from red to black, and then it's ready to draw stuff using that 'material'.
So now imagine a particle system, displaying a thousand cubes each with a unique color. You have to issue a thousand draw calls to draw them all, if you treat them as separate meshes and change colors via a uniform.
If on the other hand, you assign vertex colors to each cube, you don't rely on the uniform any more, but on an attribute. Now if you merge all the cubes together, you can issue a single draw call, processing all the cubes with the same shader.
You can see why this is more efficient simply by taking a glance at webglrenderer from three.js, and all the stuff it has to do in order to translate your 3d calls to webgl. Better done once than a thousand times.
Back to those 3 lines, the sphereMaterial can take a color argument, if you look at the source, this will translate to a uniform vec3 in the shader. However, you can also achieve the same thing by rendering the vertex colors, and assigning the color you want before hand.
sphereMesh will wrap that computed geometry into an object that three's webglrenderer understands, which in turn sets up webgl accordingly.
I'm currently in the process of coding a procedural terrain generator for a game. For that purpose, I divide my world into chunks of equal size and generate them one by one as the player strolls along. So far, nothing special.
Now, I specifically don't want the world to be persistent, i.e. if a chunk gets unloaded (maybe because the player moved too far away) and later loaded again, it should not be the same as before.
From my understanding, implicit approaches like treating 3D Simplex Noise as a density function input for Marching Cubes don't suit my problem. That is because I would need to reseed the generator to obtain different return values for the same point in space, leading to discontinuities along chunk borders.
I also looked into Midpoint Displacement / Diamond-Square. By seeding each chunk's heightmap with values from the borders of adjacent chunks and randomizing the chunk corners that don't have any other chunks nearby, I was able to generate a tileable terrain that exhibits the desired behavior. Still, the results look rather dull. Specifically, since this method relies on heightmaps, it lacks overhangs and the like. Moreover, even with the corner randomization, terrain features tend to be confined to small areas, i.e. there are no multiple-chunk hills or similar landmarks.
Now I was wondering if there are other approaches to this that I haven't heard of/thought about yet. Any help is highly appreciated! :)
Cheers!
Post process!
After you do the heightmaps, run back through adding features.
This is how Minecraft does it to get the various caverns and cliff overhangs.