I've read the document but still confused of them, could any guy can give me a clearly explaining, e.g.any image comparison? Thanks.
The Wikipedia article on Pathfinding might help, as might the related topics on graphs and graph search algorithms linked from there. Beyond that, here's an attempt at a quick explainer.
Nodes are places that someone can be, and their connections to other nodes define someone can travel between places. Together, a collection of (connected) nodes form a graph.
GKGraphNode is the most general form of node — these nodes don't know anything about where they are in space, just about their connections to other nodes. (That's enough for basic pathfinding, though... if you have a graph where A is connected to B and B is connected to C, the path from A to C goes through B regardless of where those nodes are located, like below.)
GKGraph is a collection of nodes, and provides functions that work the graph as a whole, like the important one for finding paths.
GKGridGraphNode and GKGraphNode2D are specialized versions of GKGraphNode that add knowledge of the node's position in space — either integer grid space (like a chessboard) or open 2D space. Once you've added that kind of information, a GKGraph containing these kinds of nodes can take distance into account when pathfinding.
For example, look at this image:
If we're just using GKGraphNode, all we're talking about is which nodes are connected to which. So if we ask for the shortest path from A to D, we can get either ACD or ABD, because it's an qual number of connections either way. But if we use GKGridGraphNode or GKGraphNode2D, we're looking at the lengths of the lines between nodes, in which case ACD is the shortest path.
Once you start locating your nodes in (some sort of coordinate) space, it helps to be able to operate on the graph as a whole in that space. That's where GKGridGraph and GKObstacleGraph come in.
GKGridGraph works with GKGridGraphNodes and lets you do things like create a graph to fill a set of dimensions (say, a 10x10 grid, with diagonal movement allowed) instead of making you create and connect a bunch of nodes yourself.
GKObstacleGraph adds more to free-2D-space graphs by letting you mark areas as impassable obstacles and automatically managing the nodes and connections to route around obstacles.
Hopefully this helps a bit. For more, besides the reference docs and guide, Apple also has a WWDC video that shows how this stuff works.
Related
I want to find a way to check if points(vectors) in my scene are contained within a SCNBox I have displayed on screen. Currently I have an array of about 83000 SCNVector3's. So far, I do this by simply running a for loop on each point and checking against the SCNBox bounding box. If it falls within that bounding box I save the point to a separate array. My goal however is not 1 bounding box. I further subdivide the bounding box into equal sections. For each of those I then have to check each individual point again to see if they fall into each one of those individual bounding boxes. If they do, I save those boxes so that when I go to subdivide them again, I am not subdividing boxes that contain no points. This helps performance a little bit as large sections of boxes that don't have points are not needlessly checked. This works okay for a small amount of boxes however I need to subdivide the boxes into much larger amounts, sometimes in the hundreds to thousands of boxes. As you can imagine, it takes a long time to check all the boxes. Currently I am having to iterate through all the points every time for each box. Is there a faster approach to this?
Your question says is there a better way, so using the physics engine would be a more 'standard' approach IMO, but performance wise I wouldn't know without trying it myself. It seems you either check manually, or let the physics engine check it for you.
Try this post - it's similar and there are some examples. [67575481].
The physics engine checks nodes for nodes and it may have changed since I did this, but I had to generate node names for my nodes and check it that way. There may be other options now.
My example is a moving 'missile' that collides with a moving node containing 'some monster', so I wasn't dealing with the size you are.
83000 vectors, dunno, that seems like a lot. You'll still have to do the checks you do now, just differently.
Hope that helps...
I'm hoping to prototype some very basic physics/statics simulations for "voxel-based" games like Minecraft and Dwarf Fortress, so that the game can detect when a player has constructed a structure that should not be able to stand up on its own.. Obviously this is a very fuzzy definition -- whether a structure is impossible depends upon multitude of material and environmental properties -- but the general idea is to motivate players to build structures that resemble the buildings we see in the real world. I'll describe what I mean in a bit more detail below, but I generally want to know if anyone could suggest either an potential approach to the problem or a resource that I could use.
Here's some examples of buildings that could be impossible if the material was not strong enough.
Here's some example situations. My understanding of this subject is not great but bear with me.
If this structure were to be made of concrete with dimensions of, say, 4m by 200m, it would probably not be able to stand up. Because the center of mass is not over its connection to the ground, I think it would either tip over or crack at the base.
The center of gravity of this arch lies between the columns holding it up, but if it was very big and made of a weak, heavy material, it would crumble under its own weight.
This tower has its center of gravity right over its base, but if it is sufficiently tall then it only takes a bit of force for the wind to topple it over.
Now, I expect that a full-scale real-time simulation of these physics isn't really possible... but there's a lot of ways that I could simplify the simulation. For example:
Tests for physics-defying structures could be infrequently and randomly performed, so a bad building doesn't crumble right as soon as it is built, but as much as a few minutes later.
Minecraft and Dwarf Fortress hardly perform rigid- or soft-body physics. For this reason, any piece of a building that is deemed to be physically impossible can simple "pop" into rubble instead of spawning a bunch of accurate physics props.
Have you considered taking an existing 3d environment physics engine and "rounding off" orientations of objects? In the case of your first object (the L-shaped thing), you could run a simulation of a continuous, non-voxelized object of similar shape behind the scenes and then monitor that object for orientation changes. In a simple case, if the object's representation of the continuous hits the ground, the object in the voxelized gameplay world could move its blocks to the ground.
I don't think there is a feasible way to do this. Minecraft has no notion of physical structure. So you will have to look at each block individually to determine if it should fall (there are other considerations but this is minimum). You would therefore need a way to distinguish between ground and "not ground". This is modeling problem first and foremost, not a programming problem (not even simulation design). I think this question is out of scope for SO.
For instance consider the following model, that may give you an indication of the complexities involved:
each block above height = 0 experiences a "down pull" = P, P may be any of the following:
0 if the box is supported by another box
m*g (where m is its mass which depends on material density * voxel volume) otherwise if it is free
F represents some "friction" or "glue" between vertical faces of boxes, it counteracts P.
This friction should have a threshold beyond which it "breaks" and the block then has a net pull downwards.
if m*g < sum F, box stays where it is. Otherwise, box falls.
F depends on the pairs of materials in contact
for n=2, so you can form a line of blocks between two towers
F is what causes the net pull of a box to be larger than m*g. For instance if you have two blocks a-b-c with c being on d, then a pulls on b, so b should be "heavier" than m*g where it contacts c. If this net is > F, then the pair a-b should fall.
You might be able to simulate the above and get interesting results, but you will find it really challenging to handle the case where there are two towsers with a line of blocks between them: the towers are coupled together by line of blocks, there is no longer a "tip" to the line of blocks. At this stage you might as well get out your physics books to create a system of boxes and springs and come up with equations that you might be able to solve numerically, but in a full 3D system you will have a 3D mesh of springs to navigate iteratively to converge to force values on each box and determine which ones move.
A professor of mine suggested that I look at this paper.
Additionally, I found the keyword for what it is I'm looking for. "Structural Analysis." I bought a textbook and I have a long road ahead of me.
I am doing research on touch screens and I couldnot find a good source except for this image below which could explain how multitouch IR systems work. basically the single touch IR systems are pretty simple as on two sides of the panel, lets say left and top are the IR transmitters and on the right and bottom are the receivers. So if a user touches somewhere in the middle, the path of IR will be disrupted and the ray will not reach the receiving end, therefore the processor can pick up the coordinates. but this will not work for multitouch systems as there is an issue of ghost points with this approach.
Below I have an image of 'PQ labs' multitouch IR system working, but as there is no explanation given, therefore I am not able to understand its working, Any help will be greatly appreciated.
I consider that they have a special algorithm to avoid the point caused by the inner cross of emitter light. But this algorithm will not work for every time, so sometime if you put your finger very close to each other. The ghost point may will show up.
My guess:
The sensors are analog (there must be an Analog to digital converter to read each of the opto transistor (IR receiver).
LEDa and LEDb are not on at the same time
The opto transistor are running in a linear range (not in saturation) when no object is present.
One object:
4. When an One object is placed on the surface. There will be less light accessing some of the opto transistors. This will be reflected by a reading that is lower then the read when no object is present.
The reading of the photo transistor array (it is an array reflecting the read from each opto transistor) will provide information about:
4.1. How many opto transistors are completely shaded (off)
4.2. What opto transistor are effected
Please note: A reading from one LED is not sufficient to know the object position
To get object location we need two reading (one from LEDa and one from LEDb). Now, we can calculate the object Position and Size since we know the geometry of the screen.
Two Objects:
Now each array may have "holes" (there will be two groups) in the shaded area. These holes will indicate that there is an additional object.
If the objects are closed to each other the holes may not be seen. However, there are many LEDs. So there will be multiple arrays (one for each LED) and based on the presented geometry these holes may be seen by some of the LEDs.
For more information please see US patent#: US7932899
Charles Bibas
I want to ask about jelly physics ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I74rJFB_W1k ), where I can find some good place to start making things like that ? I want to make simulation of cars crash and I want use this jelly physics, but I can't find a lot about them. I don't want use existing physics engine, I want write my own :)
Something like what you see in the video you linked to could be accomplished with a mass-spring system. However, as you vary the number of masses and springs, keeping your spring constants the same, you will get wildly varying results. In short, mass-spring systems are not good approximations of a continuum of matter.
Typically, these sorts of animations are created using what is called the Finite Element Method (FEM). The FEM does converge to a continuum, which is nice. And although it does require a bit more know-how than a mass-spring system, it really isn't too bad. The basic idea, derived from the study of continuum mechanics, can be put this way:
Break the volume of your object up into many small pieces (elements), usually tetrahedra. Let's call the entire collection of these elements the mesh. You'll actually want to make two copies of this mesh. Label one the "rest" mesh, and the other the "world" mesh. I'll tell you why next.
For each tetrahedron in your world mesh, measure how deformed it is relative to its corresponding rest tetrahedron. The measure of how deformed it is is called "strain". This is typically accomplished by first measuring what is known as the deformation gradient (often denoted F). There are several good papers that describe how to do this. Once you have F, one very typical way to define the strain (e) is:
e = 1/2(F^T * F) - I. This is known as Green's strain. It is invariant to rotations, which makes it very convenient.
Using the properties of the material you are trying to simulate (gelatin, rubber, steel, etc.), and using the strain you measured in the step above, derive the "stress" of each tetrahdron.
For each tetrahedron, visit each node (vertex, corner, point (these all mean the same thing)) and average the area-weighted normal vectors (in the rest shape) of the three triangular faces that share that node. Multiply the tetrahedron's stress by that averaged vector, and there's the elastic force acting on that node due to the stress of that tetrahedron. Of course, each node could potentially belong to multiple tetrahedra, so you'll want to be able to sum up these forces.
Integrate! There are easy ways to do this, and hard ways. Either way, you'll want to loop over every node in your world mesh and divide its forces by its mass to determine its acceleration. The easy way to proceed from here is to:
Multiply its acceleration by some small time value dt. This gives you a change in velocity, dv.
Add dv to the node's current velocity to get a new total velocity.
Multiply that velocity by dt to get a change in position, dx.
Add dx to the node's current position to get a new position.
This approach is known as explicit forward Euler integration. You will have to use very small values of dt to get it to work without blowing up, but it is so easy to implement that it works well as a starting point.
Repeat steps 2 through 5 for as long as you want.
I've left out a lot of details and fancy extras, but hopefully you can infer a lot of what I've left out. Here is a link to some instructions I used the first time I did this. The webpage contains some useful pseudocode, as well as links to some relevant material.
http://sealab.cs.utah.edu/Courses/CS6967-F08/Project-2/
The following link is also very useful:
http://sealab.cs.utah.edu/Courses/CS6967-F08/FE-notes.pdf
This is a really fun topic, and I wish you the best of luck! If you get stuck, just drop me a comment.
That rolling jelly cube video was made with Blender, which uses the Bullet physics engine for soft body simulation. The bullet documentation in general is very sparse and for soft body dynamics almost nonexistent. You're best bet would be to read the source code.
Then write your own version ;)
Here is a page with some pretty good tutorials on it. The one you are looking for is probably in the (inverse) Kinematics and Mass & Spring Models sections.
Hint: A jelly can be seen as a 3 dimensional cloth ;-)
Also, try having a look at the search results for spring pressure soft body model - they might get you going in the right direction :-)
See this guy's page Maciej Matyka, topic of soft body
Unfortunately 2d only but might be something to start with is JellyPhysics and JellyCar
I have an application in which users interact with each-other. I want to visualize these interactions so that I can determine whether clusters of users exist (within which interactions are more frequent).
I've assigned a 2D point to each user (where each coordinate is between 0 and 1). My idea is that two users' points move closer together when they interact, an "attractive force", and I just repeatedly go through my interaction logs over and over again.
Of course, I need a "repulsive force" that will push users apart too, otherwise they will all just collapse into a single point.
First I tried monitoring the lowest and highest of each of the XY coordinates, and normalizing their positions, but this didn't work, a few users with a small number of interactions stayed at the edges, and the rest all collapsed into the middle.
Does anyone know what equations I should use to move the points, both for the "attractive" force between users when they interact, and a "repulsive" force to stop them all collapsing into a single point?
Edit: In response to a question, I should point out that I'm dealing with about 1 million users, and about 10 million interactions between users. If anyone can recommend a tool that could do this for me, I'm all ears :-)
In the past, when I've tried this kind of thing, I've used a spring model to pull linked nodes together, something like: dx = -k*(x-l). dx is the change in the position, x is the current position, l is the desired separation, and k is the spring coefficient that you tweak until you get a nice balance between spring strength and stability, it'll be less than 0.1. Having l > 0 ensures that everything doesn't end up in the middle.
In addition to that, a general "repulsive" force between all nodes will spread them out, something like: dx = k / x^2. This will be larger the closer two nodes are, tweak k to get a reasonable effect.
I can recommend some possibilities: first, try log-scaling the interactions or running them through a sigmoidal function to squash the range. This will give you a smoother visual distribution of spacing.
Independent of this scaling issue: look at some of the rendering strategies in graphviz, particularly the programs "neato" and "fdp". From the man page:
neato draws undirected graphs using ``spring'' models (see Kamada and
Kawai, Information Processing Letters 31:1, April 1989). Input files
must be formatted in the dot attributed graph language. By default,
the output of neato is the input graph with layout coordinates
appended.
fdp draws undirected graphs using a ``spring'' model. It relies on a
force-directed approach in the spirit of Fruchterman and Reingold (cf.
Software-Practice & Experience 21(11), 1991, pp. 1129-1164).
Finally, consider one of the scaling strategies, an attractive force, and some sort of drag coefficient instead of a repulsive force. Actually moving things closer and then possibly farther later on may just get you cyclic behavior.
Consider a model in which everything will collapse eventually, but slowly. Then just run until some condition is met (a node crosses the center of the layout region or some such).
Drag or momentum can just be encoded as a basic resistance to motion and amount to throttling the movements; it can be applied differentially (things can move slower based on how far they've gone, where they are in space, how many other nodes are close, etc.).
Hope this helps.
The spring model is the traditional way to do this: make an attractive force between each node based on the interaction, and a repulsive force between all nodes based on the inverse square of their distance. Then solve, minimizing the energy. You may need some fairly high powered programming to get an efficient solution to this if you have more than a few nodes. Make sure the start positions are random, and run the program several times: a case like this almost always has several local energy minima in it, and you want to make sure you've got a good one.
Also, unless you have only a few nodes, I would do this in 3D. An extra dimension of freedom allows for better solutions, and you should be able to visualize clusters in 3D as well if not better than 2D.