I need a 3D equivalent to Collider2D.GetContacts for ground deteciton in my platformer, but I can't see how to do this neatly, in theory the physics engine should be keeping track of these points anyway, so this should be possible without any extra processing, but I can't figure out how. A 3D equivalent to this function simply doesn't seem to exist, so what is the best alternative?
I'm a complete noob in gamedev, but I've watched a number of videos on generating a 2D array to setup Grid-based combat (pathing, obstacles etc), and I don't find the programmable approach intuitive or visually friendly.
Is it possible to setup such level with obstacles using multiple tilemaps?
1st tilemap would include the whole level zone (I named it "General Tilemap"):
2nd tilemap would only contain tiles that would be marked as collision when being read (I named it "Collision Tilemap") and player wouldn't be able to move to them:
My logic would be to read the adjacent tiles around the player, and if:
A tile exists on the General tilemap, but not on the Collision tilemap, player can click it and move there.
A tile exists on both tilemaps, it is marked as collision, it cannot be clicked.
A tile doesn't exist, it is out of boundaries, it cannot be clicked.
Could you please let me know if this is a valid approach (for smaller levels at least, I won't be making anything large so scalability is not an issue), or have I gone completely off course and there's a superior way to do this properly?
I'm currently stuck at the very first step - reading whether the tile on a coordinate (next to player) is existing or null for both tilemaps. Doing my best to figure it out though.
Thanks!
Managed to check if tilemap contains a tile on xy coordinates in Start function, by finding the relevant Tilemap and using hasTile to read it it has value or not. This returns a boolean.
Tilemap generalTilemap = GameObject.Find("General Tilemap").GetComponent<Tilemap>();
hasGTile = generalTilemap.HasTile(playerTileCoord);
Still not sure if this approach will work for me long-term, especially when I get to the pathfinding algorithm, but we'll see!
I am currently developing an asteroid mining/exploration game with fully deformable, smooth voxel terrain using marching cubes in Unity 3D. I want to implement an "element ID" system that is kind of similar to Minecraft's, as in each type of material has a unique integer ID. This is simple enough to generate, but right now I am trying to figure out a way to render it, so that each individual face represents the element its voxel is assigned to. I am currently using a triplanar shader with a texture array, and I have gotten it set up to work with pre-set texture IDs. However, I need to be able to pass in the element IDs into this shader for the entire asteroid, and this is where my limited shader knowledge runs out. So, I have two main questions:
How do I get data from a 3D array in an active script to my shader, or otherwise how can I sample points from this array?
Is there a better/more efficient way to do this? I thought about creating an array with only the surface vertices and their corresponding ID, but then I would have trouble sampling them correctly. I also thought about possibly bundling an extra variable in with the vertices themselves, but I don't know if this is even possible. I appreciate any ideas, thanks.
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.
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.