Check the active topics here! And the staff list here! ~Alex
You can join us on our Discord server here! ~Spiral
New or Lost? Click here!
| Welcome to The Steel Sentinels 2 Development Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as posting replies, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Collision Detection; What do you think? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 15th November 2012 - 08:23 PM (568 Views) | |
| Kosmos | 15th November 2012 - 08:23 PM Post #1 |
Very lazy, such slow, wow.
|
I have been thinking about it and I'm not sure how to do the collision detection. There are two types (which don't have to be the same): Sentinels, projectiles, powerups to the ground, and projectiles to sentinels. I'm planning to use some kind of position and radius for projectiles but... I'll (try) to let you decide (if you have other ideas please also tell me). It would be nice if you could post the reason for your opinion too. EDIT: For those who don't get it: NO COLLISION = FALLING TROUGH THE GROUND! It was intended as a joke but... EDIT: Removed that option for obvious reasons. EDIT BY DAN : Okay, from now on, if your gonna choose a option from this poll and reply, please say why, it's annoying and the developers need "constructive" critisism. EDIT2: Switched to using collision prediction (more accurate). I'll edit again if there is anything to say, e.g. one way being far more CPU intensive. Edited by Kosmos, 20th November 2012 - 09:09 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Archlord Pie | 15th November 2012 - 10:21 PM Post #2 |
|
Bringer of Spam and Sodium
|
I'm fairly certain the game uses spheres. There has to be collision detection between the sentinel and the ground, otherwise the game won't know whether or not to give the sentinel the at-rest energy generation bonus (which it never gets in the air, period). |
![]() |
|
| Hadjii | 15th November 2012 - 11:06 PM Post #3 |
|
My answer is primarily because I'm trolling. In all seriousness I think we need rotatable boxes. The sentinels aren't quite circular enough for circular collision to cover it. It'd work for say the Slave chassis or the Orbital but it would be glitchy for the Babel and others. |
![]() |
|
| Kosmos | 15th November 2012 - 11:53 PM Post #4 |
Very lazy, such slow, wow.
|
It is possible to check if the point is on a line. I think it is a circle because you can partially fall trough the ground with some sentinels. EDIT: added oval and rotatable oval. Edited by Kosmos, 15th November 2012 - 11:57 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Cloud NiiNe | 16th November 2012 - 03:50 AM Post #5 |
![]()
Turtle Trekker
|
If you apply enough knockback to a Scorpion, you can send it through a steep hill. |
![]() |
|
| Kosmos | 17th November 2012 - 02:23 PM Post #6 |
Very lazy, such slow, wow.
|
Yes that should not work anymore as I'm planning to let it try to move in multiple steps of up to a pixel. You might think that this would be to CPU intensive but I think that the movements will always be below 1 pixel per update anyways. At least that's how it was the last time. |
![]() |
|
| Taicturn Nacht | 17th November 2012 - 03:50 PM Post #7 |
|
Nacht
|
I'm going for the rotating Oval. |
![]() |
|
| Alex | 17th November 2012 - 04:26 PM Post #8 |
![]()
|
Rotatable ellipses. |
![]() |
|
| Kosmos | 17th November 2012 - 11:38 PM Post #9 |
Very lazy, such slow, wow.
|
I actually wanted you to post why you choose it, not what. Because second is why I have a poll. Also rotatable stuff will only be used if we decide to change the angles of the weapons when waling up/down a hill. |
![]() |
|
| Hadjii | 18th November 2012 - 03:42 AM Post #10 |
|
Aww... you DID remove no collision. I vote for dodecagons and pentagons. And generalized polar functions that extend into the complex plane. 6_9 No, seriously, rotatable shapes. Generalized. Most sentinels would be boxes. A few would be circles. Kosmos if you're concerned about writing this, remember that if we get a better CVS than email then I'll gladly write it and more parts of the game. |
![]() |
|
| Kosmos | 18th November 2012 - 01:16 PM Post #11 |
Very lazy, such slow, wow.
|
Oh I'm sure that I can write all of the poll options but the rotated oval. But I think i can use some kind of sin and cos to get the radius at the current distance line of both shapes. Also I don't like the idea of having multiple shapes. Is there any reason for using pentagons or even dodecagons? |
![]() |
|
| Alex | 18th November 2012 - 02:16 PM Post #12 |
![]()
|
Ovals/ellipses compensate for the boxes since they can form a near rectangle; they can also form a circle if the loci are on top of each other. |
![]() |
|
| Mr Spad3 | 19th November 2012 - 04:16 AM Post #13 |
![]()
Schrodinger's Spade
|
Just do a rectangle which is the approximate size of the core chassis, since when the rest of the parts like weapons and arms etc are added on, it'll overlap the collision box to mean we don't have any ghosting. (As in, being hit when it didn't touch it, ok this means we'll have a little bit of stuff being partially inside said sprite before an action, but considering that 99% of all games do it, I'm sure it won't matter) |
![]() |
|
| Hadjii | 19th November 2012 - 06:58 PM Post #14 |
|
To answer your question, no. It was a joke. And I don't see what's wrong with having multiple shapes. You kindof already will in order to collide correctly with the terrain, won't you? |
![]() |
|
| Cloud NiiNe | 20th November 2012 - 06:56 AM Post #15 |
![]()
Turtle Trekker
|
SS1 uses various shapes. The babel is a rectangle, but the Orbital is a Sphere. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Programmers' Hub · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
12:16 PM Jul 11
|
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy









12:16 PM Jul 11