How can I prevent this map generator from creating touching corners like this:
-X
X-
Or
X-
-X
Here is a simplified example of the generator: http://jsfiddle.net/fDv9C/2/
Your question answers itself, almost.
Here's the fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/qBJVY/
if (!!grid[y][x] && !!grid[y+1][x+1] && !grid[y+1][x] && !grid[y][x+1]) {
good=false;
grid[y+1][x]=2;
}
It simply checks for the combinations you do not want and patches them up. It always adds a grid point so as not to disconnect any parts of the map.
This in turn may lead to another situation where the issue may occur, but if it changed anything (that is, if it found a problem), it will simply check again. This can be optimized, for instance by recursively adjusting whatever was changed, but usually it only needs 1 or 2 passes. There's a limiter on there to not allow more than 100 passes, just in case there is some unforeseen circumstance in which it cannot fix it (I can't think of such a situation, though :) ).
Because of the way that you are creating board it's very difficulty to do this checking during generation. I create simple function that check board after. It's using flood algorithm. Here is the fiddle http://jsfiddle.net/jzTEX/8/ (blue background is original map, red background is map after checking)
Basically we create second array grid2. After filling grid we run recursively floodV function
function floodV(x,y) {
var shiftArray = [[0,1],[0,-1],[1,0],[-1,0]];
grid2[y][x]=1;
for(var k=0;k<4;k++) {
var x1=x+shiftArray[k][0];
var y1=y+shiftArray[k][1];
if(grid[y1][x1] == 1 && grid2[y1][x1] == 0 && checkV(x1,y1)) {
grid2[y1][x1] = 1;
floodV(x1,y1);
}
}
}
with the check function
function checkV(x,y) {
var checkVarr = [[-1,-1], [-1,1], [1,1], [1,-1]];
for(var k=0;k<4;k++) {
if(grid[y+checkVarr[k][0]][x+checkVarr[k][1]] == 1 && grid[y+checkVarr[k][0]][x] == 0 && grid[y][x+checkVarr[k][1]] == 0 && grid2[y+checkVarr[k][0]][x+checkVarr[k][1]] == 1)
return false;
}
return true;
}
This isn't perfect because we can sometimes throw away big parts of the map but if we try to start adding new elements we have to check whole map again (in worths case).
This is what I did: http://jsfiddle.net/fDv9C/13/
Where's the magic happening? Scroll down to lines 53 through 58:
var bottom = y_next + 1;
var left = x_next - 1;
var right = x_next + 1;
var top = y_next - 1;
if (grid[top][left] || grid[top][right] ||
grid[bottom][left] || grid[bottom][right]) continue;
In short your touching corner points can only occur at the computed next position. Hence if any one of the four corner neighbors of the next position exists, you must compute another next position.
You may even decrement the counter i when this happens to get as many paths as possible (although it doesn't really make a big difference):
var bottom = y_next + 1;
var left = x_next - 1;
var right = x_next + 1;
var top = y_next - 1;
if (grid[top][left] || grid[top][right] ||
grid[bottom][left] || grid[bottom][right]) {
i--;
continue;
}
See the demo here: http://jsfiddle.net/fDv9C/12/
Edit: I couldn't resist. I had to create an automatic map generator so that I needn't keep clicking run: http://jsfiddle.net/fDv9C/14/
Related
Full code here
I am trying to setup the functions to detect collisions and for now just log to the console. This is the section for checkCollision function;
Player.prototype.update = function(dt) {
checkCollision(this.leftLimit, this.rightLimit);
this.leftLimit = this.x - 40.5;
this.rightLimit = this.x + 40.5;
}
function checkCollision(playerl,playerr) {
for (var i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
var thisEnemy = allEnemies[i];
if (thisEnemy.leftlimit > playerl && thisEnemy.rightLimit < playerr) {console.log("1")}
else {console.log('else')}
}
}
Question
The character is never registering as colliding with the enemy, why is this not working?
Testing/Debugging
I know this function is working as consoles logging else, I've also put logging in other locations and when in the Enemy.prototype.update function, console was showing values like 202.000000093, since the for..else function is using < or >, not absolute values, that should be fine, but still nothing is matching inside the player left and right limits. I also tried changing the Enemy limits to be smaller, +/- 40.5, incase the enemy was too wide to fit inside the player limits.
player.leftLimit and player.rightLimit are undefined when checkCollision method is first running
I added a better if statement to check if there's a collision;
if (
thisEnemy.leftLimit < player.rightLimit &&
thisEnemy.rightLimit > player.leftLimit &&
thisEnemy.upperLimit > player.lowerLimit &&
thisEnemy.lowerLimit < player.upperLimit) {
console.log("collision");
}
I'm working on an action game using the Phaser framework, and I want the player to be able to touch certain switch tiles to turn other enemies off and back on. So it should work like this:
The player overlaps a special switch tile
Execute the switch action, only once
Ignore further overlapping until player moved off of the tile
When player moves off a switch tile, only then should it start checking for overlap again
Repeat from step 1 when player overlaps again (or another switch tile)
I'm using arcade physics and the overlap function is working. But the problem is that the overlap keeps firing over and over again, like every single frame. What would be the best way in Phaser to get the desired result?
See screenshot below of what I mean, and I've created a sandox of my code example here:
https://phaser.io/sandbox/edit/zEVOQfgA
Your code is not working because you are resetting okoverlap to 0 on each update. What you need to do is to set the okoverlap to a state and change that state at suitable time.
I've fixed your code by saving the property in game object in create.
game.flags = {};
game.flags.okoverlap = 0;
Then in update function I've checked that property and current overlap status.
function update() {
if(game.flags.okoverlap === 1 && !checkOverlap(mushroom, theswitch)) {
game.flags.okoverlap = 0;
}
game.physics.arcade.overlap(mushroom, theswitch, handleCollide, null, this);
}
function checkOverlap(spriteA, spriteB) {
var boundsA = spriteA.getBounds();
var boundsB = spriteB.getBounds();
return Phaser.Rectangle.intersects(boundsA, boundsB);
}
The logic inside handleCollide function is changed to
if (game.flags.okoverlap != 1) {
game.flags.okoverlap = 1;
doSwitch();
}
Finally replace okoverlap in render with game.flags.okoverlap to prevent ReferenceError
game.debug.text('overlap: ' + (game.flags.okoverlap == 1 ? 'YES': (game.flags.okoverlap == -1 ? 'partial': 'no')), 20, 40);
Working sample here - https://phaser.io/sandbox/edit/ikJBIznv
I've been playing around some more and found a solution, using 2 global variables. One variable frameoverlap to check if there is an overlap, and one variable doswitch to see if the switch action was already done. Then you can handle it all in the update() function.
function update() {
// assume no overlap
frameoverlap = 0;
// do arcade.overlap
game.physics.arcade.overlap(mushroom, theswitch, handleCollide, null, this);
// check flags after arcade.overlap
if (frameoverlap == 1) {
if (doswitch == 0) {
doswitch = 1; // remember the switch was done
doSwitch();
}
} else {
if (doswitch == 1) {
doswitch = 0; // stepping off the switch tile
}
}
}
See updated code here
https://phaser.io/sandbox/edit/VTenTwgh
I am currently working on a game that has to do with a rocket ship moving around and objects(circles) are falling from the top. The goal of this game is to not hit the objects as they are falling down the screen. I am running into problems when writing my collision algorithm.
I have declared var hit = false; at the top of my code
I have also put all of the circles into an array called projectiles.
I believe that I have the logic correct but I discovered that when calling either p.width or ship.width it returns NaN. I have tried using offsetWidth and that didn't work either. I am wondering how else to go about getting the width of my objects
The else statement at the bottom is just to check if .width is returning the correct number. Once I get it to work it will be removed and replaced with the final parts of the collision algorithm.
function checkCollision()
{
for (i = 0; i < projectiles.length; i++) {
var p = projectiles[i];
if((p.x + p.width) < ship.x)
{
hit = false;
}
else if(p.x > (ship.x + ship.width))
{
hit = false;
}
else if(p.y > (ship.y + ship.height))
{
hit = false;
}
else if((p.y + p.height) < ship.y)
{
hit = false;
}
else {
console.log(ship.x + ship.width);
}
In the documentation for createjs.Bitmap there do not exist properties for .width and .height. Instead access it's .image (HTMLImageElement) property which have defined width and height properties: ship.image.width and ship.image.height.
If your object is an EaselJS Bitmap, you can retrieve the physical size using getBounds(). This method works for some EaselJS display objects (ie, not Shapes, and accuracy varies with Text).
var bounds = ship.getBounds();
var w = bounds.width;
Notes:
per #Spencer's message, you can access the .image, and get the width/height, but it will be the original size of the image, so if you transform the bitmap instance, or any of the parent containers, the value will be wrong. The getBounds will consider the scale transformation (if it exists)
values may not be correct if the item is rotated.
bounds are based on the registration point, so the x/y might be non-zero.
You will get 0 for width/height if the image is not yet loaded
For your projectile, if it is a shape, the bounds will always be null, but you can manually set them if you know them, and they will be properly calculated/transformed:
var p = new createjs.Shape();
p.graphics.beginFill("red").drawCircle(0,0,20);
p.setBounds(new createjs.Rectangle(-20,-20,40,40));
Here is some info on why there is no .width or .height: http://blog.createjs.com/update-width-height-in-easeljs/
I'm creating a 2-dimensional heat map which has functionality when you click on any pixel. It grabs data associated with the index of every pixel (including adjacent pixels) and plots it. It currently looks like this:
The problem that I'm encountering is when I click on a left or right edge pixel, since it grabs data from adjacent pixels, it can retrieve data from the opposite side of the graph since it is all within a one-dimensional array. I am trying to create a conditional which checks if the clicked pixel is an edge case, and then configures the magnified graph accordingly to not show points from the other side of the main graph. This is the code I have so far:
// pushes all dataMagnified arrays left and right of i to magMainStore
var dataGrabber = function(indexGrabbed, arrayPushed) {
// iterates through all 5 pixels being selected
for (var b = -2; b <= 2; b++) {
var divValue = toString(i / cropLength + b);
// checks if selected index exists, and if it is not in the prior row, or if it is equal to zero
if (dataMagnified[indexGrabbed + b] != undefined && (& divValue.indexOf(".")!=-1)) {
dataMagnified[indexGrabbed + b].forEach(function(z) {
arrayPushed.push(z);
})
}
}
};
I am trying to get the same result as if I had a two dimensional array, and finding when the adjacent values within a single array is undefined. This is the line where I'm creating a conditional for that
if (dataMagnified[indexGrabbed + b] != undefined && (& divValue.indexOf(".")!=-1)) {
The second condition after the and is my attempts so far trying to figure this out. I'm unsure if I can even do this within a for loop that iterates 5 times or if I have to create multiple conditions for this. In addition, here's an image displaying what I'm trying to do:
Thank you!
Your approach looks overly complex and will perform rather slowly. For example, converting numbers to strings to be able to use .indexOf() to find a decimal point just for the sake of checking for integer numbers doesn't seem right.
A much simpler and more elegant solution might be the following function which will return the selection range bounded by the limits of the row:
function getBoundedSelection(indexGrabbed, selectionWidth) {
return dataMagnified.slice(
Math.max(Math.floor(indexGrabbed/cropLength) * cropLength, indexGrabbed - selectionWidth),
Math.min(rowStartIndex + cropLength, indexGrabbed + selectionWidth)
);
}
Here, to keep it as flexible as possible, selectionWidth determines the width of the selected range to either side of indexGrabbed. This would be 2 in your case.
As an explanation of what this does, I have broken it down:
function getBoundedSelection(indexGrabbed, selectionWidth) {
// Calculate the row indexGrabbed is on.
var row = Math.floor(indexGrabbed/cropLength);
// Determine the first index on that row.
var rowStartIndex = row * cropLength;
// Get the start index of the selection range or the start of the row,
// whatever is larger.
var selStartIndex = Math.max(rowStartIndex, indexGrabbed - selectionWidth);
// Determine the last index on that row
var rowEndIndex = rowStartIndex + cropLength;
// Get the end index of the selection range or the end of the row,
//whatever is smaller.
var selEndIndex = Math.min(rowEndIndex, indexGrabbed + selectionWidth);
// Return the slice bounded by the row's limits.
return dataMagnified.slice(selStartIndex, selEndIndex);
}
So I discovered that since the results of the clicked position would create a variable start and end position in the for loop, the only way to do this was as follows:
I started the same; all the code is nested in one function:
var dataGrabber = function(indexGrabbed, arrayPushed) {
I then create a second function that takes a start and end point as arguments, then passes them as the for loop starting point and ending condition:
var magnifyCondition = function (start, end) {
for (var b = start; b <= end; b++) {
if (dataMagnified[indexGrabbed + b] != undefined) {
dataMagnified[indexGrabbed + b].forEach(function (z) {
arrayPushed.push(z);
})
}
}
};
After that, I created 5 independent conditional statements since the start and end points can't be easily iterated through:
if (((indexGrabbed - 1) / cropLength).toString().indexOf(".") == -1) {
magnifyCondition(-1, 2);
}
else if ((indexGrabbed / cropLength).toString().indexOf(".") == -1) {
magnifyCondition(0, 2);
}
else if (((indexGrabbed + 1) / cropLength).toString().indexOf(".") == -1) {
magnifyCondition(-2, 0);
}
else if (((indexGrabbed + 2) / cropLength).toString().indexOf(".") == -1) {
magnifyCondition(-2, 1);
}
else {
magnifyCondition(-2, 2);
}
};
Lastly, I pass the index grabbed (i of the on clicked function) and an arbitrary array where the values get stored.
dataGrabber(i, magMainStore);
If there's a better way instead of the if statements, please let me know and I'd be happy to organize it better in the future!
WARNING: CPU Usage goes to 100%, be careful.
Link to the jsFiddle
This script has been written to design a dynamic snake and ladder board. Everytime the page is refreshed a new board is created. Most of the time all of the background images do not appear, and the CPU usage goes up to 100%. But on occasion all of them appear and the CPU usage is normal.
Opera shows some of the background images, Firefox lags and asks me if I wish to stop the script.
I believe that the problem is with these lines of code:
for(var key in origin) // Need to implement check to ensure that two keys do not have the same VALUES!
{
if(origin[key] == random_1 || origin[key] == random_2 || key == random_2) // End points cannot be the same AND starting and end points cannot be the same.
{
valFlag = 1;
}
console.log(key);
}
Your algorithm is very ineffective. When array is almost filled up, you literally do millions of useless iterations until you're in luck and RNG accidentally picks missing number. Rewrite it to:
Generate an array of all possible numbers - from 1 to 99.
When you need a random numbers, generate a random index in current bounds of this array, splice element and this random position, removing it from array and use its value as your desired random number.
If generated numbers don't fit some of your conditions (minDiff?) return them back to array. Do note, that you can still stall in loop forever if everything that is left in array is unable to fit your conditions.
Every value you pull from array in this way is guaranteed to be unique, since you originally filled it with unique numbers and remove them on use.
I've stripped drawing and placed generated numbers into array that you can check in console. Put your drawing back and it should work - numbers are generated instantly now:
var snakes = ['./Images/Snakes/snake1.png','./Images/Snakes/snake2.jpg','./Images/Snakes/snake3.gif','./Images/Snakes/snake4.gif','./Images/Snakes/snake5.gif','./Images/Snakes/snake6.jpg'];
var ladders = ['./Images/Ladders/ladder1.jpg','./Images/Ladders/ladder2.jpg','./Images/Ladders/ladder3.png','./Images/Ladders/ladder4.jpg','./Images/Ladders/ladder5.png'];
function drawTable()
{
// Now generating snakes.
generateRand(snakes,0);
generateRand(ladders,1);
}
var uniqNumbers = []
for(var idx = 1; idx < 100; idx++){ uniqNumbers.push(idx) }
var results = []
function generateRand(arr,flag)
{
var valFlag = 0;
var minDiff = 8; // Minimum difference between start of snake/ladder to its end.
var temp;
for(var i = 0; i< arr.length; ++i) {
var valid = false
// This is the single place it still can hang, through with current size of arrays it is highly unlikely
do {
var random_1 = uniqNumbers.splice(Math.random() * uniqNumbers.length, 1)[0]
var random_2 = uniqNumbers.splice(Math.random() * uniqNumbers.length, 1)[0]
if (Math.abs(random_1 - random_2) < minDiff) {
// return numbers
uniqNumbers.push(random_1)
uniqNumbers.push(random_2)
} else {
valid = true
}
} while (!valid);
if(flag == 0) // Snake
{
if(random_1 < random_2) // Swapping them if the first number is smaller than the second number.
{
var temp = random_1; random_1 = random_2; random_2 = temp
}
}
else // Ladders
{
if(random_1>random_2) // Swapping them if the first number is greater than the second number.
{
var temp = random_1; random_1 = random_2; random_2 = temp
}
}
// Just for debug - look results up on console
results.push([random_1, random_2])
}
}
drawTable()
I had a problem like this using "HighCharts", in a for loop - "browsers" have an in-built functionality to detect dead scripts or infinite loops. So the browsers halts or pop-ups up a message saying not responding. Not sure if you have that symptom!
This was resulted from a "loop" with a large pool of data. I wrote a tutorial on it on CodeProject, you might try it, and it might be your answer.
http://www.codeproject.com/Tips/406739/Preventing-Stop-running-this-script-in-Browsers