I have Pictures with Numbers on it (I mean Sprites).
I got them on an Empty GameObject, I mean [SerializeField] and added through the script (C# Ofcourse), So the Objects are not really there they are being Generated when the Game begins.
So as you can see in the Code that I can set Row and Columns Amount and with Offset also distances in X and Y Axis. But I cannot re-position it. It seems that the first one being generated is locked to the middle of the project (the first one up-Left)So I tried to move the gizmo of the empty gameobject but the sprites are still on the spot even if I use the Inspector Instead. It seems that it would need to be positioned it in the script, But How?
Please give me enough Examples witch will work with Unity?
What I tried is to position it in Unity as I already mentioned with moving the Gizmo of the Gameobject and also in the Inspector It really seems that it can only be done on the script (I might be wrong but I tried everything).
public class Controll : MonoBehaviour
{
public const int gridRows = 6;
public const int gridCols = 6;
public const float offsetX = 0.65f;
public const float offsetY = 0.97f;
[SerializeField] private GameObject[] cardBack;
// Use this for initialization
void Start ()
{
for (int i = 0; i < gridRows; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < gridCols; j++)
{
Instantiate(cardBack[i], new Vector3(offsetY*j, offsetX* i *-1 , -0.1f), Quaternion.identity);
}
}
}
You are instantiating all objects into the Scene root level. They are in no way related to the GameObject which was originally responsible for the instantiation.
If you rather want them to be positioned relative to the spawning GameObject then use
var position = transform.position + new Vector3(offsetY * j, offsetX * i * -1, -0.1f);
Instantiate(cardBack[i], position, Quaternion.Identity, transform);
in order to instantiate them as child objects of the GameObject this Controll script is attched to.
Now if you translate, rotate or scale that parent object all instantiated objects are transformed along with it.
Related
I'm creating a tcg (trading card game) and I would like to know how can I change the layout of the cards while playing. I mean that the cards will be spread in line aligned to the center of the screen both vertically and horizontaly, on a canvas, and when I draw/dismiss a card I would like the cards to fill in the space and align again in game. How can I do that? any ideas? I thought of a solution about when your turn begins (Start from the center of the screen then step back the length of a step X the number of cards / 2 and then spawn the cards one after another), but I can't figure out how to change the alignment of cards when you dismiss one of them without loading them all again...
Image for example
Using the same method you used for the initial position you should be able to get the new position. Now you have two positions for each card: oldPos and newPos.
Your cards are already instantiated. Their positions are stored in Transform.position. Your goal is to move from oldPos to newPos. The simplest way would be:
myCard.transform.position = newPos;
This will instantly move your cards to their new positions. However, it's not common to teleport your objects because it does not often present good feelings to users. A better solution is to smoothly move the object from a position to another.
To do this, you can move around an existing object by transform.Translate(new Vector3());, where the Vector3 will decide its moving speed. The method Translate() is doing position += movementDirection * movementAmount as you would've expected.
Moving any object over frames is called Animation. There are techniques for animation to make movements look more better (look faster than it really is, or look natural). One common method from mathematics is called linear interpolation, or lerp. Using lerp, you can easily compute intermediate points between two end-positions, and it will look natural and nice if you put your objects along the points you calculated. I believe this is what you are looking for.
========
Edit:
Here's an example of how this could be achieved. Note that Card is moving by the same amount of distance per frame in this example. Using lerp (ease-in, ease-out, etc), you could make this animation even better.
Another point I would like you to note is that I'm doing if (Vector2.Distance(nextPosition, transform.position) < 10), not if(oldPosition.equals(newPosition)). The reason is that equals() is not safe to compare floats because they are often stored as 0.4999999 and 0.50001 instead of 0.5 and 0.5. So the best way of checking floats is to test if they are "Close Enough" to each other.
Finally, you could improve the following code may improve in MANY DIFFERNET WAYS. For instnace:
Destroy() and Instantiate() is very slow operations and you
should use Object Pooling because you know you will perform these
operations constantly.
The movement of Card could be improved by better animation technique like lerp.
There may be other ways of storing List<Card> Cards
OnCardClick() is using FindObjectOfType<CardSpawner>().OnCardDeleted(this) and this requires Card to know about CardSpawner. This is called Tight Coupling, which is known as evil. There are a lot of discussions you can find why this is bad. A recommended solution would be to use event (better UnityEvent in Unity3d).
CardSpawner.cs
using System.Collections;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using UnityEngine;
public class CardSpawner : MonoBehaviour
{
[SerializeField] GameObject CardParent;
[SerializeField] GameObject CardPrefab;
Vector2 DefaultSpawnPosition = new Vector2(Screen.width / 2f, Screen.height / 10f);
List<Card> Cards = new List<Card>();
public void OnClickButton()
{
SpawnNewCard();
AssignNewPositions();
AnimateCards();
}
public void OnCardDeleted(Card removedCard)
{
Cards.Remove(removedCard);
AssignNewPositions();
AnimateCards();
}
void SpawnNewCard()
{
GameObject newCard = (GameObject)Instantiate(CardPrefab, DefaultSpawnPosition, new Quaternion(), CardParent.GetComponent<Transform>());
Cards.Add(newCard.GetComponent<Card>());
}
void AssignNewPositions()
{
int n = Cards.Count;
float widthPerCard = 100;
float widthEmptySpaceBetweenCards = widthPerCard * .2f;
float totalWidthAllCards = (widthPerCard * n) + (widthEmptySpaceBetweenCards * (n-1));
float halfWidthAllCards = totalWidthAllCards / 2f;
float centreX = Screen.width / 2f;
float leftX = centreX - halfWidthAllCards;
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
if (i == 0)
Cards[i].nextPosition = new Vector2(leftX + widthPerCard / 2f, Screen.height / 2f);
else
Cards[i].nextPosition = new Vector2(leftX + widthPerCard / 2f + ((widthPerCard + widthEmptySpaceBetweenCards) * i), Screen.height / 2f);
}
}
void AnimateCards()
{
foreach (Card card in Cards)
card.StartMoving();
}
}
Card.cs
using System;
using System.Collections;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using UnityEngine;
public class Card : MonoBehaviour
{
public Vector2 oldPosition;
public Vector2 nextPosition;
bool IsMoving;
void Update ()
{
if (IsMoving)
{
int steps = 10;
Vector2 delta = (nextPosition - oldPosition) / steps;
transform.Translate(delta);
if (Vector2.Distance(nextPosition, transform.position) < 10)
IsMoving = false;
}
}
public void StartMoving()
{
IsMoving = true;
oldPosition = transform.position;
}
public void OnCardClick()
{
UnityEngine.Object.Destroy(this.gameObject);
Debug.Log("AfterDestroy");
FindObjectOfType<CardSpawner>().OnCardDeleted(this);
}
}
We own two objects in the scene. One follows the mouse position on the screen, and the object 2 in turn follows the route object 1 did. We are storing the positions covered by the object 1 and causing the object 2 play them.
When you run the game, an object follows the other quietly, reproducing the stored position ... but when one object's speed is changed (on mouse click increase velocity) the object 2 can not keep up, as this still following the positions already be cached in the array (including the calculations speed). Please, watch the shot video below:
YouTube: https://youtu.be/_HbP09A3cFA
public class Play : MonoBehaviour
{
public Transform obj;
private List<Recorder> recordList;
private float velocity = 10.0f;
private Transform clone;
void Start()
{
recordList = new List<Recorder>();
clone = obj;
}
void Update()
{
if (Input.GetMouseButton(0))
{
velocity = 20.0f;
}
else {
velocity = 10.0f;
}
var dir = Input.mousePosition - Camera.main.WorldToScreenPoint(transform.position);
var angle = Mathf.Atan2(dir.y, dir.x) * Mathf.Rad2Deg;
transform.rotation = Quaternion.RotateTowards(transform.rotation, Quaternion.AngleAxis(angle, Vector3.forward), 180 * Time.deltaTime);
transform.position += transform.right * Time.deltaTime * velocity;
Camera.main.transform.position = new Vector3(transform.position.x, transform.position.y, Camera.main.transform.position.z);
recordList.Insert(0, new Recorder
{
Position = transform.position,
Rotation = transform.rotation,
Velocity = velocity
});
var x = 8;
if (x < recordList.Count)
{
clone.position = recordList[x].Position;
clone.rotation = recordList[x].Rotation;
clone.position += clone.right * Time.deltaTime * velocity;
}
if (recordList.Count > x)
recordList.RemoveRange(x, recordList.Count - x);
}
}
public class Recorder
{
public Vector3 Position{get;set;}
public Quaternion Rotation{get;set;}
public float Velocity{get;set;}
}
How can we play the positions stored always with the speed of the object 1?
Summary:
If the object 1 is slowly moving object 2 as well;
If the object 2 is running, the object 2 should do the route at a faster speed to always follow the object 1;
Thanks in advance.
If i understood correctly you might want to consider using Queue<T> instead of List<T>. I think it would be a better suited datatype as it represents a FIFO collection (first in, first out), which is how you use List anyway. You can add elements with Enqueue(T) to the end of the queue and always get the first item with Dequeue() (it also removes it). As for Stack<T> (the opposite), there is also a Peek() function which lets you "preview" the next element.
Another thing, it depends on distance and speed, but i have the feeling that storing the position of every frame could become a bit excessive (maybe im just overly concerned though)
I think the issue with your code is that you always get the 8th element of the List.
In a game I'm making, I'm trying to have sprites put on top of a hit box. The best way I could think of accomplishing this is to make two arrays; one for the hit boxes, and one for the sprites, and then have the sprites stay on top of their respective hit-box via a for loop that will be in its own script.
Problem is, is that when I try to get the MovieClips in either of the arrays to do anything, it doesn't work. If I do a trace on the X or Y location of the sprites, I get "undefined" in my terminal. I'm going to explain this from the top down.
Here is an excerpt from my class that contains the for loop (Dasengine is my main class fyi)
for(var i:Number = 0; i < Dasengine.ovrcnt.length; i++){
trace(Dasengine.ovrcnt[i].x); //returns "undefined"
trace(Dasengine.ovrcnt[i]); //returns "object Onmea"
Dasengine.ovrcnt[i].x = Dasengine.enemycnt[i].x;//this isn't working
}
In another script when an enemy spawns, they go through this method.
if(ENEMY SPAWN CONDITION IS MET ){
Dasengine.baddie = new nme_spawn.Enemya(); //ENEMY HITBOX
Dasengine.Obaddie = new nme_overlay.Onmea(); //ENEMY's sprite
Dasengine.enemycnt[cntup] = [Dasengine.baddie]; //Enemy's Hit box movie clip is put in array meant for holding enemy movie clips
Dasengine.ovrcnt[cntup] = [Dasengine.Obaddie]; //Enemy sprites that go over the hit boxes are stored here
cntup++; //this is so movie clips are put in new parts of the array
}
in my main class, the movie clips are declared as follows also I have the addChild functionality in there.
public static var Obaddie:nme_overlay.Onmea;
//^variable for sprite
public static var baddie:nme_spawn.Enemya;
//^variable for hitbox
also Obaddie= Overlay baddie. Its the MovieClip that acts as what goes on top of the hitbox, this is what the player will see
badde = is simply the hitbox. This contains the "meat" of the enemy ai.
I talked about this with some friends and they thought I might need to define what 'X' is inside of the class of the object that is in the array. So I did the following
package nme_overlay {
import flash.display.*;
import flash.events.*;
import nme_spawn.*;
public class Onmea extends MovieClip{
// Constants:
// Public Properties:
// Private Properties:
public static var xloc:int = 0;
// Initialization:
public function Onmea() {
this.addEventListener(Event.ENTER_FRAME, overlaya);
}
private function overlaya(e:Event){
xloc = 55;
//trace(xloc);
}
}
}
and then for the looping class I did this
for(var i:Number = 0; i < Dasengine.enemycnt.length; i++){
trace(Dasengine.ovrcnt[i]);//returns "object Onmea"
trace(Dasengine.ovrcnt[i].xloc);//still returns "undefined"
}
Your xloc variable is static--it belongs to nme_overlay, the Class, not any particular instance. If you were to do this in your code AND you had strict mode on (which I suspect you do not, because there's a lot of stuff in your code that should be giving you at least warnings), you'd get an error that would tell you exactly that:
for(var i:Number = 0; i < Dasengine.enemycnt.length; i++){
trace(Dasengine.ovrcnt[i]);//returns "object Onmea"
trace(nme_overlay(Dasengine.ovrcnt[i]).xloc);//still returns "undefined"
}
I have a method that is gobbling up 25% of my cpu time. I call this method about 27,000 times per second. (Yup, lots of calls since it's updating frequently). I am wondering if anybody knows a faster way to detect if 2 polygons overlap. Basically, I have to check the moving objects on the screen against stationary objects on the screen. I am using PathGeometry and the two calls below are using up 25% of the cpu time used by my program. The PointCollection objects I am passing just contain 4 points representing 4 corners of a polygon. They may not create a rectangular area, but all the points are connected. I guess a trapazoid would be the shape.
These methods are short and were very easy to implement, but I think I might want to opt for a more complicated solution if I can have it run more quickly than the code below. Any ideas?
public static bool PointCollectionsOverlap(PointCollection area1, PointCollection area2)
{
PathGeometry pathGeometry1 = GetPathGeometry(area1);
PathGeometry pathGeometry2 = GetPathGeometry(area2);
return pathGeometry1.FillContainsWithDetail(pathGeometry2) != IntersectionDetail.Empty;
}
public static PathGeometry GetPathGeometry(PointCollection polygonCorners)
{
List<PathSegment> pathSegments = new List<PathSegment>
{ new PolyLineSegment(polygonCorners, true) };
PathGeometry pathGeometry = new PathGeometry();
pathGeometry.Figures.Add(new PathFigure(polygonCorners[0], pathSegments, true));
return pathGeometry;
}
Ok, after lots of research and finding many partial answers, but none that fully answered the question, I have found a faster way and it is actually about 4.6 times faster than the old way.
I created a special test app to test the speed this. You can find the test app here. If you download it, you can see a checkbox at the top of the app. Check and uncheck it to switch back and forth between the old way and the new way. The app generates a bunch of random polygons and the borders of the polygons change to white when they intersect another polygon. The numbers to the left of the 'Redraw' button are to allow you to enter the Number of Polygons, Max Length of a side, and Max offset from square (to make them less square and more odd shaped). Push 'Refresh' to clear and regenerate new polygons with the settings you've entered.
Anyway, here is the code for the two different implementations. You pass in a collection of the points that make up each polygon. The old way uses less code, but is 4.6 times slower than the new way.
Oh, one quick note. The new way has a couple calls to 'PointIsInsidePolygon'. These were necessary because without it, the method returned false when one polygon was entirely contained within a different polygon. But the PointIsInsidePolygon method fixes that problem.
Hope this all helps somebody else out with polygon intercepts and overlaps.
Old Way (4.6 times slower. YES REALLY 4.6 TIMES slower):
public static bool PointCollectionsOverlap_Slow(PointCollection area1, PointCollection area2)
{
PathGeometry pathGeometry1 = GetPathGeometry(area1);
PathGeometry pathGeometry2 = GetPathGeometry(area2);
bool result = pathGeometry1.FillContainsWithDetail(pathGeometry2) != IntersectionDetail.Empty;
return result;
}
public static PathGeometry GetPathGeometry(PointCollection polygonCorners)
{
List<PathSegment> pathSegments = new List<PathSegment> { new PolyLineSegment(polygonCorners, true) };
PathGeometry pathGeometry = new PathGeometry();
pathGeometry.Figures.Add(new PathFigure(polygonCorners[0], pathSegments, true));
return pathGeometry;
}
New Way (4.6 times faster. YES REALLY 4.6 TIMES faster):
public static bool PointCollectionsOverlap_Fast(PointCollection area1, PointCollection area2)
{
for (int i = 0; i < area1.Count; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < area2.Count; j++)
{
if (lineSegmentsIntersect(area1[i], area1[(i + 1) % area1.Count], area2[j], area2[(j + 1) % area2.Count]))
{
return true;
}
}
}
if (PointCollectionContainsPoint(area1, area2[0]) ||
PointCollectionContainsPoint(area2, area1[0]))
{
return true;
}
return false;
}
public static bool PointCollectionContainsPoint(PointCollection area, Point point)
{
Point start = new Point(-100, -100);
int intersections = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < area.Count; i++)
{
if (lineSegmentsIntersect(area[i], area[(i + 1) % area.Count], start, point))
{
intersections++;
}
}
return (intersections % 2) == 1;
}
private static double determinant(Vector vector1, Vector vector2)
{
return vector1.X * vector2.Y - vector1.Y * vector2.X;
}
private static bool lineSegmentsIntersect(Point _segment1_Start, Point _segment1_End, Point _segment2_Start, Point _segment2_End)
{
double det = determinant(_segment1_End - _segment1_Start, _segment2_Start - _segment2_End);
double t = determinant(_segment2_Start - _segment1_Start, _segment2_Start - _segment2_End) / det;
double u = determinant(_segment1_End - _segment1_Start, _segment2_Start - _segment1_Start) / det;
return (t >= 0) && (u >= 0) && (t <= 1) && (u <= 1);
}
I have a WPF Canvas with some Ellipse objects on it (displayed as circles). Each circle is from a collection class instance which is actually a custom hole pattern class. Each pattern has a certain number of circles, and each circle then gets added to the canvas using an iteration over the collection using the code below.
So, the canvas is populated with a bunch of circles and each circle belongs to a certain pattern instance. You can see a screenshot here: http://twitpic.com/1f2ci/full
Now I want to add the ability to click on a circle on the canvas, and be able to determine the collection it belongs to, so that I can then do some more work on the selected pattern to which that circle belongs.
public void DrawHoles()
{
// Iterate over each HolePattern in the HolePatterns collection...
foreach (HolePattern HolePattern in HolePatterns)
{
// Now iterate over each Hole in the HoleList of the current HolePattern...
// This code adds the HoleEntity, HoleDecorator, and HoleLabel to the canvas
foreach (Hole Hole in HolePattern.HoleList)
{
Hole.CanvasX = SketchX0 + (Hole.AbsX * _ZoomScale);
Hole.CanvasY = SketchY0 - (Hole.AbsY * _ZoomScale);
canvas1.Children.Add(Hole.HoleEntity);
}
}
}
All FrameworkElements have a Tag property which is of type object that can be used to hold arbitrary information. You could assign the HolePattern to the Tag property and easily use that later to get the associated collection.
i.e.:
...
Hole.HoleEntity.Tag = HolePattern as object;
canvas1.Children.Add(Hole.HoleEntity);
later on in the click event:
event(object sender,....)
{
Ellipse e = sender as Ellipse;
HolePattern hp = e.Tag as HolePattern;
...
}
So you probably already read my reply where I said I had it working. And it does work perfectly, (except that it requires great precision with the mouse), but I want to ask this: is it really smart to add an event handler to EVERY ellipse that gets added to a canvas? Now I don't know what kind of memory bog that could be, or maybe it is a piece of cake for WPF and Windows to handle.
In a practical case, I guess there would be not more that 30-50 holes even on a screen that had multiple patterns, but still; FIFTY event handlers? It just seems scary. And actually, each "Hole" is visually represented by two concentric circles and a text label (see the screenshow here: http://twitpic.com/1f2ci/full ), and I know the user would expect to be able to click on any one of those elements to select a hole. That means an event handler on 3 elements for every hole. Now we could be talking about 100 or more event handlers.
It seems like there should be a solution where you could have just one event handler on the Canvas and read the element reference under the mouse, then work off of that to get the .Tag property of that elment, and so on.
I thought I'd post my final and more refined solution in case it helps anyone else.
void canvas1_MouseLeftButtonDown(object sender, MouseButtonEventArgs e)
{
int ClickMargin = 2;// Adjust here as desired. Span is in both directions of selected point.
var ClickMarginPointList = new Collection<Point>();
Point ClickedPoint = e.GetPosition(canvas1);
Point ClickMarginPoint=new Point();
for (int x = -1 * ClickMargin; x <= ClickMargin; x++)
{
for (int y = -1 * ClickMargin; y <= ClickMargin; y++)
{
ClickMarginPoint.X = ClickedPoint.X + x;
ClickMarginPoint.Y = ClickedPoint.Y + y;
ClickMarginPointList.Add(ClickMarginPoint);
}
}
foreach (Point p in ClickMarginPointList)
{
HitTestResult SelectedCanvasItem = System.Windows.Media.VisualTreeHelper.HitTest(canvas1, p);
if (SelectedCanvasItem.VisualHit.GetType().BaseType == typeof(Shape))
{
var SelectedShapeTag = SelectedCanvasItem.VisualHit.GetValue(Shape.TagProperty);
if (SelectedShapeTag!=null && SelectedShapeTag.GetType().BaseType == typeof(Hole))
{
Hole SelectedHole = (Hole)SelectedShapeTag;
SetActivePattern(SelectedHole.ParentPattern);
SelectedHole.ParentPattern.CurrentHole = SelectedHole;
return; //Get out, we're done.
}
}
}
}