So we had a little think about using vectors for collision detection. Then we decided rather than dismiss it out of hand, to consider the implications of using vectors instead of bitmap-based collision detection. And it turns out, it could be a Really Good Thing (capital R, capital G, capital T).

We rooted about online and tried to dredge up some basic GCSE-level trigonometry (at least it was GCSE-level when most of us sat our exams about a million years ago - it's probably Masters Degree level or something now!) and came up with some ideas for calculating the rebound angle for things thrown/fired at a wall, even if it has been placed at an angle.

This evening was all about the code.

Here are some screenshots of our testing:

The triangles simply help us to see which way the vector was drawn: in this case, our starting point is to the right and below the point of collision with the wall, which is angled to face the top-right corner of the screen.

Our code seems to have correctly calculated the angle of reflection - and placed the final destination point at the correct distance from the collision.

If we fire our object in a straight (horizontal) line at an angled surface, the angle of reflection (and distance to the final destination point) are once again correctly calculated.

If we use the same angled wall, but draw it as an opposite vector (i.e. from bottom-right to top-left, instead of from top-left to bottom-right) we still get the same result, as expected.

Coming at the wall from the other side gave a peculiar result.

Maybe it's to do with the ambiguity that negative angles create. Or maybe it's something else. Or maybe we've not actually fully understood how to convert polar vectors into cartesian co-ordinates. But something isn't quite right here.

On further inspection, it seems that the vector representing the angle of reflection is simply pointing 180 degrees the wrong way. Before we rip apart our code to find the bug, and spend hours and hours trying to work out if there are two possibilities for a destination if the angle is negative, we threw in a quick and dirty hack: if start.x < collision.x, rotation = rotation+180

This seemed to fix the problem!

And even worked when the vector was drawn from "underneath" the point of collision - the rebound in this example is still correct: if we draw the perpendicular to the wall, at the point of collision, we'll see that the red line approaches from an angle just less than 90 degrees (and so should bounce off at a steep angle)

If we fire the same shot, but this time change the angle of the wall, the object still bounces off at the correct angle. It looks like our quick-n-dirty hack seems to have done the job!

Lastly, and for completeness, some testing using a vertical approach, just to make sure than a 90 degree or a 180 degree angle doesn't cause the cos/sin/tan functions to bork and throw out some division by zero errors, or something like that!

So there we have it - some successful testing - and in each case, not only do we get the correct angle, but also the distance of the deflected object also looks about right too.

What if we were to introduce a second wall?

Of course, we can see just from looking at the image that the object should hit the first wall, bounce upwards (as shown in the diagram), then hit the second wall, and be deflected back towards the bottom of the screen.

There's no need for us to write a routine which can handle multiple reflections - we can simply use the same one function, and call it recursively, until the path of the object no longer intersects with any vector that makes up an obstacle.

In this case, we could work out where on the first wall we can expect the object to collide. We then create a second, independent path, starting from the collision point, with the final destination point now being our new destination point. We put this vector/series of points into our collision detection routine and see if there is an intersection with any other obstacle vector.

If there is, we simply set the new starting point as the new collision point, and the new destination point as the newly calculated, final (deflected) destination point, and keep repeating until the object no longer collides with any obstacles and simply reaches the natural end of it's path.

It's probably a bit late now to be trying to code up a recursive function (they make your brain ache at the best of times!) but at least we're making some progress.....

## Monday, 29 September 2014

## Saturday, 27 September 2014

### Calculating collision detection and rebound angles using vectors

Having given some consideration to how we could use vectors for collision detection as well as calculating rebounds/ricochets, it's time to get coding.

After a number of false starts, and drawing far too many triangles and intersecting vectors, we reckon we've got a workable approach. It's using the

Let's say we've calculated that we have two intersecting lines/vectors - our playing piece is firing a weapon in one direction, but the destination point is intersected by a wall on the map. We want to calculate the angle at which the bullet will bounce off the wall.

Just by looking at the images above, we can see that the angle that the object hits the wall should also be the angle that it bounces off. So when the bullet is fired almost straight at the wall, the angle of deflection for the rebounding bullet is quite steep. However, if the bullet is fired at the wall from a shallow angle to begin with, it almost glances off the wall, with the amount of deflection minimised.

Our task is to work out the angles in the diagrams above. To do this, we're going to create two vectors, but both with a common "origin" - the point of collision. So we create one vector between the starting point and the point of collision, and another vector, from the point of collision to the endpoint of the wall/obstacle being struck

It doesn't really matter which endpoint of the wall we choose. If, after our calculations we have an angle greater than 90 degrees, we can easily find the value of the "correct" angle, by subtracting this value from 180.

Now using online resources for dot products of vectors (it's been a long time since we did any of this kind of trigonometry!) we can calculate the dot product of the vectors to work out the angle between them. This website - http://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/vectors-dot-product.html - gives a great explanation of how to do this

Once we have an acute angle between the two vectors, we know that the angle of ricochet/rebound is going to be 180 - (2*approach angle). And once we have the angle of rebound, we can add this to the angle of the wall, and use the distance beyond the point of collision to the original destination, to work out where the ricocheted bullet actually ends up.

Now the dot product of two vectors a+b is:

a.b = (ax * bx) + (ay * by)

and this gives us a scalar value (i.e. a "plain" value, not a vector)

There's also another equation to calculate the dot product of two vectors:

a.b = |a| * |b| * cos(angle)

where |a| is the length of the vector a and |b| is the length of the vector b.

Since we're looking to calculate the angle, we can re-arrange this to

cos(angle) = ((ax * bx) + (ay * by)) / |a| * |b|

We're going to need to use pythagoras to calculate the length of the vectors, then add these into the equation, where |a| is the square root of (ax * ax) + (ay * ay) and |b| is the square root of (bx * bx) + y * by). So....

cos(angle) = ((ax * bx) + (ay * by)) / ( sqrt((ax*ax)+(ay*ay)) * sqrt((bx*bx)+(by*by)) )

Phew! That's a mouthful. So with the angle between the vectors calculated, we subtract two lots of these from 180 to get the angle of ricochet.

Now to calculate the final destination point, we can work out the angle between the starting point and add it to the angle of reflection, to get the total angle between the final destination point and the x axis.

And if we can work out the total angle from the x axis to the destination point (the sum of the blue and green angles) we can simply subtract from 180 to get the angle of the destination vector (shown in red in the diagram below):

We already know the length of the vector (it's the bit left over from the collision point to the original destination point) which is marked as "d" in the image above. We also know the angle of the vector (marked in red, above) so we can calculate the value of x in the destination point, with simple trigonometry - x = d * cosA.

Since tanA = opposite/adjacent, and we know the angle, and we know the length of the adjacent side, we can re-arrange this to give us opposite (y) = tanA / x.

After all that, we have x and y values for the final destination point

Wow.

That's the theory.

Time to write some code.........

After a number of false starts, and drawing far too many triangles and intersecting vectors, we reckon we've got a workable approach. It's using the

*dot product*of two vectors.Let's say we've calculated that we have two intersecting lines/vectors - our playing piece is firing a weapon in one direction, but the destination point is intersected by a wall on the map. We want to calculate the angle at which the bullet will bounce off the wall.

Just by looking at the images above, we can see that the angle that the object hits the wall should also be the angle that it bounces off. So when the bullet is fired almost straight at the wall, the angle of deflection for the rebounding bullet is quite steep. However, if the bullet is fired at the wall from a shallow angle to begin with, it almost glances off the wall, with the amount of deflection minimised.

Our task is to work out the angles in the diagrams above. To do this, we're going to create two vectors, but both with a common "origin" - the point of collision. So we create one vector between the starting point and the point of collision, and another vector, from the point of collision to the endpoint of the wall/obstacle being struck

It doesn't really matter which endpoint of the wall we choose. If, after our calculations we have an angle greater than 90 degrees, we can easily find the value of the "correct" angle, by subtracting this value from 180.

Now using online resources for dot products of vectors (it's been a long time since we did any of this kind of trigonometry!) we can calculate the dot product of the vectors to work out the angle between them. This website - http://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/vectors-dot-product.html - gives a great explanation of how to do this

Once we have an acute angle between the two vectors, we know that the angle of ricochet/rebound is going to be 180 - (2*approach angle). And once we have the angle of rebound, we can add this to the angle of the wall, and use the distance beyond the point of collision to the original destination, to work out where the ricocheted bullet actually ends up.

Now the dot product of two vectors a+b is:

a.b = (ax * bx) + (ay * by)

and this gives us a scalar value (i.e. a "plain" value, not a vector)

There's also another equation to calculate the dot product of two vectors:

a.b = |a| * |b| * cos(angle)

where |a| is the length of the vector a and |b| is the length of the vector b.

Since we're looking to calculate the angle, we can re-arrange this to

cos(angle) = ((ax * bx) + (ay * by)) / |a| * |b|

We're going to need to use pythagoras to calculate the length of the vectors, then add these into the equation, where |a| is the square root of (ax * ax) + (ay * ay) and |b| is the square root of (bx * bx) + y * by). So....

cos(angle) = ((ax * bx) + (ay * by)) / ( sqrt((ax*ax)+(ay*ay)) * sqrt((bx*bx)+(by*by)) )

Phew! That's a mouthful. So with the angle between the vectors calculated, we subtract two lots of these from 180 to get the angle of ricochet.

Now to calculate the final destination point, we can work out the angle between the starting point and add it to the angle of reflection, to get the total angle between the final destination point and the x axis.

And if we can work out the total angle from the x axis to the destination point (the sum of the blue and green angles) we can simply subtract from 180 to get the angle of the destination vector (shown in red in the diagram below):

We already know the length of the vector (it's the bit left over from the collision point to the original destination point) which is marked as "d" in the image above. We also know the angle of the vector (marked in red, above) so we can calculate the value of x in the destination point, with simple trigonometry - x = d * cosA.

Since tanA = opposite/adjacent, and we know the angle, and we know the length of the adjacent side, we can re-arrange this to give us opposite (y) = tanA / x.

After all that, we have x and y values for the final destination point

*relative to the collision point*. So we add these to the x/y values of the collision point, and we (finally) have the absolute co-ordinates of the final destination.Wow.

That's the theory.

Time to write some code.........

## Friday, 26 September 2014

### More thoughts on using vectors for collision detection

Yet more ramblings, with very little code produced - just ideas that may or may not work in a generic game/physics engine. We've already considered the benefits of using vectors for collision detection. Now it's time to consider how they would actually be useful.

Firstly, using vectors is not without its drawbacks. Collision maps - at the minute simple bitmaps - become much more complex, with each "barrier" in the collision map becoming a straight line vector (we're not even contemplating using arcs and curves just yet - even though it should, theoretically, be possible, we're just sticking to the "simpler" approach for now).

So a building in the middle of a map, at present is represented by a rectangle drawn onto a bitmap. In our new vector-based method, the same obstacle would be represented by four connected points (or four lines, joined at the ends, whichever way you want to think about it!). Instead of testing for collision by "walking along" a path, we now compare our movement/line-of-sight vector (a line drawn from the starting object, to a destination point somewhere on the map can be described by a straight-line vector) with every "vector" that makes up every obstacle on the map.

Wherever two vectors collide, we know we have a collision point.

Bearing in mind that it's quite possible that we may end up with more than one potential collision point (where obstacles are placed one behind another) we'll deal with that later, and work with simple examples for now

Let's say our green line represents a straight-line wall, running from point x1,y1 to point x2,y2.

Our playing piece is at x3,y3, and is looking/firing/throwing an object at point x4,y4.

Using simple trigonometry, we're able to work out the point at which the two lines intersect (using variations on the y=mx+c straight line equation). So far, that re-creates what we already have, using bitmaps. Already we have simple line of sight sorted, but using vectors instead of bitmaps (a binary operation which says is there a line of sight from this point to this point).

What we're particularly interested in is re-using this approach for projectiles, and to work out the angle at which this thrown/fired object, from x3,y3 to x4,y4 rebounds off the wall obstacle, running from x1,y1 to x2,y2. To begin with, we need to calculate the "angle of approach" between the starting point, and the

Since we're using cartesian co-ordinates, we can convert our sets of points into triangles. And using nothing more than tanA = opposite / adjacent, we can work out the angles A and B in the diagram above. But how does that help us calculate the angle of reflection off the green wall?

Since we know that the angles of a triangle all add up to 180 degrees, and we know the angles a and b, it's relatively trivial to work out the missing angle (which we've called C). And since we're after the angle between the "approach" and the perpendicular, we can simply subtract 90 degrees (or pi/2 radians if you're that way inclined).

Incidentally, if ever our angles are such that C is less than 90 degrees, we're effectively approaching the point of collision from right-to-left, instead of left-to-right, so can easily work out the angle on the "flip side" by subtracting from 180 instead.

Now we're getting somewhere. And it's getting exciting. No, it really is. Maths is fun.

Let's say we have our proposed destination point (where the ball would land, bullet would hit etc) if the obstacle was not in the way. To move the object from the start point to the destination point would require some effort or force to get it to move. We don't need to get bogged down with physics equations (though that too would be nothing but fun) we can simply use relative distances to simplify things:

To get the object to travel from the starting point to the destination point, uses up all it's force or energy or work or effort or whatever you want to call it. So if the object is deflected, say, one third along it's path, it still has two-thirds of it's force/energy (which would otherwise propel it the other two-thirds of the way, when it would come to rest with all it's energy used up).

So we could, at the point of impact, work out the distance remaining to the original destination point, apply the angle of reflection, and work out where the final, actual destination point is going to be.

Now, obviously, at each point that the object is deflected, we need to start our checks for collision again, this time using point C as the starting point, with the final actual destination point as the new proposed destination point. And so on and so on, until the object has travelled the full distance.

What's really exciting about this approach (and it is exciting, and fun, dammit) is that it would allow us to set up complex chain-reaction type obstacles, allowing an object to be thrown/fired and have it ricochet off four or five different obstacles - resulting in an almost random (yet, completely predictable) flight path.

The excitement doesn't stop there.

Hold onto your hats, because this doesn't stop getting better:

Each obstacle could have a "hardness" or "bounciness" rating - reducing the amount of distance remaining on the flight path (or increasing it, if it's a bouncy material) whenever it is struck. So instead of collision detection being something that immediately halts the flight path of a ball/bullet/projectile, it is now something that merely affects it. And we can now have different obstacles with different surface types. Without a single line of code written, this already feels awesome!

We could have soft wall types, which absorb all the energy in whatever has hit them (like throwing a football into a wall of porridge - although a more useful example in a boardgame context might be a laser that hits, and is dissipated by, something like a force field).

We could have bouncy wall types - which actually increase the amount of energy remaining in whatever object has hit them - like throwing a rock at a trampoline.

We could even have "knobbly" wall types, which absorb (reduce the length of the remaining flight path by) say, 20%, but also add a random element to the angle of reflection (having calculated the correct angle the ricochet would ordinarily take, we could add some random value to this, to create the effect of hitting an uneven surface).

In a wild west scenario, we could have both wooden walls (non-reflective, bullets get embedded in them) and stone walls (bullets ricochet off them with a loud ping). For our space game, we could have similar wall types - force fields which absorb lasers fired at them, shiny, reflective mirrored surfaces which make them bounce all over the place.

There's no doubt about it; vectors look fun.

We're going to have a go at coding some up, over the weekend. So, unless they become tricky and just too much hassle to implement in two days, we're very likely to have some of the best collision detection routines in our boardgame apps.

Well, maybe. Surely, it's got to be better than "roll for scatter, roll for distance" as most dice-based games currently use?

Firstly, using vectors is not without its drawbacks. Collision maps - at the minute simple bitmaps - become much more complex, with each "barrier" in the collision map becoming a straight line vector (we're not even contemplating using arcs and curves just yet - even though it should, theoretically, be possible, we're just sticking to the "simpler" approach for now).

So a building in the middle of a map, at present is represented by a rectangle drawn onto a bitmap. In our new vector-based method, the same obstacle would be represented by four connected points (or four lines, joined at the ends, whichever way you want to think about it!). Instead of testing for collision by "walking along" a path, we now compare our movement/line-of-sight vector (a line drawn from the starting object, to a destination point somewhere on the map can be described by a straight-line vector) with every "vector" that makes up every obstacle on the map.

Wherever two vectors collide, we know we have a collision point.

Bearing in mind that it's quite possible that we may end up with more than one potential collision point (where obstacles are placed one behind another) we'll deal with that later, and work with simple examples for now

Let's say our green line represents a straight-line wall, running from point x1,y1 to point x2,y2.

Our playing piece is at x3,y3, and is looking/firing/throwing an object at point x4,y4.

Using simple trigonometry, we're able to work out the point at which the two lines intersect (using variations on the y=mx+c straight line equation). So far, that re-creates what we already have, using bitmaps. Already we have simple line of sight sorted, but using vectors instead of bitmaps (a binary operation which says is there a line of sight from this point to this point).

What we're particularly interested in is re-using this approach for projectiles, and to work out the angle at which this thrown/fired object, from x3,y3 to x4,y4 rebounds off the wall obstacle, running from x1,y1 to x2,y2. To begin with, we need to calculate the "angle of approach" between the starting point, and the

*tangent*or perpendicular plane of the obstacle.Since we're using cartesian co-ordinates, we can convert our sets of points into triangles. And using nothing more than tanA = opposite / adjacent, we can work out the angles A and B in the diagram above. But how does that help us calculate the angle of reflection off the green wall?

Since we know that the angles of a triangle all add up to 180 degrees, and we know the angles a and b, it's relatively trivial to work out the missing angle (which we've called C). And since we're after the angle between the "approach" and the perpendicular, we can simply subtract 90 degrees (or pi/2 radians if you're that way inclined).

Incidentally, if ever our angles are such that C is less than 90 degrees, we're effectively approaching the point of collision from right-to-left, instead of left-to-right, so can easily work out the angle on the "flip side" by subtracting from 180 instead.

Now we're getting somewhere. And it's getting exciting. No, it really is. Maths is fun.

Let's say we have our proposed destination point (where the ball would land, bullet would hit etc) if the obstacle was not in the way. To move the object from the start point to the destination point would require some effort or force to get it to move. We don't need to get bogged down with physics equations (though that too would be nothing but fun) we can simply use relative distances to simplify things:

To get the object to travel from the starting point to the destination point, uses up all it's force or energy or work or effort or whatever you want to call it. So if the object is deflected, say, one third along it's path, it still has two-thirds of it's force/energy (which would otherwise propel it the other two-thirds of the way, when it would come to rest with all it's energy used up).

So we could, at the point of impact, work out the distance remaining to the original destination point, apply the angle of reflection, and work out where the final, actual destination point is going to be.

Now, obviously, at each point that the object is deflected, we need to start our checks for collision again, this time using point C as the starting point, with the final actual destination point as the new proposed destination point. And so on and so on, until the object has travelled the full distance.

What's really exciting about this approach (and it is exciting, and fun, dammit) is that it would allow us to set up complex chain-reaction type obstacles, allowing an object to be thrown/fired and have it ricochet off four or five different obstacles - resulting in an almost random (yet, completely predictable) flight path.

The excitement doesn't stop there.

Hold onto your hats, because this doesn't stop getting better:

Each obstacle could have a "hardness" or "bounciness" rating - reducing the amount of distance remaining on the flight path (or increasing it, if it's a bouncy material) whenever it is struck. So instead of collision detection being something that immediately halts the flight path of a ball/bullet/projectile, it is now something that merely affects it. And we can now have different obstacles with different surface types. Without a single line of code written, this already feels awesome!

We could have soft wall types, which absorb all the energy in whatever has hit them (like throwing a football into a wall of porridge - although a more useful example in a boardgame context might be a laser that hits, and is dissipated by, something like a force field).

We could have bouncy wall types - which actually increase the amount of energy remaining in whatever object has hit them - like throwing a rock at a trampoline.

We could even have "knobbly" wall types, which absorb (reduce the length of the remaining flight path by) say, 20%, but also add a random element to the angle of reflection (having calculated the correct angle the ricochet would ordinarily take, we could add some random value to this, to create the effect of hitting an uneven surface).

In a wild west scenario, we could have both wooden walls (non-reflective, bullets get embedded in them) and stone walls (bullets ricochet off them with a loud ping). For our space game, we could have similar wall types - force fields which absorb lasers fired at them, shiny, reflective mirrored surfaces which make them bounce all over the place.

There's no doubt about it; vectors look fun.

We're going to have a go at coding some up, over the weekend. So, unless they become tricky and just too much hassle to implement in two days, we're very likely to have some of the best collision detection routines in our boardgame apps.

Well, maybe. Surely, it's got to be better than "roll for scatter, roll for distance" as most dice-based games currently use?

### MDF for laser cutting

Having visited Weban-Smith in Lewes earlier in the week, the big bouncy nerdmobile was carrying 10 sheet of 8' x 4' mdf (2mm and 3mm thick). Last night was the usual BuildBrighton open evening, so it was time to get busy with a circular saw.

Steve made short work of chopping up the boards into various sizes - A3, A4 and some odd-sized offcuts of about 300mm square. Here's Felix stacking up just some of the sheets we ended up with:

All of the sheets were cut roughly (and in some cases, by eye) so there are probably no more than 6 sheets at a time that are the same dimensions! But that's quite a stack of mdf we have now, ready for laser cutting.

We worked out that a single 8'x4' sheet should yield about 44 A4-sized sheets.

With ten large sheets of mdf, we could have ended up with over 400 pieces! At £70 for ten sheets (including VAT) that would be around 16p per A4 sheet - super cheap prototyping material! We left some sheets double-sized (A3) and had some peculiar 12" square bits, but must still have had about 300 smaller sheets, when all was done.

Steve and Jason can handle massive oversized A3 sheets (up to 500mm) in their laser cutters, whereas our LS3020 can just about cope with slightly-bigger-than-A4. So now with everyone with a healthy stack of 2mm and 3mm mdf, there's no reason not to be making cool (laser-cut) stuff all the time!

Steve made short work of chopping up the boards into various sizes - A3, A4 and some odd-sized offcuts of about 300mm square. Here's Felix stacking up just some of the sheets we ended up with:

All of the sheets were cut roughly (and in some cases, by eye) so there are probably no more than 6 sheets at a time that are the same dimensions! But that's quite a stack of mdf we have now, ready for laser cutting.

We worked out that a single 8'x4' sheet should yield about 44 A4-sized sheets.

With ten large sheets of mdf, we could have ended up with over 400 pieces! At £70 for ten sheets (including VAT) that would be around 16p per A4 sheet - super cheap prototyping material! We left some sheets double-sized (A3) and had some peculiar 12" square bits, but must still have had about 300 smaller sheets, when all was done.

Steve and Jason can handle massive oversized A3 sheets (up to 500mm) in their laser cutters, whereas our LS3020 can just about cope with slightly-bigger-than-A4. So now with everyone with a healthy stack of 2mm and 3mm mdf, there's no reason not to be making cool (laser-cut) stuff all the time!

### Thought experiments for collision detection using vectors

We've been using our almost-pixel-perfect line-of-sight algorithms for a while now, and they work really well. We've made about three or four revisions to the actual games using them, but the underlying method of detecting collisions between a moving and a stationary object remain pretty much the same each time.

The general idea is pretty simple - take a bitmap snapshot of the playing area, from the two points you want to test a line-of-sight between, then walk along the diagonal to see if there are any non-white pixels in the way. Wherever a non-white pixel is encountered, there's an obstacle and a collision is detected.

For shooty games, this is great - we can use the same routines not just for line of sight, but to resolve when a shot is fired at a target. We even know exactly where the place the little "bullet explosion" - should the bullet collide with anything along it's intended path - and then a quick loop around the objects on the screen, comparing their distance from the point of contact allows us to include varying degrees of damage from anyone standing within the "blast radius". This method not only allows us to have simple bullets flying around in our games, but also explosive projectiles, like rockets and grenades, which can have a large impact in the centre of the explosion, with lesser effect radiating outwards from the point of explosion.

Exactly the same technique can be used for sports-sim games, for throwing a ball from on spot to another - if another player character is in the way (i.e. would get struck by the ball) they can attempt an interception.

Something that did come up in conversation - and it's an idea that we really should just put to bed as "for another time" but it just won't go away - is reflected shots and ricochet. What if the bullet/ball were to hit an obstacle, but continue moving? Our current routines simply stop the movement dead - this is fine for bullets and projectiles which might otherwise embed themselves into any obstacle hit, but a bit unrealistic for things like sports games and throwing things around.

The problem with our current collision detection is that is uses a point and not a vector to determine collision. This means that we have no idea in which direction the ricochet should travel:

The first problem with our current approach is that the angle of reflection/ricochet is dependent not just on the angle of approach, but also the angle of the object striking it. If the blue dots in the example above represented points along a wall, for example, the angle/facing of the wall would have an impact on the angle of reflection.

In order to correctly show the angle of ricochet, we need to be able to calculate the angle of approach to the perpendicular plane of the object/shape being struck. We can then make the object bounce off, at the same angle:

All this basically leads to us defining our obstacles layer not as a bitmap that we can walk along, looking for non-white (or non-transparent) pixels, but describing each obstacle as one or more

We'll need to convert our starting point and destination point (e.g. character moving could be the starting point and the target being shot at - or place where the ball is being thrown in a sports simulator - could be a destination point) into a vector. As a vector, we can write this as an equation for a straight line, y=mx+c.

In this equation, m is the gradient of the line and c is a constant value describing where the line cuts the y-axis when x has the value zero. This is a typical equation for a straight line.

If we were able to describe - in this case, for example, a wall as a vector - i.e. a straight line passing from one point to another - we could also express this as a straight line equation y=mx+c

Using simple trigonometry we should be able to calculate the gradient of each straight line, and thus, the collision point (where the two intersect) if there is one, is the point where the two equations are equal. Solving equations is probably best left for another blog post - the idea is to demonstrate that this is not only a feasible alternative to our previous method of collision detection, but an enhancement to it.

Once we have found our intersection point (if one exists) we can simple report back that intersection point (as we currently do, but using bitmap probing) or we can calculate the angle between our "approach" to the obstacle, and its perpendicular: this gives us the angle that we should bounce any object (ball, bullet, projectile) off it.

That's it for now.

No code written. Nothing actually put down on paper and tested - just a theory. But it could prove to be quite a useful one. For objects on the map (such as playing pieces) we could create a bounding box (four vectors arranged in a square) and use these in any vector-based collision detection (it's not likely that we'd want to "bounce" anything off a playing piece, but for completeness, it would be nice to be able to use the same routines to see if a playing piece is acting as an obstacle, as for walls and immovable objects too).

It's possible that this approach might lead us up a dead-end and we end up wishing we'd never even tried it. That's fine. If that's what happens, we've always got our bitmap based method to fall back on. But there's also a chance that it could add some really exciting physics to our gaming engine. And for that reason, it's got to be worth at least giving it a try........

The general idea is pretty simple - take a bitmap snapshot of the playing area, from the two points you want to test a line-of-sight between, then walk along the diagonal to see if there are any non-white pixels in the way. Wherever a non-white pixel is encountered, there's an obstacle and a collision is detected.

For shooty games, this is great - we can use the same routines not just for line of sight, but to resolve when a shot is fired at a target. We even know exactly where the place the little "bullet explosion" - should the bullet collide with anything along it's intended path - and then a quick loop around the objects on the screen, comparing their distance from the point of contact allows us to include varying degrees of damage from anyone standing within the "blast radius". This method not only allows us to have simple bullets flying around in our games, but also explosive projectiles, like rockets and grenades, which can have a large impact in the centre of the explosion, with lesser effect radiating outwards from the point of explosion.

Exactly the same technique can be used for sports-sim games, for throwing a ball from on spot to another - if another player character is in the way (i.e. would get struck by the ball) they can attempt an interception.

Something that did come up in conversation - and it's an idea that we really should just put to bed as "for another time" but it just won't go away - is reflected shots and ricochet. What if the bullet/ball were to hit an obstacle, but continue moving? Our current routines simply stop the movement dead - this is fine for bullets and projectiles which might otherwise embed themselves into any obstacle hit, but a bit unrealistic for things like sports games and throwing things around.

The problem with our current collision detection is that is uses a point and not a vector to determine collision. This means that we have no idea in which direction the ricochet should travel:

The first problem with our current approach is that the angle of reflection/ricochet is dependent not just on the angle of approach, but also the angle of the object striking it. If the blue dots in the example above represented points along a wall, for example, the angle/facing of the wall would have an impact on the angle of reflection.

In order to correctly show the angle of ricochet, we need to be able to calculate the angle of approach to the perpendicular plane of the object/shape being struck. We can then make the object bounce off, at the same angle:

All this basically leads to us defining our obstacles layer not as a bitmap that we can walk along, looking for non-white (or non-transparent) pixels, but describing each obstacle as one or more

*vectors*.We'll need to convert our starting point and destination point (e.g. character moving could be the starting point and the target being shot at - or place where the ball is being thrown in a sports simulator - could be a destination point) into a vector. As a vector, we can write this as an equation for a straight line, y=mx+c.

In this equation, m is the gradient of the line and c is a constant value describing where the line cuts the y-axis when x has the value zero. This is a typical equation for a straight line.

If we were able to describe - in this case, for example, a wall as a vector - i.e. a straight line passing from one point to another - we could also express this as a straight line equation y=mx+c

Using simple trigonometry we should be able to calculate the gradient of each straight line, and thus, the collision point (where the two intersect) if there is one, is the point where the two equations are equal. Solving equations is probably best left for another blog post - the idea is to demonstrate that this is not only a feasible alternative to our previous method of collision detection, but an enhancement to it.

Once we have found our intersection point (if one exists) we can simple report back that intersection point (as we currently do, but using bitmap probing) or we can calculate the angle between our "approach" to the obstacle, and its perpendicular: this gives us the angle that we should bounce any object (ball, bullet, projectile) off it.

That's it for now.

No code written. Nothing actually put down on paper and tested - just a theory. But it could prove to be quite a useful one. For objects on the map (such as playing pieces) we could create a bounding box (four vectors arranged in a square) and use these in any vector-based collision detection (it's not likely that we'd want to "bounce" anything off a playing piece, but for completeness, it would be nice to be able to use the same routines to see if a playing piece is acting as an obstacle, as for walls and immovable objects too).

It's possible that this approach might lead us up a dead-end and we end up wishing we'd never even tried it. That's fine. If that's what happens, we've always got our bitmap based method to fall back on. But there's also a chance that it could add some really exciting physics to our gaming engine. And for that reason, it's got to be worth at least giving it a try........

## Wednesday, 24 September 2014

### ExpressPCB to Gerber software

As ever, we're always planning one step ahead with our projects. So while we've only just got everything ready to hand-print a few prototype boards, we're already considering the possibilities of having boards manufactured (there are UK-based companies that can manufacture medium quantities of PCBs at roughly the same cost as buying in China - without the 8 week delay and import duty costs!).

Manufacturing PCBs means Gerber files.

And Gerber files mean having to move away from our preferred PCB editor, ExpressPCB. We've played with RS Component's own offering DesignSpark and found it to be a pain to set up and use. Freeware KiCAD gets good write ups, be when you're using software that doesn't even snap to it's own component pads, something isn't quite right!

We've used DipTrace in the past, and that was ok.

In fact, it was quite good. But most of what was learned has been forgotten, and the idea of spending a chunk of money on a licence for, and relearn all the quirks and get used to the interface for, some software that we're only likely to use only every now and again is a bit depressing.

For quick-n-dirty home-etching, ExpressPCB still rules!

We use CutePDF to print our ExpressPCB designs out and etch from there. But not many fabrication houses will manufacture PCBs from a PDF file! If only there was some way of coverting the easy-to-use super-quick-to-create ExpressPCB files to gerbers....

http://www.robotroom.com/CopperConnection/Converting-Express-PCB-Files.html

David Cook's Copper Connection is not only a PCB editor in it's own right - with an interface and workflow very similar to ExpressPCB - it's also an importer of ExpressPCB files. In fact, using the Open File dialogue even displays a handy thumbnail of all the ExpressPCB .pcb files on your computer!

And the best bit?

Of course - it can not only open ExpressPCB files, but it can export them as gerber files, ready to send to your favourite PCB manufacturing lab. For us, it's the perfect piece of software!

Now let's get this straight.

It's not free. The "studio edition" costs $49.

But many of the gerber-exporting alternatives we were looking at were not free either. DipTrace isn't free. To do anything beyond 100mm square boards in Eagle isn't free. Commercial licences for most pcb editing software are not free.

Not only is Copper Connection substantially less than a lot of other PCB editing software, it also means we can continue to use our favoured, easy-and-simple ExpressPCB software for designing and laying out boards,

It's win-win.

So that's a whole evening wasted, installing, trying and rejecting lots of different PCB editing software. We can now just stick with what we know, and use Copper Connection much as we do Inkscape for converting vector images - to load in one file format and get it to export as another, more useful one.

At least we can forget about PCB manufacture for a little while, safe in the knowledge that we don't have to recreate our fully-tested-and-working PCBs in some other software application and hope we didn't screw anything up while re-drawing the boards: we can now simply export the very boards we've home-etched and send them off for manufacture!

Manufacturing PCBs means Gerber files.

And Gerber files mean having to move away from our preferred PCB editor, ExpressPCB. We've played with RS Component's own offering DesignSpark and found it to be a pain to set up and use. Freeware KiCAD gets good write ups, be when you're using software that doesn't even snap to it's own component pads, something isn't quite right!

We've used DipTrace in the past, and that was ok.

In fact, it was quite good. But most of what was learned has been forgotten, and the idea of spending a chunk of money on a licence for, and relearn all the quirks and get used to the interface for, some software that we're only likely to use only every now and again is a bit depressing.

For quick-n-dirty home-etching, ExpressPCB still rules!

We use CutePDF to print our ExpressPCB designs out and etch from there. But not many fabrication houses will manufacture PCBs from a PDF file! If only there was some way of coverting the easy-to-use super-quick-to-create ExpressPCB files to gerbers....

http://www.robotroom.com/CopperConnection/Converting-Express-PCB-Files.html

David Cook's Copper Connection is not only a PCB editor in it's own right - with an interface and workflow very similar to ExpressPCB - it's also an importer of ExpressPCB files. In fact, using the Open File dialogue even displays a handy thumbnail of all the ExpressPCB .pcb files on your computer!

And the best bit?

Of course - it can not only open ExpressPCB files, but it can export them as gerber files, ready to send to your favourite PCB manufacturing lab. For us, it's the perfect piece of software!

Now let's get this straight.

It's not free. The "studio edition" costs $49.

But many of the gerber-exporting alternatives we were looking at were not free either. DipTrace isn't free. To do anything beyond 100mm square boards in Eagle isn't free. Commercial licences for most pcb editing software are not free.

Not only is Copper Connection substantially less than a lot of other PCB editing software, it also means we can continue to use our favoured, easy-and-simple ExpressPCB software for designing and laying out boards,

*without having to learn a whole new, complicated PCB layout package*.It's win-win.

So that's a whole evening wasted, installing, trying and rejecting lots of different PCB editing software. We can now just stick with what we know, and use Copper Connection much as we do Inkscape for converting vector images - to load in one file format and get it to export as another, more useful one.

At least we can forget about PCB manufacture for a little while, safe in the knowledge that we don't have to recreate our fully-tested-and-working PCBs in some other software application and hope we didn't screw anything up while re-drawing the boards: we can now simply export the very boards we've home-etched and send them off for manufacture!

## Sunday, 21 September 2014

### Progress without actually doing much

Tonight we managed to get a new vacuum head laser cut. It was only a small job, but seemed to take ages to get just right.

Since the last one had problems with a single elastic band being too tight, and two bands being too slack, the new design incorporates an adjustable height mechanism. This way, we can add just enough tension in the bands to act like springs, to get the vacuum pen to return, without overwhelming the puny little 9g servo we're using.

Straight off the laser cutter, and straight onto our cnc pick-n-place machine. Now, by slackening off the top nuts, we can adjust the height of the top piece by rotating the nuts (screwing them either up or down the M3 bolt connected to the bottom piece) immediately beneath it. This worked surprisingly well.

We also adjusted the size of the holes in these pieces - dropping them from 10mm to 9.4mm. We measured the barrel of the pen with some digital calipers and it reported that the width was around 9.4mm (they were only cheap calipers, and tended to vary between 9.35mm and 9.48mm along the length of the pen!)

With the new, tigher-fit holes, the pieces lock around the pen barrel using just the friction between the mdf and the pen (is this what is often called an interference fit?). Anyway, the result is quite pleasing - as the servo arm lifts, the entire pen lifts also. When the servo arm goes down, the pen snaps back into exactly the same place, every time.

This did get us thinking about how it would actually work in operation.

So far, we've not given much thought about rotating pieces when placing them on the PCB. In fact, since this machine was only every designed to be semi-automated (it will pick up a piece and place it over the correct place on the board, then wait for an operator to confirm the position is correct - jogging the head up/down/left/right if necessary - then hitting a button to actually drop the piece down) we thought that simply rotating the pen by hand would suffice to begin with.

But now things have got a bit tricky.

When the pen was a very loose fit in our pen-raising mechanism, this would work fine. But with a tight, snug fit, it's not really possible to rotate the pen at all now - as it would require the attached elastic-band-and-servo assembly to be rotated also.

The obvious answer is, of course, to ensure that the component to be placed is facing the correct way around

It's not unreasonable (although it feels like a bit of a cop-out) to have the vacuum head simply move to a "ready" location, and present it with a component (already turned around to the correct orientation) before switching on the vacuum pump, to draw the piece onto the travelling head.

How the component is prepared can be developed as a separate, independent part of the project. To begin with, we could even just place the component on a piece of board and move it - by hand - into position, under the head, before starting the pump-on-head-up-move-to-position-wait-head-down routine. In future, we could develop a "component preparation" module for the pick-n-place machine, which would automatically wind the next component from the reel, and rotate the component (rather than rotating the head) ready to be picked up.

But for now, we can actually make further progress with our machine by taking that bit out and worrying about it later.

In fact, were it not so late, we'd probably be ready to give the machine it's first test run: we've got x/y axis moving nicely now, the entire pen moves up and down with the servo, the vacuum pump can be triggered manually when required, and the components can be presented to the head, rather than have them pulled out of an automatically fed tape.

The firmware needs a bit of revision (it's currently using a function-blocking serial-poll method of getting data, which is just plain shonky) but that's all that's really stopping us from giving it a spin. So maybe tomorrow night we'll get the firmware updated and perhaps after that look at building a nice application to run it from a desktop computer.

Hardware based, interrupt-driven serial/uart data parsing here we come.............

Since the last one had problems with a single elastic band being too tight, and two bands being too slack, the new design incorporates an adjustable height mechanism. This way, we can add just enough tension in the bands to act like springs, to get the vacuum pen to return, without overwhelming the puny little 9g servo we're using.

Straight off the laser cutter, and straight onto our cnc pick-n-place machine. Now, by slackening off the top nuts, we can adjust the height of the top piece by rotating the nuts (screwing them either up or down the M3 bolt connected to the bottom piece) immediately beneath it. This worked surprisingly well.

We also adjusted the size of the holes in these pieces - dropping them from 10mm to 9.4mm. We measured the barrel of the pen with some digital calipers and it reported that the width was around 9.4mm (they were only cheap calipers, and tended to vary between 9.35mm and 9.48mm along the length of the pen!)

With the new, tigher-fit holes, the pieces lock around the pen barrel using just the friction between the mdf and the pen (is this what is often called an interference fit?). Anyway, the result is quite pleasing - as the servo arm lifts, the entire pen lifts also. When the servo arm goes down, the pen snaps back into exactly the same place, every time.

This did get us thinking about how it would actually work in operation.

So far, we've not given much thought about rotating pieces when placing them on the PCB. In fact, since this machine was only every designed to be semi-automated (it will pick up a piece and place it over the correct place on the board, then wait for an operator to confirm the position is correct - jogging the head up/down/left/right if necessary - then hitting a button to actually drop the piece down) we thought that simply rotating the pen by hand would suffice to begin with.

But now things have got a bit tricky.

When the pen was a very loose fit in our pen-raising mechanism, this would work fine. But with a tight, snug fit, it's not really possible to rotate the pen at all now - as it would require the attached elastic-band-and-servo assembly to be rotated also.

The obvious answer is, of course, to ensure that the component to be placed is facing the correct way around

*before*the pen picks it up. Which in turn means that our automated parts feeder - which worked so well in earlier trials - is effectively redundant. So we're actually making progress by removing parts of the machine. This is the kind of progress we like - improve things by simplifying them!It's not unreasonable (although it feels like a bit of a cop-out) to have the vacuum head simply move to a "ready" location, and present it with a component (already turned around to the correct orientation) before switching on the vacuum pump, to draw the piece onto the travelling head.

How the component is prepared can be developed as a separate, independent part of the project. To begin with, we could even just place the component on a piece of board and move it - by hand - into position, under the head, before starting the pump-on-head-up-move-to-position-wait-head-down routine. In future, we could develop a "component preparation" module for the pick-n-place machine, which would automatically wind the next component from the reel, and rotate the component (rather than rotating the head) ready to be picked up.

But for now, we can actually make further progress with our machine by taking that bit out and worrying about it later.

In fact, were it not so late, we'd probably be ready to give the machine it's first test run: we've got x/y axis moving nicely now, the entire pen moves up and down with the servo, the vacuum pump can be triggered manually when required, and the components can be presented to the head, rather than have them pulled out of an automatically fed tape.

The firmware needs a bit of revision (it's currently using a function-blocking serial-poll method of getting data, which is just plain shonky) but that's all that's really stopping us from giving it a spin. So maybe tomorrow night we'll get the firmware updated and perhaps after that look at building a nice application to run it from a desktop computer.

Hardware based, interrupt-driven serial/uart data parsing here we come.............

Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)