We Keep Coding

How to prevent floating point error in point-polygon sliding collision detection

I'm trying to write a function to handle movement within a game I'm programming. What I have nearly works, but there are a couple situations where it breaks down.
I've coded up a minimal demonstrative example, presented below. In this example, I'm trying to calculate the travel of an object, represented by a point, and movement vector. This object's movement path is checked against a collection of polygons, which are broken down into line segments for testing. When this object collides with a line segment, I want it to slide along that segment (rather than stop or bounce away).
To do this, I check along my intended path for collisions, and if I find an intersection, I do a new test from that intersection point along the path of the line segment I've collided with, with the magnitude of the remainder of movement.
The problem arises when we slide along a line segment into a "pocket". Often times, the collision check will pass on both of the line segments that form the pocket, and the object will slip through. Because I'm travelling parallel to one of the line segments, and I'm intersecting with both line segments at an end points, I believe this issue is caused by floating point error. Whether or not it slips through, is caught, or is caught once and then slips through on the second check seems to be totally random.
I'm calculating intersection using a simple algorithm I found here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/20679579/4208739, but I've tried many other algorithms as well. All exhibit the same problems.
(Vector2 is class provided by the Unity library, it just holds x and y coordinates as floats. The Vector2.Dot function just calculates the dot product).
//returns the final destination of the intended movement, given the starting position, intended direction of movement, and provided collection of line segments
//slideMax provides a hard cap on number of slides allowed before we give up
Vector2 Move(Vector2 pos, Vector2[] lineStarts, Vector2[] lineEnds, Vector2 moveDir, int slideMax)
{
int slideCount = 0;
while (moveDir != Vector2.zero && slideCount < slideMax)
{
pos = DynamicMove(pos, lineStarts, lineEnds, moveDir, out moveDir);
slideCount++;
}
return pos;
}
//returns what portion of the intended movement can be performed before collision, and the vector of "slide" that the object should follow, if there is a collision
Vector2 DynamicMove(Vector2 pos, Vector2[] lineStarts, Vector2[] lineEnds, Vector2 moveDir, out Vector2 slideDir)
{
slideDir = Vector2.zero;
float moveRemainder = 1f;
for (int i = 0; i < lineStarts.Length; i++)
{
Vector2 tSlide;
float rem = LineProj(pos, moveDir, lineStarts[i], lineEnds[i], out tSlide);
if (rem < moveRemainder)
{
moveRemainder = rem;
slideDir = tSlide;
}
}
return pos + moveDir * moveRemainder;
}
//Calculates point of collision between the intended movement and the passed in line segment, also calculate vector of slide, if applicable
float LineProj(Vector2 pos, Vector2 moveDir, Vector2 lineStart, Vector2 lineEnd, out Vector2 slideDir)
{
slideDir = new Vector2(0, 0);
float start = (lineStart.x - pos.x) * moveDir.y - (lineStart.y - pos.y) * moveDir.x;
float end = (lineEnd.x - pos.x) * moveDir.y - (lineEnd.y - pos.y) * moveDir.x;
if (start < 0 || end > 0)
return 1;
//https://stackoverflow.com/a/20679579/4208739
//Uses Cramer's Rule
float L1A = -moveDir.y;
float L1B = moveDir.x;
float L1C = -(pos.x *(moveDir.y + pos.y) - (moveDir.x + pos.x)*pos.y);
float L2A = lineStart.y - lineEnd.y;
float L2B = lineEnd.x - lineStart.x;
float L2C = -(lineStart.x * lineEnd.y - lineEnd.x * lineStart.y);
float D = L1A * L2B - L1B * L2A;
float Dx = L1C * L2B - L1B * L2C;
float Dy = L1A * L2C - L1C * L2A;
if (D == 0)
return 1;
Vector2 inter = new Vector2(Dx / D, Dy / D);
if (Vector2.Dot(inter - pos, moveDir) < 0)
return 1;
float t = (inter - pos).magnitude / moveDir.magnitude;
if (t > 1)
return 1;
slideDir = (1 - t) * Vector2.Dot((lineEnd - lineStart).normalized, moveDir.normalized) * (lineEnd - lineStart).normalized;
return t;
}
Is there some way to calculate collision that isn't susceptible to this sort of problem? I imagine I can't totally eradicate floating point error, but is there a way to check that will at least guarantee I collide with ONE of the two line segments at the pocket? Or is there something more fundamentally wrong with going about things in this way?
If anything is unclear I can draw diagrams or write up examples.
EDIT: Having reflected on this issue more, and in response to Eric's answer, I'm wondering if converting my math from floating point to fixed point could solve the issue? In practice I'd really just be converting my values (which can fit comfortably in the range of -100 to 100) to ints, and then performing the math under those constraints? I haven't pieced all the issues together quite yet, but I might give that a try. If anyone has any information about anything like that, I'd be appreciative.

You have a line that, ideally, is aimed exactly at a point, the endpoint of a segment. That means any error in calculation, no matter how small, could say the line misses the point. I see three potential solutions:
Analyze the arithmetic and design it to ensure it is done with no error, perhaps by using extended-precision techniques.
Analyze the arithmetic and design it to ensure it is done with a slight error in favor of collision, perhaps by adding a slight bias toward collision.
Extend the line segment slightly.
It seems like the third would be easiest—the two line segments forming a pocket could just be extended by a bit, so they cross. Then the sliding path would not be aimed at a point; it would be aimed at the interior of a segment, and there would be margin for error.

Logarithmic growth with min and max values

I am trying to "fake 3D" in a game in WPF. Think of a road, and that the objects appear somewhere in the distant. As they get closer, they look bigger, and eventually they grow in size very fast.
I'm thinking that when the object appears, it's close to 0 in width and height. As it moves towards the player, it becomes closer to hundred percent of its true size.
I think I will need to solve this using logarithmic calculations, and there are several threads on that. What I would really want to do however, is to send in three values to a LogaritmicGrowth method:
the starting Y point
the point at which the object should appear at 100%
the y point where the object is at this very moment.
Thus, what I would like to get in return is the scaling factor for the object in question. So if it's halfway between the starting point and the ending point, then perhaps 0.3 (or so) should be returned.
I can write the method inputs and outputs myself, but need help with the calculation. Thanks!

I am not entirely sure about the use of log here. This is a simple geometry problem.
Think about a point P which is D distance in front of you, which has a height Y (from your line of observation). Your screen is d distance in front of you. The intersection point of the light from P on the screen is p, which makes a height y on screen.
Then, by considering the similar triangles, one can show that:
y = (Y/D) d

Just in case someone else is looking at this question in the future, here's the correct reply (I figured it out myself):
/// <summary>
/// Method that enlargens the kind of object sent in
/// </summary>
public void ExponentialGrowth2(string name, float startY, float endY)
{
float totalDistance = endY - startY;
float currentY = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < Bodies.Bodylist.Count; i++)
{
if (Bodies.Bodylist[i].Name.StartsWith(name)) //looks for all bodies of this type
{
currentY = Bodies.Bodylist[i].PosY;
float distance = currentY - startY + (float)Bodies.Bodylist[i].circle.Height;
float fraction = distance / totalDistance; //such as 0.8
Bodies.Bodylist[i].circle.Width = Bodies.Bodylist[i].OriginalWidth * Math.Pow(fraction, 3);
Bodies.Bodylist[i].circle.Height = Bodies.Bodylist[i].OriginalHeight * Math.Pow(fraction, 3);
}
}
}
The method could be worked on further, such as allowing randomized power-to values (say from 1.5 to 4.5). Note that the higher the exponential value, the greater the effect.

Getting Number of Cubes with Integer Coordinates with Certain Distance from Origin

I am working on a voxel system for my game that uses dynamic loading of chunks. To optimize it, I have a pool of chunks and a render distance, and what I want to do is fill the pool with a proper amount of chunks. So, I need a way to find that amount. I have tried the following but it seems very inefficient.
private void CreatePool()
{
int poolSize = 0;
for (int x = -m_RenderDistance; x <= m_RenderDistance; x++) {
for (int y = -m_RenderDistance; y <= m_RenderDistance; y++) {
for (int z = -m_RenderDistance; z <= m_RenderDistance; z++) {
if (Position3Int.DistanceFromOrigin(new Position3Int(x, y, z)) <= m_RenderDistance)
poolSize++;
}
}
}
}
More formally, the question involes finding the amount of unique cubes with integer coorindates with a certain distance from the origin.
If you think there is a better way to approach this or I am doing something fundamentally wrong, let me know.
Thanks,
Quintin

I assume its the distance check that you think is inefficient? What you've got shouldn't be too bad if you're just getting the count on Start() or Awake().
Draco18s solution is fine if you are okay with a cubed result. If you want a spherical result without a distance check, you can try some formulation of the volume of a sphere: 4/3*PI*r^3
checkout Bresenham's circle.
Here's a approximation algorithm for a filled 3d Bresenham Circle that I have. It is very similar to what you have already, just with a more effecient squared dist check and a minor adjustment to get a more attractive bresenham-looking circle):
public static List<Vector3> Get3DCircleKeys(int radius){
List<Vector3> keys = new List<Vector3>();
for(int y=-radius; y<=radius; y++){
for(int x=-radius; x<=radius; x++){
for(int z =-radius; z<=radius; z++){
// (+ radius*.08f) = minor modification to match Bresenham result
if(x*x+y*y+z*z <= radius*radius + radius*.08f){
keys.Add(new Vector3(x,y,z));
}
}
}
}
return keys;
}
This, however, will deliver a different count than the volume of sphere would give you, but with some tweaking to it or to the sphere volume calculation, it could be good enough, or at least, more efficient than instantiating a full volume of a cube, where many of the voxels will be outside of the bounds of the render distance.

How do I calculate opposite of a vector, add some slack

How can i calulate a valid range (RED) for my object's (BLACK) traveling direction (GREEN). The green is a Vector2 where x and y range is -1 to 1.
What I'm trying to do here is to create rocket fuel burn effekt. So what i got is
rocket speed (float)
rocket direction (Vector2 x = [-1, 1], y = [-1, 1])
I may think that rocket speed does not matter as fuel burn effect (particle) is created on position with its own speed.

A cheap and cheerful trick with 2D vectors is to transpose the x and y, then flip the sign on one of them to get the perpendicular vector (pseudo code):
Vector2 perpendicular ( -original.y, original.x ) // Or original.y, -original.x
Then you could do something like:
direction + perpendicular * rand(-0.3 , 0.3)
Update: having realised the question asks for the opposite vector (too busy looking at the picture!) I figure I had better answer that too. Multiply 'direction' by -1 to get the opposite vector. So this:
perpendicular * rand(-0.3 , 0.3) - direction
should give you a random direction vector somewhere in your range (not normalised, but close enough for these purposes). Then you can multiply that result by a random number depending on how long you want the tail.

If to expend upon OlduwanSteve's answer, you can make is such that it's somewhat physically accurate.
You want to create several vectors that will represent the expulsion (the red lines).
First define the number of vectors you want to represent the expulsion with - lets mark it n.
You want to get a set of n numbers which sum up to Vx. These numbers will be the x components of the expulsion vectors. You can do this like so (semi-pseudo code):
SumX = Vx;
for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
Ax[i] = -rand(0..SumX); // Ax is the array of all expulsion vectors x components
SumX -= Ax[i];
}
Now you'll want to calculate Ay (the y components of the expulsion vectors). This is quite similar to calculating the, except that SumY = 0.
Here instead of splitting up SumY among n elements, you need to decide a maximal y component. Best way I can think of to select this is to define a maximal allowed angle for the expulsion vectors and define the maximal Vy using: maxVy = minVx*tan(maxAlpha).
Now you can get Ay using this (semi-pseudo code):
SumY = maxVy*2; // The actual range is (-maxVy, maxVy), but using (0, 2*maxVy) is simpler IMO
for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
Ay[i] = rand(0..SumY);
SumY -= Ay[i];
}
for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
Ay[i] -= maxVy; // Translate the range back to (-maxVy, maxVy) from (0, 2*maxVy)
}
Now you have arrays of both the x and y components of the expulsion vectors. Iterate over both arrays and pair up elements to create the vectors (you don't have to iterate both arrays in the same order).
Notes:
• I align the axes in my calculations such that X is parallel to the objects speed vector (the green line).
• The calculation for maxVy does NOT guarantee that a vector of angle maxAlpha will be produced, it only guarantees that no vector of larger angle will be.
• The lines Ay[i] = rand(0..SumY) and Ax[i] = -rand(0..SumX) may lead to vectors with components of size 0. This may lead to annoying scenarios, I'd recommend to handle away such cases (for instance "while rand returns zero, call it again").

Collision detection by sliding against a plane in XNA

I am attempting to engineer a collision detection algorithm for a custom Minecraft client I'm making. Basically, the entire world is made up of cubes, and the player (or camera) needs to be able to stand on and move against these cubes. The result I want is illustrated in this image:
The green line is the player's movement vector. When the player is brushing up against a plane of one of the cubes, I want the vector to change to one that is perpendicular with the plane. The vector should, however, keep all of it's velocity in the plane's direction, yet lose all velocity towards the plane.
I hope I've made my question clear. What is the best and most efficient way to implement a collision detection system like this? Also, will a system like this allow for a simple gravity component?
EDIT: Forgot to mention, the cubes are stored in a three-dimensional array, [x,y,z].

A simple approach to implementing this would be to detect the collision of the ball and the plane. Calculate the penetration depth, this is how far the ball has actually gone past the plane, and push the ball back in the direction of the plane's normal.
This will have the effect of putting the ball on the surface of the plane. If you do this for each frame, the ball will effectively slide along the plane, assuming of course that the ball's velocity vector is not not parallel to the plane's normal.
The field of collision detection is big and complex, and depending on your game you have to determine what is sufficient for your requirements in terms of the level of realism you require and the performance requirements. You should always go for the simplest solution that give a realistic enough feedback, depending on the game it often does not have to be perfect.
Basically you should break your collision detection into 2 phases typically known as broad phase and narrow phase.
The broad phase could be as simple as perform a quick bounding box check to determine potential collisions and then submit those potential collision to the narrow phase collision detection to do the more detailed checks where you determine if there really was a collision and the collision depth. If you have many objects then the broad phase might use some kind of quadtree indexing to select only the blocks in the vicinity of your object to perform the collision detection against.

In a world of Axis Aligned cubes, this is really easy. It's easy to think that you need something elaborate, but in reality it's really simple. This is from experience after writing my own minecraft clone.
Here's how:
position.X += velocity.X;
if(colliding())
position.X -= velocity.X;
position.Y += velocity.Y;
if(colliding())
position.Y -= velocity.Y;
position.Z += velocity.Z;
if(colliding())
position.Z -= velocity.Z;
Here's the code for finding out if you're colliding or not:
bool colliding()
{
int minX = Position.X - size.X / 2;
int minY = Position.Y - size.Y / 2;
int minZ = Position.Z - size.Z / 2;
int maxX = Position.X + size.X / 2;
int maxY = Position.Y + size.Y / 2;
int maxZ = Position.Z + size.Z / 2;
for (int x = minX; x <= maxX; x++)
for (int y = minY; y <= maxY; y++)
for (int z = minZ; z <= maxZ; z++)
{
if(blockType[x, y, z] != 0)
return true;
}
return false;
}