Jump to content

chansey

Community Members
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About chansey

  • Rank
    Tiro
  1. When a ranged unit attack a enemy, current UnitAI behavior is : (1) Handle attack order (2) CheckInRange. if enemy not in range, goto (3) (3) MoveToTargetRange (min/max range) (4) When move is completed, goto (2) ------------------- My question is: The MoveToTargetRange (especially max range!) is really useful to the ranged unit's approaching behavior? I found some faults: Situation 1: There are two units (A and B, A is ranged unit whose max range is 20). Let A attack B and B attack A. You will find that A often approach B but overstep and then walk back. It's only a bug and it could be fixed by adding some CheckInRange code in approaching timer. Situation 2: There are two units (A and B, A is ranged unit whose max range is 58). A is on one the side of river, B is on the other side. Now let A attack B and B flee A along the river bank. You will find A will lost B. (A won't go across bridge...) Is this behavior normally? After some thought, I've come to some conclusion: (maybe wrong) (1) The max range in approaching is only useful to the unit which has a very long range (eg: catapult) or target is a building. (2) Archer should be look as melee and not use weapon range as motion's maxrange to approach. It should use maxrange=0 approach and check its weapon range(maxrange) repeatly to decide attack.
  2. I have reproduced the issue which Ykkrosh mentioned. When the point precisely on the edge, we will get a very bad path. I modify some code in previous patch. It seems fixed now. //------------Modified Begin//If this is an axis-aligned shape, discard non-silhouette points easily.if (vertexes[n].quadInward == QUADRANT_BL) if ((vertexes[curr.id].p.X > npos.X && vertexes[curr.id].p.Y > npos.Y) || (vertexes[curr.id].p.X < npos.X && vertexes[curr.id].p.Y < npos.Y)) continue; if (vertexes[n].quadInward == QUADRANT_TR) if ((vertexes[curr.id].p.X < npos.X && vertexes[curr.id].p.Y < npos.Y) || (vertexes[curr.id].p.X > npos.X && vertexes[curr.id].p.Y > npos.Y)) continue; if (vertexes[n].quadInward == QUADRANT_TL) if ((vertexes[curr.id].p.X > npos.X && vertexes[curr.id].p.Y < npos.Y) || (vertexes[curr.id].p.X < npos.X && vertexes[curr.id].p.Y > npos.Y)) continue; if (vertexes[n].quadInward == QUADRANT_BR) if ((vertexes[curr.id].p.X < npos.X && vertexes[curr.id].p.Y > npos.Y) || (vertexes[curr.id].p.X > npos.X && vertexes[curr.id].p.Y < npos.Y)) continue;//------------Modified End
  3. "silhouette-point-detection thing will mean it doesn't see any of the points" why? Fixed point precision problem? (I have not stress test it yet.) I think if it is a rare problem, can we do some dirty trick (eg: add some delta, if it is a precision problem?) and ensure most of time its behavior correct?
  4. OK, Thanks, (But there is some time difference.... I will sleep )
  5. After read short-range path source code deeply. I found a small problem which maybe cause performance degradation. The root cause is current algorithm can't discard non-silhouette points. I also read some books. In GPG2 "Optimizing Points-of-Visibility Pathfinding", it mentioned two optimizations: "Optimization #1": Only Consider Paths to Silhouette Points "Optimization #2": Only Consider Paths that Go Around the Corner So "Optimization #1" may be what we are missing. Implement "Optimization #1" is very easy, because there are axis-aligned box. I have written some code in CCmpPathfinder_Vertex.cpp // Check that the new vertex is in the right quadrant for the old vertexif (!(vertexes[curr.id].quadOutward & quad)){ // Hack: Always head towards the goal if possible, to avoid missing it if it's // inside another unit if (n != GOAL_VERTEX_ID) { continue; }}//------------Modified Begin//If this is an axis-aligned shape, discard non-silhouette points easily.if (vertexes[n].quadInward == QUADRANT_BL) if ((vertexes[curr.id].p.X >= npos.X && vertexes[curr.id].p.Y >= npos.Y) || (vertexes[curr.id].p.X <= npos.X && vertexes[curr.id].p.Y <= npos.Y)) continue;if (vertexes[n].quadInward == QUADRANT_TR) if ((vertexes[curr.id].p.X <= npos.X && vertexes[curr.id].p.Y <= npos.Y) || (vertexes[curr.id].p.X >= npos.X && vertexes[curr.id].p.Y >= npos.Y)) continue;if (vertexes[n].quadInward == QUADRANT_TL) if ((vertexes[curr.id].p.X >= npos.X && vertexes[curr.id].p.Y <= npos.Y) || (vertexes[curr.id].p.X <= npos.X && vertexes[curr.id].p.Y >= npos.Y)) continue;if (vertexes[n].quadInward == QUADRANT_BR) if ((vertexes[curr.id].p.X <= npos.X && vertexes[curr.id].p.Y >= npos.Y) || (vertexes[curr.id].p.X >= npos.X && vertexes[curr.id].p.Y <= npos.Y)) continue;//------------Modified Endbool visible = CheckVisibilityLeft(vertexes[curr.id].p, npos, edgesLeft) && CheckVisibilityRight(vertexes[curr.id].p, npos, edgesRight) && CheckVisibilityBottom(vertexes[curr.id].p, npos, edgesBottom) && CheckVisibilityTop(vertexes[curr.id].p, npos, edgesTop) && CheckVisibility(vertexes[curr.id].p, npos, edges);it seems faster than before. Has anyone here could review this code? Sorry for my broken english...
  6. Thank Ykkrosh. Following #1756, I found that the short path is also a new enhancement. (#1942) It's a very great idea for short path performance improvement which make O(N^3) -> O(N^2) ! (http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=13042&&page=3#entry216735) Has this feature been integrated into the current short-range pathfinder? I am very sorry I have not deeply read current short path source code.
  7. After researched 0 A.D's source code (excellent work!), I have some confusion about long-range pathfinder's current implementation. In my understanding, each terrain tile should be split into 4x4 small cells for AStar. (This will make long path more accurately) And when a unit start a longpath, all static obstruction's tiles (small cells) will be expanded by this unit's clearnce. Has this feature be implemented now? I cant find any code about "obstruction's tile expanded by unit's clearnce in long path". I read the code: CCmpPathfinder_Tile.cpp void CCmpPathfinder::ComputePath(entity_pos_t x0, entity_pos_t z0, const Goal& goal, pass_class_t passClass, cost_class_t costClass, Path& path) The params seem not to relate unit's raduis or clearnce.....and where to expand tiles? Very thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...