Difference between revisions of "LOS using strict definition"

From RogueBasin
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Implementation: Removed unused variable in code, made comments more meaningful and less spelled wrong)
 
(40 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
FOV using strict definition - BBQsauce [arthurhavlicek@gmail.com]
==Introduction==
==Introduction==


This article aim for developers looking for an uncommon elegant line of sight solution to implement themselves.
This article aim for developers looking for an uncommon elegant line of sight solution to implement themselves.


When looking for line of sight and field of view algorithms i was sure hoping there was the "simple and obvious way" to do things. There is not. In fact, there is close to a dozen of fov implementations to choose from in the wiki only, trying to emulate three main definitions (see next chapter) The choice you make must depend of your programming skills and the desired behavior of your algorithm - because there is several desired behaviors. If you haven't yet, check out [[Comparative_study_of_field_of_view_algorithms_for_2D_grid_based_worlds]] which is a great article to start with.  
When looking for line of sight and field of view algorithms i was sure hoping there was the "simple and obvious way" to do things. There is not. In fact, there is close to a dozen of fov implementations to choose from in the wiki only, trying to emulate three main definitions (see next chapter).


In this article, we are going to focus on the corner-peeking behavior ; this really is the core problem of line of sight algorithmic.
Choice must depend of your programming skills of the RL programmer, and the desired behavior of your algorithm. There is several desired behaviors. If you haven't yet, check out [[Comparative_study_of_field_of_view_algorithms_for_2D_grid_based_worlds]] which is a great article to start with.
 
In this article, we are going to focus on the corner-peeking behavior, as it's a core problem of line of sight algorithmic.


==Different definitions in a nutshell==
==Different definitions in a nutshell==
Line 21: Line 21:


- '''@ and O should see each other.''' That is to say, if there is any unobstructed line from viewer square to the object square the object is seen. This is [[Permissive_Field_of_View]] approach.
- '''@ and O should see each other.''' That is to say, if there is any unobstructed line from viewer square to the object square the object is seen. This is [[Permissive_Field_of_View]] approach.
Pros : easier to explore. Symmetrical behavior. Lot of existing implementations.
Pros : easier to explore. Symmetrical behavior. Lot of existing implementations.
Cons : Cautious gameplay made easier. Hard to hide from ranged combat. Single pillars can cast uncontinuous shadow.
Cons : Cautious gameplay made easier. Hard to hide from ranged combat. Single pillars can cast uncontinuous shadow.


- '''@ should see O but not the reverse.''' That is to say if there is any line from the center of the viewer square to the object square the object is seen. This is called [[Shadow casting]] approach.
- '''@ should see O but not the reverse.''' That is to say if there is any line from the center of the viewer square to the object square the object is seen. This is called [[Shadow casting]] approach.
Pros : Fairly aesthetical. Asymetry can create interesting gameplay. Lot of existing implementations.
Pros : Fairly aesthetical. Asymetry can create interesting gameplay. Lot of existing implementations.
Cons : "Field" approch, which is ill-suited for some uses. Asymetric thus easily abused in ranged combat.
 
Cons : Asymetric thus easily abused in ranged combat. Implementation and definitions may differ.


- '''@ and O shouldn't see each other.''' That is to say there must be center to center unobstructed line from viewer to object so that object is seen. We are going to discuss this approach.
- '''@ and O shouldn't see each other.''' That is to say there must be center to center unobstructed line from viewer to object so that object is seen. We are going to discuss this approach.
Pros : Claustrophobic gameplay. Symetrical. Fairly aestetical. Fairly unique.
Pros : Claustrophobic gameplay. Symetrical. Fairly aestetical. Fairly unique.
Cons : Sometimes can create uncontinuous ray of lights. Do-it-yourself implementation.
 
Cons : Sometimes can create uncontinuous ray of lights. Do-it-yourself implementation (although, the algorithm isn't complex).
 
== Different situations ==
 
We are going to mark lit walls as '#' and unlit as '-', lit floor as '.', unlit as '?'.
 
Close pillars
 
<pre>
??????.......
.?????.......
...????....??
.....?#..????
.......@#????
.........????
...........??
</pre>
 
Distant pillar
 
<pre>
..........???
........?????
......???????
....???????..
...#??.......
@............
</pre>


== The wall guessing problem ==
== The wall guessing problem ==


The main problem with the stricter solution is that the final display contain less information than the algorithm have used to calculate it. Let's use a simple example :
The main problem with the stricter solution is that the final display contain less information than the algorithm have used to calculate it. Let's use a simple example :
We're standing on a corridor. We are going to mark lit walls as '#' and unlit as '-'. We see all the floor.
Player is standing in a corridor.  
<pre>
<pre>
------###------
------###------
Line 41: Line 74:
------###------
------###------
</pre>
</pre>
Since I can't draw any unobstructed line to corridor walls center, here I can only see a single line and 6 wall units. But the fact that my fov is reduced to a single line of floor clearly indicates me I stand on a corridor - with only the 6 lit walls obstructing, I'd see two clear cones of over 90 degrees each. This makes exploration very tedious and counter intuitive, so we have to make our algorithm a tiny bit more permissive.  
 
First approach : lit any wall that obstruct the view and the player is able to guess.
Since I can't draw any unobstructed line to corridor walls center, according to definiton, player should only be able to see a single line and 6 wall units.  
 
But the fact that his fov is reduced to a single line of floor clearly indicates the player he is standin in a corridor. If only the 6 lit walls were obstructing his vision, he'd see two clear cones of lit floor.
 
<pre>
...        ...
..... ### .....
.......@.......
..... ### .....
...        ...
</pre>
 
This makes exploration very tedious by forcing player to go near objects he have an implicit knowledge of. So we have to make our algorithm a tiny more permissive, by differentiating vision-obstructing tiles from others.
 
We should start by litting any wall that obstruct the view and the player is able to guess.
 
<pre>
<pre>
----#######----
----#######----
Line 48: Line 96:
----#####+#----
----#####+#----
</pre>
</pre>
Oh, I found a door ! But now, the fix breaks something else : if a monster opens the door, the door no longer obstruct my view, and it goes dark, thus allowing me predict a monster approach while a simple corridor shouldn't (chosen behavior in 1).  
 
That's why we need the most subtle approach : we are going to "flash" the walls and door i.e. mark them as seen in the memory map and display them as memorised tile. The player would not be able to know the door had opened at some point, since he doesn't see it - he just predicted it.
Now, the fix breaks something else : if a monster opens the door, the door is no longer obstructing player view. If we stick to original definition, it should go back in dark, thus allowing the player predict a monster opened it. This is unwanted.
Note that the player will still be able to guess a dark tile is not a wall in some cases, but this is a trouble we can't fix - if we flash floor tiles we allow the player to know door opens.
 
In most roguelikes the player have a map and fills it through exploring. If we want to give player knowledge of the layout, without giving informations of monsters being in it, we should mark them as seen in the memory map and display them as memorised tile. The player would know there has been an obstructing tile further and know it's nature, but not whether it have been opened or not before having a real line of sight.


==Implementation==
==Implementation==


The strength of this algorithm is that implementation is simple, exact (no artifact or asymmetry) and efficient CPU wise.
The strength of this algorithm is that implementation is simple, exact (no artifact or asymmetry) and somewhat efficient CPU wise.
You're goingto be casting a ray to each tile within a circle, hence this algorithm should be considered to be somewhere on an order of radius^3 cycles to compute.


We will rely on iteration of a custom los algorithm. This los algorithm calculate points distance to a line using it's equation. If a wall tile is at less than 0.5 distance of source-destination line, then we know it's obstructed.
We will rely on iteration of a custom los algorithm. This los algorithm calculate points distance to a line using it's equation. If a wall tile is at less than 0.5 distance of source-destination line, then we know it's obstructed.


Unlike ray casting, we won't lit the tiles we travel through when iterating a line ; for every target tile we have to build a line. The final tile is lit if and only if the line is unobstructed. We must also flash the obstructing wall in case a line of sight is obstructed.
For every target tile we have to build a line. The final tile is lit if and only if the line is unobstructed. We must also tag obstructing walls as memorised in case a line of sight is obstructed.


The following C++ code compute a radius-wide fov :
Following C code compute a radius-wide fov :
<pre>
<pre>


Line 66: Line 116:
{
{
     int i,j;
     int i,j;
     for (i = -(int)radius; i <= radius; i++) //remember to iterate out of map bounds as well
     for (i = -(int)radius; i <= radius; i++) //iterate out of map bounds as well (radius^1)
         for (j = -(int)radius; j <= radius; j++)
         for (j = -(int)radius; j <= radius; j++) //(radius^2)
             if(i * i + j * j < radius * radius && los(x, y, x+i, y+j))
             if(i * i + j * j < radius * radius)
                 lit(i,j);
                los(x, y, x + i, y + j);
                  
};
};


bool los(int x0, int y0, int x1, int y1)  
/* Los calculation */
// Adapt the funtion to your needs; my current version takes x0 and y0 by reference, and updates them on last iteration
void los(int x0, int y0, int x1, int y1)  
// This way I lit the obstructing walls out of los() so I can re-use the code for simple checks between two points
// By taking source by reference, litting can be done outside of this function which would be better made generic.
{
{
     int sx,sy, xnext, ynext, dx, dy;
     int sx, sy, xnext, ynext, dx, dy;
     float denom, dist;
     float dist;
     dx = x1-x0;
 
     dy = y1-y0;
     dx = x1 - x0;
     if (x0 < x1)
     dy = y1 - y0;
        sx = 1;
 
    else
    //determine which quadrant to we're calculating: we climb in these two directions
        sx = -1;
     sx = (x0 < x1) ? 1 : -1;
     if (y0 < y1)
     sy = (y0 < y1) ? 1 : -1;
        sy = 1;
 
    else
        sy = -1;
     xnext = x0;
     xnext = x0;
     ynext = y0;
     ynext = y0;
     denom = sqrt(dx * dx + dy * dy);
      
     while (xnext != x1 || ynext != y1)
    //calculate length of line to cast (distance from start to final tile)
    dist = sqrt(dx * dx + dy * dy);
 
     while (xnext != x1 || ynext != y1) //essentially casting a ray of length radius: (radius^3)
     {
     {
         // check map bounds here if needed, not on topest double loop, because we may lit a wall "aiming" out of map bounds
         // TODO: check map bounds if required
         if (map[xnext][ynext] == WALL) // or any equivalent
         if (map[xnext][ynext] == WALL) // or any equivalent
         {
         {
             flash(xnext, ynext); //obstructiong wall
             tag_memorised(xnext, ynext); // make a note of the wall
             return false;
             return;
         }
         }
         if(abs(dy * (xnext - x0 + sx) - dx * (ynext - y0)) / denom < 0.5f)
 
        // Line-to-point distance formula < 0.5
         if(abs(dy * (xnext - x0 + sx) - dx * (ynext - y0)) / dist < 0.5f)
             xnext += sx;
             xnext += sx;
         else if(abs(dy * (xnext - x0) - dx * (ynext - y0 + sy)) / denom < 0.5f)
         else if(abs(dy * (xnext - x0) - dx * (ynext - y0 + sy)) / dist < 0.5f)
             ynext += sy;
             ynext += sy;
         else
         else
Line 109: Line 164:
         }
         }
     }
     }
     return true;
     lit (x1, y1)
};
};
</pre>
</pre>
Line 115: Line 170:
==Efficiency==
==Efficiency==


The complexity of the algorithm is O(radius ^ 3) which is acceptable in most cases. In case CPU is critical, which is rarely the case, we may need to avoid repeating full computing of big fields (for example, computing a full fov per npc per move may hurt responsiveness). Fortunately the full field isn't needed to determine visibility of a single tile ; when needed we can use a single call to the los function ; you can for example use it when you need to check if a monster can see another monster/an item on the floor without computing full field. Also note that because of the symmetry, you don't need to compute B to A los if you've already done A to B.
Differentiating field computation from line computation makes it very efficient algorithm which can be used for large datas. The fact it is perfectly symetric also enable re-use of computations ; monsters that are lit by the player can be considered as seeing the player without los check.


[[Category:Developing]]
[[Category:Developing]]

Latest revision as of 04:41, 27 April 2017

Introduction

This article aim for developers looking for an uncommon elegant line of sight solution to implement themselves.

When looking for line of sight and field of view algorithms i was sure hoping there was the "simple and obvious way" to do things. There is not. In fact, there is close to a dozen of fov implementations to choose from in the wiki only, trying to emulate three main definitions (see next chapter).

Choice must depend of your programming skills of the RL programmer, and the desired behavior of your algorithm. There is several desired behaviors. If you haven't yet, check out Comparative_study_of_field_of_view_algorithms_for_2D_grid_based_worlds which is a great article to start with.

In this article, we are going to focus on the corner-peeking behavior, as it's a core problem of line of sight algorithmic.

Different definitions in a nutshell

########
.@......
####O###
---#.#--

The above example is a typical line of sight algorithm dilemma ; in the geometry, we may or may not consider walls obstruct @'s view to O, as well as we may or may not consider the reverse is true. It depends on how one defines the fact of "being able to see" in a grid based world. Here are the 3 valid (i.e. deterministic) ways to think about the problem :

- @ and O should see each other. That is to say, if there is any unobstructed line from viewer square to the object square the object is seen. This is Permissive_Field_of_View approach.

Pros : easier to explore. Symmetrical behavior. Lot of existing implementations.

Cons : Cautious gameplay made easier. Hard to hide from ranged combat. Single pillars can cast uncontinuous shadow.

- @ should see O but not the reverse. That is to say if there is any line from the center of the viewer square to the object square the object is seen. This is called Shadow casting approach.

Pros : Fairly aesthetical. Asymetry can create interesting gameplay. Lot of existing implementations.

Cons : Asymetric thus easily abused in ranged combat. Implementation and definitions may differ.

- @ and O shouldn't see each other. That is to say there must be center to center unobstructed line from viewer to object so that object is seen. We are going to discuss this approach.

Pros : Claustrophobic gameplay. Symetrical. Fairly aestetical. Fairly unique.

Cons : Sometimes can create uncontinuous ray of lights. Do-it-yourself implementation (although, the algorithm isn't complex).

Different situations

We are going to mark lit walls as '#' and unlit as '-', lit floor as '.', unlit as '?'.

Close pillars

??????.......
.?????.......
...????....??
.....?#..????
.......@#????
.........????
...........??

Distant pillar

..........???
........?????
......???????
....???????..
...#??.......
@............

The wall guessing problem

The main problem with the stricter solution is that the final display contain less information than the algorithm have used to calculate it. Let's use a simple example : Player is standing in a corridor.

------###------
.......@.......
------###------

Since I can't draw any unobstructed line to corridor walls center, according to definiton, player should only be able to see a single line and 6 wall units.

But the fact that his fov is reduced to a single line of floor clearly indicates the player he is standin in a corridor. If only the 6 lit walls were obstructing his vision, he'd see two clear cones of lit floor.

...         ...
..... ### .....
.......@.......
..... ### .....
...         ...

This makes exploration very tedious by forcing player to go near objects he have an implicit knowledge of. So we have to make our algorithm a tiny more permissive, by differentiating vision-obstructing tiles from others.

We should start by litting any wall that obstruct the view and the player is able to guess.

----#######----
.......@.......
----#####+#----

Now, the fix breaks something else : if a monster opens the door, the door is no longer obstructing player view. If we stick to original definition, it should go back in dark, thus allowing the player predict a monster opened it. This is unwanted.

In most roguelikes the player have a map and fills it through exploring. If we want to give player knowledge of the layout, without giving informations of monsters being in it, we should mark them as seen in the memory map and display them as memorised tile. The player would know there has been an obstructing tile further and know it's nature, but not whether it have been opened or not before having a real line of sight.

Implementation

The strength of this algorithm is that implementation is simple, exact (no artifact or asymmetry) and somewhat efficient CPU wise. You're goingto be casting a ray to each tile within a circle, hence this algorithm should be considered to be somewhere on an order of radius^3 cycles to compute.

We will rely on iteration of a custom los algorithm. This los algorithm calculate points distance to a line using it's equation. If a wall tile is at less than 0.5 distance of source-destination line, then we know it's obstructed.

For every target tile we have to build a line. The final tile is lit if and only if the line is unobstructed. We must also tag obstructing walls as memorised in case a line of sight is obstructed.

Following C code compute a radius-wide fov :


void fov(int x, int y)
{
    int i,j;
    for (i = -(int)radius; i <= radius; i++) //iterate out of map bounds as well (radius^1)
        for (j = -(int)radius; j <= radius; j++) //(radius^2)
            if(i * i + j * j < radius * radius)
                los(x, y, x + i, y + j);
 
                
};

/* Los calculation */
void los(int x0, int y0, int x1, int y1) 
// By taking source by reference, litting can be done outside of this function which would be better made generic.
{
    int sx, sy, xnext, ynext, dx, dy;
    float dist;

    dx = x1 - x0;
    dy = y1 - y0;

    //determine which quadrant to we're calculating: we climb in these two directions
    sx = (x0 < x1) ? 1 : -1;
    sy = (y0 < y1) ? 1 : -1;

    xnext = x0;
    ynext = y0;
    
    //calculate length of line to cast (distance from start to final tile)
    dist = sqrt(dx * dx + dy * dy);

    while (xnext != x1 || ynext != y1) //essentially casting a ray of length radius: (radius^3)
    {
        // TODO: check map bounds if required
        if (map[xnext][ynext] == WALL) // or any equivalent
        {
            tag_memorised(xnext, ynext); // make a note of the wall
            return;
        }

        // Line-to-point distance formula < 0.5 
        if(abs(dy * (xnext - x0 + sx) - dx * (ynext - y0)) / dist < 0.5f)
            xnext += sx;
        else if(abs(dy * (xnext - x0) - dx * (ynext - y0 + sy)) / dist < 0.5f)
            ynext += sy;
        else
        {
            xnext += sx;
            ynext += sy;
        }
    }
    lit (x1, y1)
};

Efficiency

Differentiating field computation from line computation makes it very efficient algorithm which can be used for large datas. The fact it is perfectly symetric also enable re-use of computations ; monsters that are lit by the player can be considered as seeing the player without los check.