Talk:Simple and accurate LOS function for BlitzMax

From RogueBasin
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Aha! That's why it can leak through.)
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
In the normal course of things, rays should never 'leak' through no matter what density you are sending out. Looking at your algorithm, I see that it is because you are increasing both x and y by a fixed amount every iteration. This means that if the line cuts through a square in the right way, then that square will never be checked for being blocked by a given line. The way to correct this is to do something closer to Bresenham's Algorithm. That would make the algorithm a bit more complicated, but would probably reduce artifacts. [[User:Duerig|Duerig]] 22:52, 12 June 2008 (CEST)
 
In the normal course of things, rays should never 'leak' through no matter what density you are sending out. Looking at your algorithm, I see that it is because you are increasing both x and y by a fixed amount every iteration. This means that if the line cuts through a square in the right way, then that square will never be checked for being blocked by a given line. The way to correct this is to do something closer to Bresenham's Algorithm. That would make the algorithm a bit more complicated, but would probably reduce artifacts. [[User:Duerig|Duerig]] 22:52, 12 June 2008 (CEST)
 +
 +
Good point,
 +
I should point out that with a step size of 0.18, I don't get any kind of visual artifacts and 100% uniform coverage in every map type.

Latest revision as of 23:16, 12 June 2008

In the normal course of things, rays should never 'leak' through no matter what density you are sending out. Looking at your algorithm, I see that it is because you are increasing both x and y by a fixed amount every iteration. This means that if the line cuts through a square in the right way, then that square will never be checked for being blocked by a given line. The way to correct this is to do something closer to Bresenham's Algorithm. That would make the algorithm a bit more complicated, but would probably reduce artifacts. Duerig 22:52, 12 June 2008 (CEST)

Good point, I should point out that with a step size of 0.18, I don't get any kind of visual artifacts and 100% uniform coverage in every map type.

Personal tools