I have a rectangular map, stored as multidimensional array (ie $map[row][col]) and I have to track down which squares are seen by a player, placed anywhere on this map.
Player visibility is circular with unknown radius (but given at run-time) and I only need integer solutions.
I know that circumference formula is
x^2 + y^2 <= r^2
but how can I store everything?
I need these values since then I can "reveal" map squares.
The best would be a multidimesional array (ie __$sol[x][y]__).
This is a piece of code that I'm using. It's not corrected since it assumes that vision is a square and not a circle.
Calculating the square
$this->vision_offsets_2 = array();
//visibility given as r^2
$mx = (int)(sqrt($this->viewradius2));
$mxArr = range($mx * -1, $mx + 1);
foreach ($mxArr as $d_row)
{
foreach ($mxArr as $d_col)
{
$this->vision_offsets_2[] = array($d_row, $d_col);
}
}
This is how I apply that
foreach($player as $bot)
{
foreach($visibility as $offset)
{
$vision_row = $offset[0] + $bot[0];
$vision_col = $offset[1] + $bot[1];
if(isset($map[$vision_row][$vision_col]))
{
if( $map[$vision_row][$vision_col] == UNSEEN) {
$map[$vision_row][$vision_col] = LAND; }
}
}
}
Here you can find the bot view: as you can see is a non perfect circle.
How can I track it? By the way, in this example radius^2 is 55, the orange circle is the player, brown squares are visible ones.
Structure
You're already referencing terrain in a grid. Store terrain objects in those grid values. Apply attributes to those objects. Check with something like
$map[$x][$y]->isVisible($player);
You'll need some methods in there for setting vision and tests for checking the user that is passed against a list of users who can see it. While you're at it, setup other related methods in those objects (I see references to land... isLand() and isWater() perhaps?).
You can even have vision cascade within objects such that you only need to move the position of a user and the object takes care of triggering off all the code to set nearby plots of land to visible.
Math
We are given circumference.
double diameter = circumference / 3.14159
double radius = diameter / 2 //Normally done in one step / variable
Now we must know the distance between two points to compare it. Let's use map[4][7] and map[3][9].
int x0 = 4;
int y0 = 7;
int x1 = 3;
int y1 = 9;
double distance = Math.sqrt(
Math.pow(x0 - x1, 2) +
Math.pow(y0 - y1, 2)
);
System.out.println(distance); //2.23606797749979
Test distance > radius.
Testing each square
Put the above in a method: visibleFrom(Square target)
radius should be a globally accessible static variable when comparing.
Your Square object should be able to hand over its coordinates.
target.getX()
target.getY()
Some optimizations can be had
Only checking things for circular distance when they're in the square.
Not checking anything for circular distance when purely along the x or y axis.
Figuring out the largest square that fits inside the circle and not checking boxes in that range for circular distance.
Remember that premature optimization and over optimization are pitfalls.
A function like this would tell you if a map square is visible (using the distance of the centers of the squares as a metric; if you want to define visibility in another manner, which you probably would, things get much more complicated):
function is_visible($mapX, $mapX, $playerX, $playerY, $r) {
return sqrt(pow($mapX - $playerX, 2) + pow($mapY - $playerY, 2)) <= $r;
}
You probably don't really need to store these values since you can easily calculate them on demand.
I think that Bresenham's circle drawing algorithm is what you're looking for.
I don't know exactly what you want, but here's some things that should help you along. As a warning these are untested, but the logic is sound.
//You mentioned circumference, this will find out the circumference but I don't
//think you actually need it.
$circumference_length = 2 * $visibility_range * 3.1415;
//Plug in the player and target coordinates and how far you can see, this will
//tell you if the player can see it. This can be optimized using your object
//and player Objects.
function canSee($player_x, $player_y, $vision_length, $target_x, $target_y){
$difference_x = $target_x - $player_x;
$difference_y = $target_y - $player_y;
$distance = sqrt((pow($difference_x,2) + pow($difference_y, 2));
if($vision < $distance){
return false;
} else {
return true;
}
}
Edit: In response to your clarification, you can use the above function to figure out if you should show the terrain objects or not.
foreach($player as $bot)
{
foreach($terrain_thing as $terrain)
{
//ASSUMING THAT [0] IS ALWAYS X AND [1] IS ALWAYS y, set a third variable
//to indicate visibility
$terrain["is_visible"] = canSee($bot[0], $bot[1], $visibility_range, $terrain[0], $terrain[1])
}
}
Related
I've been thinking about ways to program for exteme distances, in the game Hellion for example, orbits could be near to scale in the ranges of millions of kilometers. However there was a common glitch where movement would be very choppy the further you were from the object you were orbiting. I might be wrong in my speculation to why that was, but my best guess was that it was down to loss of precision at that distance.
As a little exercise I've been thinking about ways to solve that problem and what I currently have is a a pretty basic unit staged distance system.
class Distance
{
public const MAX_AU = 63018.867924528;
public const MAX_MM = 149598000000000;
private $ly = 0;
private $au = 0;
private $mm = 0;
public function add(Distance $add): Distance
{
$distance = new Distance();
$distance->mm = $this->mm + $add->mm;
if ($distance->mm > self::MAX_MM) {
$distance->mm-= self::self::MAX_MM;
$distance->au++;
}
$distance->au+= $this->au + $add->au;
if ($distance->au > self::MAX_AU) {
$distance->au-= self::self::MAX_AU;
$distance->ly++;
}
$distance->ly+= $this->ly + $add->ly;
return $distance;
}
}
I put in the addition method, which is written as though by hand. I didn't want to use arbitary precision because it would have been too extreme for calculating the smaller distances a player would normally interact with.
My question is; is this how something like this is normally done? and if not, could someone please explain what is wrong with this (inefficient for example), and how it could be done better?
Thanks
PS. I am aware that in the context of a game, this is normally handled with sub-grids, but to simulate how objects in orbit would drift apart, thats what this is for.
You can use the BCMath functions. BCMath supports numbers of any size and precision.
Example:
$mm = "149598000000000";
$au = "63018.867924528";
$sum = bcadd($mm,$au,10);
echo $sum;
//149598000063018.8679245280
I have a golf league of 40 individuals. We all throw money in a pot and pay out the first 6 places based on final score.
If there were no ties the pay out would be simple but often we have, for example, 2 people tied for first place, 3 people tied for second, 1 person alone in third, etc. The variations seem endless.
I've been trying to automate the calculated payouts for each place using PHP but have not been successful. Any suggestions, help, or pointing in the right direction would be much appreciated. I noticed that someone else tried to ask a similar question on this site but was not successful in framing the question. I'll try to do a better job.
Here is some data I've been playing around with:
$playerNumber=40;
$totalPoints=100;
Payouts:
$pointsFirst=0.6*$totalPoints;
$pointsSecond=0.2*$totalPoints;
$pointsThird=0.15*$totalPoints;
$pointsFourth=0.03*$totalPoints;
$pointsFifth=0.02*$totalPoints;
$pointsSixth=0.01*$totalPoints;
For the example given above and to pay out six places, we would calculate the payouts as follows:
If two people are tied for first place, we add first and second place points and divide by two.
If three people are tied for second place, we add third, fourth and fifth place points and divide by three.
If one person is alone in third, this person would win sixth place points.
I can count the number of players who are in or tied for a certain place.
$countFirst=2;
$countSecond=3;
$countThird=1;
$countFourth=2;
$countFifth=1;
$countSixth=2;
In this example the player scores would be 72, 72, 73, 73, 73, 74, 75, 75, 76, 77, 77.
At first I thought this was an application for nested arrays. Then I thought perhaps using arrays, array slice, etc, may be a way to go. Each time I end up in the woods. I'm not seeing the logic.
I have used conditional statements for paying out three places but to pay out six places with this method puts me deep in the woods.
Example of payout to three places using conditional statements:
$pointsFirst=0.5*$totalPoints;
$pointsSecond=0.3*$totalPoints;
$pointsThird=0.2*$totalPoints;
if($countFirst>2) {
$ptsA=round($totalPoints/$countFirst,2);
}
elseif($countFirst==2) {
$ptsA=round(($pointsFirst+$pointsSecond)/2,2);
if($countSecond>1) {
$ptsB=round($pointsThird/$countSecond,2);
}
elseif($countSecond==1) {
$ptsB=round($pointsThird,2);
}
}
elseif($countFirst==1) {
$ptsA=round($pointsFirst,2);
if($countSecond>1) {
$ptsB=round(($pointsSecond+$pointsThird)/2,2);
}
elseif($countSecond==1) {
$ptsB=round($pointsSecond,2);
if($countThird>1) {
$ptsC=round($pointsThird/$countThird,2);
}
elseif($countThird==1) {
$ptsC=round($pointsThird,2);
}
}
}
I hope I have been clear in my request. I'll be glad to clarify anything. If anyone has any ideas on how to efficiently automate a payout calculation to six places I will be eternally grateful. Thank-you! Mike
Per request:
$scores=array();
$scores[0]=72;
$scores[1]=72;
$scores[2]=73;
$scores[3]=73;
$scores[4]=73;
$scores[5]=74;
$scores[6]=75;
$scores[7]=75;
$scores[8]=76;
$scores[9]=77;
$scores[10]=77;
$payout=array();
$payout[0]=0.6*$totalPoints;
$payout[1]=0.2*$totalPoints;
$payout[2]=0.15*$totalPoints;
$payout[3]=0.03*$totalPoints;
$payout[4]=0.02*$totalPoints;
$payout[5]=0.01*$totalPoints;
$countScores=array();
$countScores[0]=$countFirst;
$countScores[1]=$countSecond;
$countScores[2]=$countThird;
$countScores[3]=$countFourth;
$countScores[4]=$countFifth;
$countScores[5]=$countSixth;
First, there is a problem with your Payouts. If you add them up you get 1.01 not 1
0.6 (1st) + 0.2 (2nd ) + 0.15 (3rd) + 0.03 (4th) + 0.02 (5th) + 0.01 (6th) = 1.01
Second, it is easier if you make your Payouts and Counts into arrays -
change these -
$pointsFirst=0.6*$totalPoints;
$pointsSecond=0.2*$totalPoints;
$pointsThird=0.15*$totalPoints;
$pointsFourth=0.03*$totalPoints;
$pointsFifth=0.02*$totalPoints;
$pointsSixth=0.01*$totalPoints;
$countFirst=2;
$countSecond=3;
$countThird=1;
$countFourth=2;
$countFifth=1;
$countSixth=2;
to these
$payout=array();
$payout[0]=0.6*$totalPoints;
$payout[1]=0.2*$totalPoints;
$payout[2]=0.15*$totalPoints;
$payout[3]=0.03*$totalPoints;
$payout[4]=0.02*$totalPoints;
$payout[5]=0.01*$totalPoints;
$count=array();
$count[0]=2;
$count[1]=3;
$count[2]=1;
$count[3]=2;
$count[4]=1;
$count[5]=2;
Here is the start of one way to do it. Although I would eventually change this into a function so that I can use it again with different payouts, and number of places (see phpfiddle examples below)
I see this in 4 steps-
Step 1
// Add together the payments if there are ties - ie. 2 tied for first $payout[0]+$payout[1], etc
$payout_groups = array(); // start a payout array
$payout_groups_key = 0; // array key count
$payout_groups_count = 0; // array counter, use to match the $count array values
for($w=0;$w<count($payout);$w++){ //
if(array_key_exists($payout_groups_key,$payout_groups)){
$payout_groups[$payout_groups_key] += $payout[$w]; // if there are ties, add them together
}
else{
$payout_groups[$payout_groups_key] = $payout[$w]; // else set a new payout level
}
$payout_groups_count++; // increase the counter
if($payout_groups_count == $count[$payout_groups_key]){ // if we merged all the ties, set a new array key and restart the counter
$payout_groups_key++;
$payout_groups_count = 0;
}
}
Step 2
// basic counter to get how many placers/winners. This makes it possible to have ties for 6th (last) place
$x = 0;
$y = 0;
while($y < count($payout)){
$y += $count[$x]; // the $count array values until we reach the amount of places/payouts
$x++;
}
Step 3
// Create array for winnings per placing
$winnings = array(); // start an array
$placings_count = 0; //
$placings_counter = 0;
for($z=0;$z<$y;$z++){
$winnings[$z] = $payout_groups[$placings_count]/$count[$placings_count];
$placings_counter++;
if($placings_counter == $count[$placings_count]){
$placings_count++;
$placings_counter = 0;
}
}
Step 4
// Assign winnings to scorecard
$scoreboard = array();
for($t=0;$t<count($winnings);$t++){
$scoreboard[$t]['score'] = $scores[$t];
$scoreboard[$t]['payout'] = $winnings[$t];
}
You can see this using your defined values at - http://phpfiddle.org/main/code/a1g-qu0
Using the same code above, I changed the payout amounts, and increased it to 7th places - http://phpfiddle.org/main/code/uxi-qgt
I need to go through an array containing points in a map and check their distance from one another. I need to count how many nodes are within 200m and 50m of each one. It works fine for smaller amounts of values. However when I tried to run more values through it (around 4000 for scalability testing) an error occurs saying that I have reached the maximum execution time of 300 seconds. It needs to be able to handle at least this much within 300 seconds if possible.
I have read around and found out that there is a way to disable/change this limit, but I would like to know if there is a simpler way of executing the following code so that the time it takes to run it will decrease.
for($i=0;$i<=count($data)-1;$i++)
{
$amount200a=0;
$amount200p=0;
$amount50a=0;
$amount50p=0;
$distance;
for($_i=0;$_i<=count($data)-1;$_i++)
{
$distance=0;
if($data[$i][0]===$data[$_i][0])
{
}
else
{
//echo "Comparing ".$data[$i][0]." and ".$data[$_i][0]." ";
$lat_a = $data[$i][1] * PI()/180;
$lat_b = $data[$_i][1] * PI()/180;
$long_a = $data[$i][2] * PI()/180;
$long_b = $data[$_i][2] * PI()/180;
$distance =
acos(
sin($lat_a ) * sin($lat_b) +
cos($lat_a) * cos($lat_b) * cos($long_b - $long_a)
) * 6371;
$distance*=1000;
if ($distance<=50)
{
$amount50a++;
$amount200a++;
}
else if ($distance<=200)
{
$amount200a++;
}
}
}
$amount200p=100*number_format($amount200a/count($data),2,'.','');
$amount50p=100*number_format($amount50a/count($data),2,'.','');
/*
$dist[$i][0]=$data[$i][0];
$dist[$i][1]=$amount200a;
$dist[$i][2]=$amount200p;
$dist[$i][3]=$amount50a;
$dist[$i][4]=$amount50p;
//*/
$dist.=$data[$i][0]."&&".$amount200a."&&".$amount200p."&&".$amount50a."&&".$amount50p."%%";
}
Index 0 contains the unique ID of each node, 1 contains the latitude of each node and
index 2 contains the longitude of each node.
The error occurs at the second for loop inside the first loop. This loop is the one comparing the selected map node to other nodes. I am also using the Haversine Formula.
first of all, you are performing in big O notation: O(data^2), which is gonna be slow as hell , and really, either there are 2 possible solutions. Find a proven algorithm that solves the same problem in a better time. Or if you cant, start moving stuff out of the innner for loop, and mathmatically prove if you can convert the inner for loop to mostly simple calculations, which is often something you can do.
after some rewriting, I see some possiblities:
If $data is not a SPLFixedArray (which has a FAR Better access time, ) then make it. since you are accessing that data so many times (4000^2)*2.
secound, write cleaner code. although the optizmier will do its best, if you dont try either to minize the code (which only makes it more readable), then it might not be able to do it as well as possible.
and move intermediate results out of the loops, also something like the size of the array.
Currently you're checking all points against all other points, where in fact you only need to check the current point against all remaining points. The distance from A to B is the same as the distance from B to A, so why calculate it twice?
I would probably make an adjacent array that counts how many nodes are within range of each other, and increment pairs of entries in that array after I've calculated that two nodes are within range of each other.
You should probably come up with a very fast approximation of the distance that can be used to disregard as many nodes as possible before calculating the real distance (which is never going to be super fast).
Generally speaking, beyond algorithmic optimisations, the basic rules of optimisation are:
Don't any processing that you don't have to do: Like not multiplying $distance by 1000. Just change the values you're testing against from 20 and 50 to 0.02 and 0.05, respectively.
Don't call any function more often than you have to: You only need to call count($data) once before any processing starts.
Don't calculate constant values more than once: PI()/180, for example.
Move all possible processing outside of loops. I.e. precalculate as much as possible.
Another minor point which will make your code a little easier to read:
for( $i = 0; $i <= count( $data ) - 1; $i++ ) is the same as:
for( $i = 0; $i < count( $data ); $i++ )
Try this:
$max = count($data);
$CONST_PI = PI() / 180;
for($i=0;$i<$max;$i++)
{
$amount200a=0;
$amount50a=0;
$long_a = $data[$i][2] * $CONST_PI;
$lat_a = $data[$i][1] * $CONST_PI;
for($_i=0;$_i<=$max;$_i++)
//or use for($_i=($i+1);$_i<=$max;$_i++) if you did not need to calculate already calculated in other direction
{
$distance=0;
if($data[$i][0]===$data[$_i][0]) continue;
$lat_b = $data[$_i][1] * $CONST_PI;
$long_b = $data[$_i][2] * $CONST_PI;
$distance =
acos(
sin($lat_a ) * sin($lat_b) +
cos($lat_a) * cos($lat_b) * cos($long_b - $long_a)
) * 6371;
if ($distance<=0.2)
{
$amount200a++;
if ($distance<=0.05)
{
$amount50a++;
}
}
} // for %_i
$amount200p=100*number_format($amount200a/$max,2,'.','');
$amount50p=100*number_format($amount50a/$max,2,'.','');
$dist.=$data[$i][0]."&&".$amount200a."&&".$amount200p."&&".$amount50a."&&".$amount50p."%%";
} // for $i
It will be better to read I think and if you change the commented out line of the for $_i it will be faster at all :)
Closed. This question needs debugging details. It is not currently accepting answers.
Edit the question to include desired behavior, a specific problem or error, and the shortest code necessary to reproduce the problem. This will help others answer the question.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I saw on StackOverflow a "point in polygon" raytracing algorithm that I implemented in my PHP Code. Most of the time, it works well, but in some complicated cases, with complex polygons and vicious points, it fails and it says that point in not in polygon when it is.
For example:
You will find here my Polygon and Point classes: pointInPolygon method is in Polygon class. At the end of the file, there are two points that are supposed to lie inside the given polygon (True on Google Earth). The second one works well, but the first one is buggy :( .
You can easily check the polygon on Google Earth using this KML file.
Have been there :-) I also travelled through Stackoverflow's PiP-suggestions, including your reference and this thread. Unfortunately, none of the suggestions (at least those I tried) were flawless and sufficient for a real-life scenario: like users plotting complex polygons on a Google map in freehand, "vicious" right vs left issues, negative numbers and so on.
The PiP-algorithm must work in all cases, even if the polygon consists of hundreds of thousands of points (like a county-border, nature park and so on) - no matter how "crazy" the polygon is.
So I ended up building a new algorithm, based on some source from an astronomy-app:
//Point class, storage of lat/long-pairs
class Point {
public $lat;
public $long;
function Point($lat, $long) {
$this->lat = $lat;
$this->long = $long;
}
}
//the Point in Polygon function
function pointInPolygon($p, $polygon) {
//if you operates with (hundred)thousands of points
set_time_limit(60);
$c = 0;
$p1 = $polygon[0];
$n = count($polygon);
for ($i=1; $i<=$n; $i++) {
$p2 = $polygon[$i % $n];
if ($p->long > min($p1->long, $p2->long)
&& $p->long <= max($p1->long, $p2->long)
&& $p->lat <= max($p1->lat, $p2->lat)
&& $p1->long != $p2->long) {
$xinters = ($p->long - $p1->long) * ($p2->lat - $p1->lat) / ($p2->long - $p1->long) + $p1->lat;
if ($p1->lat == $p2->lat || $p->lat <= $xinters) {
$c++;
}
}
$p1 = $p2;
}
// if the number of edges we passed through is even, then it's not in the poly.
return $c%2!=0;
}
Illustrative test :
$polygon = array(
new Point(1,1),
new Point(1,4),
new Point(4,4),
new Point(4,1)
);
function test($lat, $long) {
global $polygon;
$ll=$lat.','.$long;
echo (pointInPolygon(new Point($lat,$long), $polygon)) ? $ll .' is inside polygon<br>' : $ll.' is outside<br>';
}
test(2, 2);
test(1, 1);
test(1.5333, 2.3434);
test(400, -100);
test(1.01, 1.01);
Outputs :
2,2 is inside polygon
1,1 is outside
1.5333,2.3434 is inside polygon
400,-100 is outside
1.01,1.01 is inside polygon
It is now more than a year since I switched to the above algorithm on several sites. Unlike the "SO-algorithms" there have not been any complaints so far. See it in action here (national mycological database, sorry for the Danish). You can plot a polygon, or select a "kommune" (a county) - ultimately compare a polygon with thousands of points to thousands of records).
Update
Note, this algorithm is targeting geodata / lat,lngs which can be very precise (n'th decimal), therefore considering "in polygon" as inside polygon - not on border of polygon. 1,1 is considered outside, since it is on the border. 1.0000000001,1.01 is not.
I have a question regarding Map tile server and coordinates conversion in Google Maps using the Google Maps Utility library.
My tile server accesses a database with thousands of gps coordinates (lat,lng), and for every (lat,lng) point, checks if the point is inside the geographical bounds of the tile; if it does, coordinates conversion (WGS84 -> Mercator -> X,Y offset inside the tile) and paints the corresponding pixel inside the tile, using the GoogleMapsUtility Library.
In terms of code, I do the following:
$point = GoogleMapUtility::getOffsetPixelCoords((float)$row['lat'], (float)$row['lng'], $zoom, $X, $Y);
which calls the getOffsetPixelCoords function (and in turn the functions below) from the library:
public static function getOffsetPixelCoords($lat,$lng,$zoom, $X, $Y)
{
$pixelCoords = GoogleMapUtility::getPixelCoords($lat, $lng, $zoom);
return new Point(
$pixelCoords->x - $X * GoogleMapUtility::TILE_SIZE,
$pixelCoords->y - $Y * GoogleMapUtility::TILE_SIZE
);
}
public static function getPixelCoords($lat, $lng, $zoom)
{
$normalised = GoogleMapUtility::_toNormalisedMercatorCoords(GoogleMapUtility::_toMercatorCoords($lat, $lng));
$scale = (1 << ($zoom)) * GoogleMapUtility::TILE_SIZE;
return new Point(
(int)($normalised->x * $scale),
(int)($normalised->y * $scale)
);
}
private static function _toNormalisedMercatorCoords($point)
{
$point->x += 0.5;
$point->y = abs($point->y-0.5);
return $point;
}
Ok, now the results. For a zoom level<13 it works great, below is an example of a tile in Zoom level 11:
Image1
However, for a tile in zoom level >13, the following happens:
Image2
Which is so strange... the pixels seem to be perfectly aligned ? At first I thought it is a decimal resolution problem, but the resolution of the data is quite good (stored as double in a mysql database, for example, 35.6185989379883, 139.731994628906, and in php floats and doubles are the same thing...)
Could someone help me on how to fix this problem?
Thanks in advance...
Why do you use type casting on the result of the database query? In the example of the book googlemapsutility it's not there?