This is a bit of a vague question but bear with me. I am in the process of writing a game using Python/Pyglet and openGL. I currently have it structured so that there is an object called 'world', in this are other objects with other objects inside them etc. I did it this way because for instance one part of the game is a platform with other objects on it, and when I tilt the platform I want the objects on it to tilt with it. So I do platform.draw() which calls glRotate, glTranslate, then draw each of the objects saving the modelview matrix inbetween, this way all the objects on the platform move together.
The first question is, is this a sensible way to organise things or should I be using some other method?
I don't have a camera class, currently I am just translating the whole world or parts of it to give the illusion of movement. However, in the future I want to be able to switch viewpoints between objects, so for instance switch from looking down onto the world from above to a 1st person view from one of the objects in the world. So the second question is what is the best way to structure my program so that this will be achievable in the future?
Not probably a full answer, but i think a full one would take a whole book...
What you are doing with your representation of the world in a hierarchy is very similar to what is usually known as "scene-graph", and it is a good idea in many cases. A good example of a library to do precisly this is Open Scene Graph.
About "translating the world", unless you are really transforming all the vertices every time, it is also perfectly fine. It is just a matter of relative point of view and what your really have is the same that a camera matrix. You can see the transformation as placing the camera in the world, or as moving the world in front of the camera.
You could put the logic into a seperate module / into seperate classes/functions.
In my 2D-Game I have a GameLogic class which simplifies registering it's methods for certain events or scheduling them (and unregistering+unscheduling them), and I created a #state_wrapper decorator which injects a simple new-style object as state-storage for that method. If you do it like that you don't have to pass the pointer to all your world objects, only the event-methods have to get access to your objects.
But I wouldn't claim that this is the best solution ;)
Related
This may sound more like a rant to some extent, but I also would like to have your opinion on how to deal with the inconsistencies when using python scripting in abaqus.
here my example: in my rootAssembly (ra) I have three instances called a, b, c. in the script below I assign general seed, then mesh control, and element types, finally I generate the mesh:
ra.seedPartInstance(regions=(a,b,c), size=1.0)
ra.setMeshControls(elemShape=QUAD,
regions=(a.faces+b.faces+c.faces),
technique=STRUCTURED)
ra.setElementType(
elemTypes=eltyp,
regions=(a.faces,b.faces,c.faces))
ra.generateMesh(regions=(a,b,c))
As you can see, ABAQUS requires you to define the same region in several different modes.
Even though the argument is called "regions", ABAQUS either asks for a Set, or a Vertex, or a GeomSequence.
how do you deal with this? scripting feels a lot like trial and error, as there is no way to know in advance what is expected.
any suggestions?
Yes, there is clearly "a way to know in advance what is expected" - the docs. These spell out exactly what arguments are allowed.
But seriously - I see no inconsistency in your example. In practice, the reuse of the argument regions makes complete sense when you consider the context for what each of the functions actually do. Consider how the word "region" is a useful conceptual framework that can be adapted to easily allow the user to specify the necessary info for a variety of different tasks.
Now consider the complexity of the underlying system that the Python API exposes, and the variety of tasks that different users want to control and do with that underlying system. I doubt it would be simpler if the args were named something like seq_of_geomCells_geomFaces_or_geomSets. Or even worse, if there were a different argument for each allowable model entity that the function was designed to handle - that would be a nightmare. In this respect, the reuse of the keyword regions as a logical conceptual framework makes complete sense.
ok, i read now from the documentation of the three commands used above:
seedPartInstance(...)
regions: A sequence of PartInstance objects specifying the part instances to seed.
setMeshControls(...)
regions: A sequence of Face or Cell regions specifying the regions for which to set the mesh control parameters.
setElementType(...)
regions: A sequence of Geometry regions or MeshElement objects, or a Set object containing either geometry regions or elements, specifying the regions to which element types are to be assigned.
ok, i get the difference between partInstances and faces, but still it's not extremely clear why one is appended (using commas) and the other is added (using +), since they both call for a Sequence, and at this point, how does setElementType even works when passing faces objects to it?
I will take some more time to learn ABAQUS and to think through it, hopefully i can understand truly these differences.
I have load an obj file to render my opengl model using pyopengl and pygame. The 3D model show successfully.
Below is the 3D model i render with obj file, Now i cut my model into ten pieces through y axis , my question is how to get the sectional drawing in each piece?
I'm really very new to openGL, Is there any way can do that?
There are two ways to do this and both use clipping to "slice" the object.
In older versions of OpenGL you can use user clip planes to "isolate" the slices you desire. You probably want to rotate the object before you clip it, but it's unclear from your question. You will need to call glClipPlane() and you will need to enable it using glEnable with the argument GL_CLIP_PLANE0, GL_CLIP_PLANE1, ...
If you don't understand what a plane equation is you will have to read up on that.
In theory you should check to see how many user clip planes exist on your GPU by calling glGetIntegerv with argument GL_MAX_CLIP_PLANES but all GPUs support at least 6.
Since user clip planes are deprecated in modern Core OpenGL you will need to use a shader to get the same effect. See gl_ClipDistance[]
Searching around on Google should get you plenty of examples for either of these.
Sorry not to provide source code but I don't like to post code unless I am 100% sure it works and I don't have the time right now to check it. However I am 100% sure you can easily find some great examples on the internet.
Finally, if you can't make it work with clip planes and some hacks to make the cross sections visible then this may indeed be complicated because creating closed cross sections from an existing model is a hard problem.
You would need to split the object, and then rotate the pieces so that they are seen from the side. (Or move the camera. The two ideas are equivalent. But if you're coding this from scratch, you don't really have the abstraction of a 'camera'.) At that point, you can just render all the slices.
This is complicated to do in raw OpenGL and python, essentially because objects in OpenGL are not solid. I would highly recommend that you slice the object into pieces ahead of time in a modeling program. If you need to drive those operations with scripting, perhaps look into Blender's python scripting system.
Now, to explain why:
When you slice a real-life orange, you expect to get cross sections. You expect to be able to see the flesh of the fruit inside, with all those triangular pieces.
There is nothing inside a standard polygonal 3D model.
Additionally, as the rind of a real orange has thickness, it is possible to view the rind from the side. In contrast, one face of a 3D model is infinitely thin, so when you view it from the side, you will see nothing at all. So if you were to render the slices of this simple model, from the side, each render would be completely blank.
(Well, the bits at the end will have 'caps', like the ends of a loaf a bread, but the middle sections will be totally invisible.)
Without a programming library that has a conception of what a cut is, this will get very complicated, very fast. Simply making the cuts is not enough. You must seal up the holes created by slicing into the original shape, if you want to see the cross-sections. However, filling up the cross sections has to be done intelligently, otherwise you'll wind up with all sorts of weird shading artifacts (fyi: this is caused by n-gons, if you want to go discover more about those issues).
To return to the original statement:
Modeling programs are designed to address problems such as these, so I would suggest you leverage their power if possible. Or at least, you can examine how Blender implements this functionality, as it is open source.
In Blender, you could make these cuts with the knife tool*, and then fill up the holes with the 'make face' command (just hit F). Very simple, even for those who are not great at art. I encourage you to learn a little bit about 3D modeling before doing too much 3D programming. It personally helped me a lot.
*(The loop cut tool may do the job as well, but it's hard to tell without understanding the topology of your model. You probably don't want to get into understanding topology right now, so just use the knife)
I'm learning python and I'm not sure of understanding the following statement : "The function (including its name) can capture our mental chunking, or abstraction, of the problem."
It's the part that is in bold that I don't understand the meaning in terms of programming. The quote comes from http://www.openbookproject.net/thinkcs/python/english3e/functions.html
How to think like a computer scientist, 3 edition.
Thank you !
Abstraction is a core concept in all of computer science. Without abstraction, we would still be programming in machine code or worse not have computers in the first place. So IMHO that's a really good question.
What is abstraction
Abstracting something means to give names to things, so that the name captures the core of what a function or a whole program does.
One example is given in the book you reference, where it says
Suppose we’re working with turtles, and a common operation we need is
to draw squares. “Draw a square” is an abstraction, or a mental chunk,
of a number of smaller steps. So let’s write a function to capture the
pattern of this “building block”:
Forget about the turtles for a moment and just think of drawing a square. If I tell you to draw a square (on paper), you immediately know what to do:
draw a square => draw a rectangle with all sides of the same length.
You can do this without further questions because you know by heart what a square is, without me telling you step by step. Here, the word square is the abstraction of "draw a rectangle with all sides of the same length".
Abstractions run deep
But wait, how do you know what a rectangle is? Well, that's another abstraction for the following:
rectangle => draw two lines parallel to each other, of the same length, and then add another two parallel lines perpendicular to the other two lines, again of the same length but possibly of different length than the first two.
Of course it goes on and on - lines, parallel, perpendicular, connecting are all abstractions of well-known concepts.
Now, imagine each time you want a rectangle or a square to be drawn you have to give the full definition of a rectangle, or explain lines, parallel lines, perpendicular lines and connecting lines -- it would take far too long to do so.
The real power of abstraction
That's the first power of abstractions: they make talking and getting things done much easier.
The second power of abstractions comes from the nice property of composability: once you have defined abstractions, you can compose two or more abstractions to form a new, larger abstraction: say you are tired of drawing squares, but you really want to draw a house. Assume we have already defined the triangle, so then we can define:
house => draw a square with a triangle on top of it
Next, you want a village:
village => draw multiple houses next to each other
Oh wait, we want a city -- and we have a new concept street:
city => draw many villages close to each other, fill empty spaces with more houses, but leave room for streets
street => (some definition of street)
and so on...
How does this all apply to programmming?
If in the course of planning your program (a process known as analysis and design), you find good abstractions to the problem you are trying to solve, your programs become shorter, hence easier to write and - maybe more importantly - easier to read. The way to do this is to try and grasp the major concepts that define your problems -- as in the (simplified) example of drawing a house, this was squares and triangles, to draw a village it was houses.
In programming, we define abstractions as functions (and some other constructs like classes and modules, but let's focus on functions for now). A function essentially names a set of single statements, so a function essentially is an abstraction -- see the examples in your book for details.
The beauty of it all
In programming, abstractions can make or break productivity. That's why often times, commonly used functions are collected into libraries which can be reused by others. This means you don't have to worry about the details, you only need to understand how to use the ready-made abstractions. Obviously that should make things easier for you, so you can work faster and thus be more productive:
Example:
Imagine there is a graphics library called "nicepic" that contains pre-defined functions for all abstractions discussed above: rectangles, squares, triangles, house, village.
Say you want to create a program based on the above abstractions that paints a nice picture of a house, all you have to write is this:
import nicepic
draw_house()
So that's just two lines of code to get something much more elaborate. Isn't that just wonderful?
A great way to understand abstraction is through abstract classes.
Say we are writing a program which models a house. The house is going to have several different rooms, which we will represent as objects. We define a class for a Bathroom, Kitchen, Living Room, Dining Room, etc.
However, all of these are Rooms, and thus share several properties (# of doors/windows, square feet, etc.) BUT, a Room can never exist on it's own...it's always going to be some type of room.
It then makes sense to create an abstract class called Room, which will contain the properties all rooms share, and then have the classes of Kitchen, Living Room, etc, inherit the abstract class Room.
The concept of a room is abstract and only exists in our head, because any room that actually exists isn't just a room; it's a bedroom or a living room or a classroom.
We want our code to thus represent our "mental chunking". It makes everything a lot neater and easier to deal with.
As defined on wikipedia: Abstraction_(computer_science)
Abstraction tries to factor out details from a common pattern so that
programmers can work close to the level of human thought, leaving out
details which matter in practice, but are not exigent to the problem being
solved.
Basically it is removing the details of the problem. For example, to draw a square requires several steps, but I just want a function that draws a square.
Let's say you write a function which receives a bunch of text as parameter, then reads credentials in a config file, then connects to a SMTP server using those credentials and sends a mail using that text.
The function should be named sendMail(text), not parseTextReadCredentialsInFileConnectToSmtpThenSend(text) because it is more easy to represent what it does this way, to yourself and when presenting the API to coworkers or users... even though the 2nd name is more accurate, the first is a better abstraction.
In a simple sentence, I can say: The essence of abstraction is to extract essential properties while omitting inessential details. But why should we omit inessential details? The key motivator is preventing the risk of change.
The best way to to describe something is to use examples:
A function is nothing more than a series of commands to get stuff done. Basically you can organize a chunk of code that does a single thing. That single thing can get re-used over and over and over through your program.
Now that your function does this thing, you should name it so that it's instantly identifiable as to what it does. Once you have named it you can re-use it all over the place by simply calling it's name.
def bark():
print "woof!"
Then to use that function you can just do something like:
bark();
What happens if we wanted this to bark 4 times? Well you could write bark(); 4 times.
bark();
bark();
bark();
bark();
Or you could modify your function to accept some type of input, to change how it works.
def bark(times):
i=0
while i < times:
i = i + 1
print "woof"
Then we could just call it once:
bark(4);
When we start talking about Object Oriented Programming (OOP) abstraction means something different. You'll discover that part later :)
Abstraction: is a very important concept both in hardware and software.
Importance: We the human can not remember all the things all the times. For example, if your friend speaks 30 random numbers quickly and asks you to add them all, it won't be possible for you. Reason? You might not be able to keep all those numbers in mind. You might write those numbers on a paper even then you will be adding right most digits one by one ignoring the left digits at one time and then ignoring the right most digits at the other time having added the right most ones.
It shows that at one time we the human can focus at some particular issue while ignoring those which are already solved and moving focus towards what are left to be solved.
Ignoring less important thing and focusing the most important (for the time being and in particular context) is called Abstraction
Here is how abstraction works in programming.
Below is the world's famous hello world program in C language:
//C hello world example hello.c
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
printf("Hello world\n");
return 0;
}
This is the simplest and usually the first computer program a programmer writes. When you compile and run this program on command prompt, the output may appear like this:
Here are the serious questions
Computer only understands the binary code how was it able to run your English like code? You may say that you compiled the code to binary using compiler. Did you write compiler to make your program work? No. You needed not to. You installed GNU C compiler on your Linux system and just used it by giving command:
gcc -o hello hello.c
And it converted your English like C language code to binary code and you could run that code by giving command:
./hello
So, for writing an application in C program, you never need to know how C compiler converts C language code to binary code. So you used GCC compiler as an abstraction.
Did you write code for main() and printf() functions? No. Both are already defined by someone else in C language. When we run a C program, it looks for main() function as starting point of program while printf() function prints output on computer screen and is already defined in stdio.h so we have to include it in program. If both the functions were not already written, we had to write them ourselves just to print two words and computers would be the most boring machines on earth ever. Here again you use abstraction i.e. you don't need to know how printf prints text on monitor and all you need to know is how to give input to printf function so that it shows the desired output.
I did not expand the answer to abstraction of operating system, kernel, firmware and hardware for the sake of simplicity.
Things to remember:
While doing programming, you can use abstraction in a variety of ways to make your program simple and easy.
Example 1: You can use a constant to abstract value of PI 3.14159 in your program because PI is easy to remember than 3.14159 for the rest of program
Example 2: You can write a function which returns square of a given number and then anyone, including you, can use that function by giving it input as parameters and getting a return value from it.
Example 3: In an Object-oriented programming (OOP), like Java, you may define an object which encapsulates data and methods and you can use that object by invoking its methods.
Example 4: Many applications provide you API which you use to interact with that application. When you use API methods, you never need to know how they are implemented. So abstraction is there.
Through all the examples, you can realize the importance of abstraction and how it is implemented in programming. One key thing to remember is that abstraction is contextual i.e. keeps on changing as per context
Long story short, I need to find a shortcut to calling the same method in multiple objects which were made from multiple classes.
Now, all of the classes have the same parent class, and even though the method differs bewteen the different classes, I figured the methods be the same name would work. So I though I might just be able to do something like this:
for object in listOfObjects:
object.method()
It hasn't worked. It might very well be a misspelling by me, but I can't find it. I think I could solve it by making a list that only adds the objects I need, but that would require a lot of coding, including changing other classes.
~~ skip to last paragraph for pseudo code accurately describing what I need~~
At this point, I will begin to go more in detail as to what specifically I am doing. I hope that it will better illustrate the scope of my question, and that the answering of my question will be more broadly applicable. The more general usage of this question are above, but this might help answer the question. Please be aware that I will change the question once I get an answer to more closely represent what I need done, so that it can apply to a wide variety of problems.
I am working on a gravity simulator. Whereas most simulators make objects which interact with one another and represent full bodies where their center of gravity is the actual attraction point, I am attempting to write a program which will simulate the distribution of gravity across all given points within an object.
As such, each object(not in programming terms, in literal terms) is made up of a bunch of tiny objects (both literally and figuratively). Essentially, what I am trying to do is call the object.gravity() method, which essentially takes into account all of the gravity from all other objects in the simulation and then moves the position of this particular object based on that input.
Now, either due to a syntactical bug (which I kinda doubt) or due to Python's limitations, I am unable to get all of the particles to behave properly all at once. The code snippet I posted before doesn't seem to be working.
tl;dr:
As such, I am wondering if there is a way (save adding all objects to a list and then iterating through it) to simply call the .gravity() method on every object that has the method. basically, even though this is sort of list format, this is what I want to do:
for ALL_OBJECTS:
if OBJECT has .gravity():
OBJECT.gravity()
You want the hasattr() function here:
for obj in all_objects:
if hasattr(obj, 'gravity'):
obj.gravity()
or, if the gravity method is defined by a specific parent class, you can test for that too:
for obj in all_objects:
if isinstance(obj, Planet):
obj.gravity()
Can also do ... better pythonic way to do it
for obj in all_objects:
try:
obj.gravity()
except AttributeError:
pass
Using getattr while set default option of getattr to lambda: None.
for obj in all_objects:
getattr(obj, 'gravity', lambda: None)()
Hey--I'm trying to design my first game using the Pygame library for Python, and I was wondering what the best practices are for level design in general. I would love to hear what you guys think are good object oriented design patterns for managing levels. Also, I'm fairly new to Python--thanks!
With this type of game your maps are in terms of tiles (I'm assuming that by level you mean an individual level, not managing all of your levels). Each tile has
an associated picture (what it looks like on the display)
a type (ie, a wall, the ground, a trap, etc.)
When I create tile-based games in Pygame, I usually have a Map class which contains the current map:
the pygame.Surface of the map (what you'll be blitting to the display)
a list of lists (ie, a matrix) where each item is a Tile object (I've also done games where you just have a string that tells you what type of tile it is, and then you don't need a separate Tile class)
The map should be relatively static - you could have that traps become normal tiles after you step on them (this is pretty easy - when you do collision detection and it's a hit, just change that tile to a different Tile object (presumably the one for an empty tile)), but you don't want characters or movable blocks in the map if you can help it. Since the movable blocks have their own rules for how they can be moved, it's not as simple as just changing a tile - you'd have a whole set of logic, and at least two tiles would have to be changed (and what if you could move the blocks onto traps - you'd then have to remember, separately, what was below it - bleh). In my opinion it's easier to just have a class for each moving object and item.
In short, you have:
Tile
Map
Block
other movable objects/sprites
And that's basically your whole level. For multiple levels, if individual levels are always the same, you can just have a list of Map objects, one for each level.
If this is your first Pygame application, don't spend time worrying about "object oriented design patterns for managing levels". What you need to do now is to figure out how to make Pygame do what you want it to do.
Can you display everything you want to?
Is your display flicker-free?
Can you read the user input controls properly?
etc.
Object oriented patterns for managing levels comes later, much later.
Generally speaking, a simple way to do it is using matrices (or multidimensional arrays - they work the same way here).
Basically, each Map is an Array, with each item in the array being a square on the grid.
For example a 3 by 3 grid would be as follows:
(Psuedocode)
var Map = [[1,2,3][1,2,3][1,2,3]];
In place of numbers, you could put strings for a function to parse and draw or take action based on what the value of the cell is.