views:

1355

answers:

7

I'm working on a simple demo for collision detection, which contains only a bunch of objects bouncing around in the window. (The goal is to see how many objects the game can handle at once without dropping frames.)

There is gravity, so the objects are either moving or else colliding with a wall.

The naive solution was O(n^2):

foreach Collidable c1:
      foreach Collidable c2:
             checkCollision(c1, c2);

This is pretty bad. So I set up CollisionCell objects, which maintain information about a portion of the screen. The idea is that each Collidable only needs to check for the other objects in its cell. With 60 px by 60 px cells, this yields almost a 10x improvement, but I'd like to push it further.

A profiler has revealed that the the code spends 50% of its time in the function each cell uses to get its contents. Here it is:

    // all the objects in this cell
    public ICollection<GameObject> Containing
    {
        get
        {
            ICollection<GameObject> containing = new HashSet<GameObject>();

            foreach (GameObject obj in engine.GameObjects) {
                // 20% of processor time spent in this conditional
                if (obj.Position.X >= bounds.X &&
                    obj.Position.X < bounds.X + bounds.Width &&
                    obj.Position.Y >= bounds.Y &&
                    obj.Position.Y < bounds.Y + bounds.Height) {

                    containing.Add(obj);
                }
            }

            return containing;
        }
    }

Of that 20% of the program's time is spent in that conditional.

Here is where the above function gets called:

    // Get a list of lists of cell contents
        List<List<GameObject>> cellContentsSet = cellManager.getCellContents();

        // foreach item, only check items in the same cell
        foreach (List<GameObject> cellMembers in cellContentsSet) {
            foreach (GameObject item in cellMembers) {
                 // process collisions
            }
        }


//...

    // Gets a list of list of cell contents (each sub list = 1 cell)
    internal List<List<GameObject>> getCellContents() {
        List<List<GameObject>> result = new List<List<GameObject>>();
        foreach (CollisionCell cell in cellSet) {
            result.Add(new List<GameObject>(cell.Containing.ToArray()));
        }
        return result;
    }

Right now, I have to iterate over every cell - even empty ones. Perhaps this could be improved on somehow, but I'm not sure how to verify that a cell is empty without looking at it somehow. (Maybe I could implement something like sleeping objects, in some physics engines, where if an object will be still for a while it goes to sleep and is not included in calculations for every frame.)

What can I do to optimize this? (Also, I'm new to C# - are there any other glaring stylistic errors?)

When the game starts lagging out, the objects tend to be packed fairly tightly, so there's not that much motion going on. Perhaps I can take advantage of this somehow, writing a function to see if, given an object's current velocity, it can possibly leave its current cell before the next call to Update()

UPDATE 1 I decided to maintain a list of the objects that were found to be in the cell at last update, and check those first to see if they were still in the cell. Also, I maintained an area of the CollisionCell variable, when when the cell was filled I could stop looking. Here is my implementation of that, and it made the whole demo much slower:

    // all the objects in this cell
    private ICollection<GameObject> prevContaining;
    private ICollection<GameObject> containing;
    internal ICollection<GameObject> Containing {
        get {
            return containing;
        }
    }

    /**
     * To ensure that `containing` and `prevContaining` are up to date, this MUST be called once per Update() loop in which it is used.
     * What is a good way to enforce this?
     */ 
    public void updateContaining()
    {
        ICollection<GameObject> result = new HashSet<GameObject>();
        uint area = checked((uint) bounds.Width * (uint) bounds.Height); // the area of this cell

        // first, try to fill up this cell with objects that were in it previously
        ICollection<GameObject>[] toSearch = new ICollection<GameObject>[] { prevContaining, engine.GameObjects };
        foreach (ICollection<GameObject> potentiallyContained in toSearch) {
            if (area > 0) { // redundant, but faster?
                foreach (GameObject obj in potentiallyContained) {
                    if (obj.Position.X >= bounds.X &&
                        obj.Position.X < bounds.X + bounds.Width &&
                        obj.Position.Y >= bounds.Y &&
                        obj.Position.Y < bounds.Y + bounds.Height) {

                        result.Add(obj);
                        area -= checked((uint) Math.Pow(obj.Radius, 2)); // assuming objects are square
                        if (area <= 0) {
                            break;
                        }
                    }
                }
            }
        }
        prevContaining = containing;
        containing = result;
   }

UPDATE 2 I abandoned that last approach. Now I'm trying to maintain a pool of collidables (orphans), and remove objects from them when I find a cell that contains them:

    internal List<List<GameObject>> getCellContents() {
        List<GameObject> orphans = new List<GameObject>(engine.GameObjects);
        List<List<GameObject>> result = new List<List<GameObject>>();
        foreach (CollisionCell cell in cellSet) {
            cell.updateContaining(ref orphans); // this call will alter orphans!
            result.Add(new List<GameObject>(cell.Containing)); 
            if (orphans.Count == 0) {
                break;
            }
        }
        return result;
    }

    // `orphans` is a list of GameObjects that do not yet have a cell
    public void updateContaining(ref List<GameObject> orphans) {
        ICollection<GameObject> result = new HashSet<GameObject>();

        for (int i = 0; i < orphans.Count; i++) {
            // 20% of processor time spent in this conditional
            if (orphans[i].Position.X >= bounds.X &&
                orphans[i].Position.X < bounds.X + bounds.Width &&
                orphans[i].Position.Y >= bounds.Y &&
                orphans[i].Position.Y < bounds.Y + bounds.Height) {

                result.Add(orphans[i]);
                orphans.RemoveAt(i);
            }
        }

        containing = result;
    }

This only yields a marginal improvement, not the 2x or 3x I'm looking for.

UPDATE 3 Again I abandoned the above approaches, and decided to let each object maintain its current cell:

    private CollisionCell currCell;
    internal CollisionCell CurrCell {
        get {
            return currCell;
        }
        set {
            currCell = value;
        }
    }

This value gets updated:

    // Run 1 cycle of this object
    public virtual void Run()
    {
        position += velocity;
        parent.CellManager.updateContainingCell(this);
    }

CellManager code:

private IDictionary<Vector2, CollisionCell> cellCoords = new Dictionary<Vector2, CollisionCell>();
    internal void updateContainingCell(GameObject gameObject) {
        CollisionCell currCell = findContainingCell(gameObject);
        gameObject.CurrCell = currCell;
        if (currCell != null) {
            currCell.Containing.Add(gameObject);
        }
    }

    // null if no such cell exists
    private CollisionCell findContainingCell(GameObject gameObject) {

        if (gameObject.Position.X > GameEngine.GameWidth
            || gameObject.Position.X < 0
            || gameObject.Position.Y > GameEngine.GameHeight
            || gameObject.Position.Y < 0) {
            return null;
        }

        // we'll need to be able to access these outside of the loops
        uint minWidth = 0;
        uint minHeight = 0;

        for (minWidth = 0; minWidth + cellWidth < gameObject.Position.X; minWidth += cellWidth) ;
        for (minHeight = 0; minHeight + cellHeight < gameObject.Position.Y; minHeight += cellHeight) ;

        CollisionCell currCell = cellCoords[new Vector2(minWidth, minHeight)];

        // Make sure `currCell` actually contains gameObject
        Debug.Assert(gameObject.Position.X >= currCell.Bounds.X && gameObject.Position.X <= currCell.Bounds.Width + currCell.Bounds.X,
            String.Format("{0} should be between lower bound {1} and upper bound {2}", gameObject.Position.X, currCell.Bounds.X, currCell.Bounds.X + currCell.Bounds.Width));
        Debug.Assert(gameObject.Position.Y >= currCell.Bounds.Y && gameObject.Position.Y <= currCell.Bounds.Height + currCell.Bounds.Y,
            String.Format("{0} should be between lower bound {1} and upper bound {2}", gameObject.Position.Y, currCell.Bounds.Y, currCell.Bounds.Y + currCell.Bounds.Height));

        return currCell;
    }

I thought this would make it better - now I only have to iterate over collidables, not all collidables * cells. Instead, the game is now hideously slow, delivering only 1/10th of its performance with my above approaches.

The profiler indicates that a different method is now the main hot spot, and the time to get neighbors for an object is trivially short. That method didn't change from before, so perhaps I'm calling it WAY more than I used to...

+5  A: 

It looks like you are looping through all the game objects just to see what objects are contained in a cell. It seems like a better approach would be to store the list of game objects that are in a cell for each cell. If you do that and each object knows what cells it is in, then moving objects between cells should be easy. This seems like it will yield the biggest performance gain.

Here is another optimization tip for determing what cells an object is in: If you have already determined what cell(s) an object is in and know that based on the objects velocity it will not change cells for the current frame, there is no need to rerun the logic that determines what cells the object is in. You can do a quick check by creating a bounding box that contains all the cells that the object is in. You can then create a bounding box that is the size of the object + the velocity of the object for the current frame. If the cell bounding box contains the object + velocity bounding box, no further checks need to be done. If the object isn't moving, it's even easier and you can just use the object bounding box.

Let me know if that makes sense, or google / bing search for "Quad Tree", or if you don't mind using open source code, check out this awesome physics library: http://www.codeplex.com/FarseerPhysics

John JJ Curtis
Referred to as "sweep and prune" as well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweep_and_prune
Mez
+1 for farseer physics
RCIX
A: 

An idea might be to use a bounding circle. Basically, when a Collidable is created, keep track of it's centre point and calculate a radius/diameter that contains the whole object. You can then do a first pass elimination using something like;

int r = C1.BoundingRadius + C2.BoundingRadius;

if( Math.Abs(C1.X - C2.X) > r && Math.Abs(C1.Y - C2.Y) > r )
/// Skip further checks...

This drops the comparisons to two for most objects, but how much this will gain you I'm not sure...profile!

Gareth Wilson
if the objects were static, this may work. however, they are in motion, which means detection for bounding sphere degenerates to detection for objects.
johnny g
That would depend on the type of object that the game represents... If it's something geometrical, like circles and squares a formula could be produced to detect the collisions... But in a more broader term the bounding box is the rule in most simple games.
Paulo Santos
A: 

There are a couple of things that could be done to speed up the process... but as far as I can see your method of checking for simple rectangular collision is just fine.

But I'd replace the check

if (obj.Position.X ....)

With

if (obj.Bounds.IntersercsWith(this.Bounds))

And I'd also replace the line

result.Add(new List<GameObject>(cell.Containing.ToArray()));

For

result.Add(new List<GameObject>(cell.Containing));

As the Containing property returns an ICollection<T> and that inherits the IEnumerable<T> that is accepted by the List<T> constructor.

And the method ToArray() simply iterates to the list returning an array, and this process is done again when creating the new list.

Paulo Santos
Right now `obj` doesn't have a `Bounds` property. It has position and radius. Do you think it's worth it to implement that?
Rosarch
@Rosarch I thought you were using the System.Drawing.Rectangle to define the bounds of your object.
Paulo Santos
@Paulo the rectangle defines the bounds of the `CollisionCell`, but not the colliding objects.
Rosarch
+8  A: 

It spends 50% of its time in that function because you call that function a lot. Optimizing that one function will only yield incremental improvements to performance.

Alternatively, just call the function less!

You've already started down that path by setting up a spatial partitioning scheme (lookup Quadtrees to see a more advanced form of your technique).

A second approach is to break your N*N loop into an incremental form and to use a CPU budget.

You can allocate a CPU budget for each of the modules that want action during frame times (during Updates). Collision is one of these modules, AI might be another.

Let's say you want to run your game at 60 fps. This means you have about 1/60 s = 0.0167 s of CPU time to burn between frames. No we can split those 0.0167 s between our modules. Let's give collision 30% of the budget: 0.005 s.

Now your collision algorithm knows that it can only spend 0.005 s working. So if it runs out of time, it will need to postpone some tasks for later - you will make the algorithm incremental. Code for achieving this can be as simple as:

const double CollisionBudget = 0.005;

Collision[] _allPossibleCollisions;
int _lastCheckedCollision;

void HandleCollisions() {

    var startTime = HighPerformanceCounter.Now;

    if (_allPossibleCollisions == null || 
        _lastCheckedCollision >= _allPossibleCollisions.Length) {

        // Start a new series
        _allPossibleCollisions = GenerateAllPossibleCollisions();
        _lastCheckedCollision = 0;
    }

    for (var i=_lastCheckedCollision; i<_allPossibleCollisions.Length; i++) {
        // Don't go over the budget
        if (HighPerformanceCount.Now - startTime > CollisionBudget) {
            break;
        }
        _lastCheckedCollision = i;

        if (CheckCollision(_allPossibleCollisions[i])) {
            HandleCollision(_allPossibleCollisions[i]);
        }
    }
}

There, now it doesn't matter how fast the collision code is, it will be done as quickly as is possible without affecting the user's perceived performance.

Benefits include:

  • The algorithm is designed to run out of time, it just resumes on the next frame, so you don't have to worry about this particular edge case.
  • CPU budgeting becomes more and more important as the number of advanced/time consuming algorithms increases. Think AI. So it's a good idea to implement such a system early on.
  • Human response time is less than 30 Hz, your frame loop is running at 60 Hz. That gives the algorithm 30 frames to complete its work, so it's OK that it doesn't finish its work.
  • Doing it this way gives stable, data-independent frame rates.
  • It still benefits from performance optimizations to the collision algorithm itself.
  • Collision algorithms are designed to track down the "sub frame" in which collisions happened. That is, you will never be so lucky as to catch a collision just as it happens - thinking you're doing so is lying to yourself.
Frank Krueger
But wouldn't this result in collisions failing to occur if the algorithm ran out of time?
Rosarch
@Rosarch See edits. Especially the last bullet point.
Frank Krueger
Sorry, but i can definitely say that optimizing a method called a lot, even incrementally, is massively useful. I was able to boost my engine's performance (*with the help of a profiler*) by optimizing some of my most used methods, and it paid off. If you shave off even a few hundred nanoseconds per call in such a function, you're saving milliseconds per game update. It took a lot of optimization to make my sweep and prune algorithm faster than my brute-force, but it is now.
RCIX
@RCIX I'm happy that you got a more sophisticated algorithm to be better than another. But what are you going to do when your sophisticated algorithm still isn't fast enough? I'm not saying he shouldn't optimize, I'm saying he should think about *what* he's optimizing. Usually, you want to optimize the end-user experience, not the algorithm.
Frank Krueger
And, he would be optimizing the end-user experience by making the physics engine take less time :) but you have a good point. I suppose i would re-evaluate either my code or my situation that leads to that much stress on the code in that situation.
RCIX
+6  A: 

I can help here; i wrote my own collision detection as an experiment. I think i can tell you right now that you won't get the performance you need without changing algorithms. Sure, the naive way is nice, but only works for so many items before collapsing. What you need is Sweep and prune. The basic idea goes like this (from my collision detection library project):

using System.Collections.Generic;
using AtomPhysics.Interfaces;

namespace AtomPhysics.Collisions
{
    public class SweepAndPruneBroadPhase : IBroadPhaseCollider
    {
        private INarrowPhaseCollider _narrowPhase;
        private AtomPhysicsSim _sim;
        private List<Extent> _xAxisExtents = new List<Extent>();
        private List<Extent> _yAxisExtents = new List<Extent>();
        private Extent e1;

        public SweepAndPruneBroadPhase(INarrowPhaseCollider narrowPhase)
        {
            _narrowPhase = narrowPhase;
        }

        public AtomPhysicsSim Sim
        {
            get { return _sim; }
            set { _sim = null; }
        }
        public INarrowPhaseCollider NarrowPhase
        {
            get { return _narrowPhase; }
            set { _narrowPhase = value; }
        }
        public bool NeedsNotification { get { return true; } }


        public void Add(Nucleus nucleus)
        {
            Extent xStartExtent = new Extent(nucleus, ExtentType.Start);
            Extent xEndExtent = new Extent(nucleus, ExtentType.End);
            _xAxisExtents.Add(xStartExtent);
            _xAxisExtents.Add(xEndExtent);
            Extent yStartExtent = new Extent(nucleus, ExtentType.Start);
            Extent yEndExtent = new Extent(nucleus, ExtentType.End);
            _yAxisExtents.Add(yStartExtent);
            _yAxisExtents.Add(yEndExtent);
        }
        public void Remove(Nucleus nucleus)
        {
            foreach (Extent e in _xAxisExtents)
            {
                if (e.Nucleus == nucleus)
                {
                    _xAxisExtents.Remove(e);
                }
            }
            foreach (Extent e in _yAxisExtents)
            {
                if (e.Nucleus == nucleus)
                {
                    _yAxisExtents.Remove(e);
                }
            }
        }

        public void Update()
        {
            _xAxisExtents.InsertionSort(comparisonMethodX);
            _yAxisExtents.InsertionSort(comparisonMethodY);
            for (int i = 0; i < _xAxisExtents.Count; i++)
            {
                e1 = _xAxisExtents[i];
                if (e1.Type == ExtentType.Start)
                {
                    HashSet<Extent> potentialCollisionsX = new HashSet<Extent>();
                    for (int j = i + 1; j < _xAxisExtents.Count && _xAxisExtents[j].Nucleus.ID != e1.Nucleus.ID; j++)
                    {
                        potentialCollisionsX.Add(_xAxisExtents[j]);
                    }
                    HashSet<Extent> potentialCollisionsY = new HashSet<Extent>();
                    for (int j = i + 1; j < _yAxisExtents.Count && _yAxisExtents[j].Nucleus.ID != e1.Nucleus.ID; j++)
                    {
                        potentialCollisionsY.Add(_yAxisExtents[j]);
                    }

                    List<Extent> probableCollisions = new List<Extent>();
                    foreach (Extent e in potentialCollisionsX)
                    {
                        if (potentialCollisionsY.Contains(e) && !probableCollisions.Contains(e) && e.Nucleus.ID != e1.Nucleus.ID)
                        {
                            probableCollisions.Add(e);
                        }
                    }
                    foreach (Extent e2 in probableCollisions)
                    {
                        if (e1.Nucleus.DNCList.Contains(e2.Nucleus) || e2.Nucleus.DNCList.Contains(e1.Nucleus))
                            continue;
                        NarrowPhase.DoCollision(e1.Nucleus, e2.Nucleus);
                    }
                }
            }
        }

        private bool comparisonMethodX(Extent e1, Extent e2)
        {
            float e1PositionX = e1.Nucleus.NonLinearSpace != null ? e1.Nucleus.NonLinearPosition.X : e1.Nucleus.Position.X;
            float e2PositionX = e2.Nucleus.NonLinearSpace != null ? e2.Nucleus.NonLinearPosition.X : e2.Nucleus.Position.X;
            e1PositionX += (e1.Type == ExtentType.Start) ? -e1.Nucleus.Radius : e1.Nucleus.Radius;
            e2PositionX += (e2.Type == ExtentType.Start) ? -e2.Nucleus.Radius : e2.Nucleus.Radius;
            return e1PositionX < e2PositionX;
        }
        private bool comparisonMethodY(Extent e1, Extent e2)
        {
            float e1PositionY = e1.Nucleus.NonLinearSpace != null ? e1.Nucleus.NonLinearPosition.Y : e1.Nucleus.Position.Y;
            float e2PositionY = e2.Nucleus.NonLinearSpace != null ? e2.Nucleus.NonLinearPosition.Y : e2.Nucleus.Position.Y;
            e1PositionY += (e1.Type == ExtentType.Start) ? -e1.Nucleus.Radius : e1.Nucleus.Radius;
            e2PositionY += (e2.Type == ExtentType.Start) ? -e2.Nucleus.Radius : e2.Nucleus.Radius;
            return e1PositionY < e2PositionY;
        }
        private enum ExtentType { Start, End }
        private sealed class Extent
        {
            private ExtentType _type;
            public ExtentType Type
            {
                get
                {
                    return _type;
                }
                set
                {
                    _type = value;
                    _hashcode = 23;
                    _hashcode *= 17 + Nucleus.GetHashCode();
                }
            }
            private Nucleus _nucleus;
            public Nucleus Nucleus
            {
                get
                {
                    return _nucleus;
                }
                set
                {
                    _nucleus = value;
                    _hashcode = 23;
                    _hashcode *= 17 + Nucleus.GetHashCode();
                }
            }

            private int _hashcode;

            public Extent(Nucleus nucleus, ExtentType type)
            {
                Nucleus = nucleus;
                Type = type;
                _hashcode = 23;
                _hashcode *= 17 + Nucleus.GetHashCode();
            }

            public override bool Equals(object obj)
            {
                return Equals(obj as Extent);
            }
            public bool Equals(Extent extent)
            {
                if (this.Nucleus == extent.Nucleus)
                {
                    return true;
                }
                return false;
            }
            public override int GetHashCode()
            {
                return _hashcode;
            }
        }
    }
}

and here's the code that does the insertion sort (more-or-less a direct translation of the pseudocode here):

/// <summary>
/// Performs an insertion sort on the list.
/// </summary>
/// <typeparam name="T">The type of the list supplied.</typeparam>
/// <param name="list">the list to sort.</param>
/// <param name="comparison">the method for comparison of two elements.</param>
/// <returns></returns>
public static void InsertionSort<T>(this IList<T> list, Func<T, T, bool> comparison)
{
    for (int i = 2; i < list.Count; i++)
    {
        for (int j = i; j > 1 && comparison(list[j], list[j - 1]); j--)
        {
            T tempItem = list[j];
            list.RemoveAt(j);
            list.Insert(j - 1, tempItem);
        }
    }
}

IIRC, i was able to get an extremely large performance increase with that, especially when dealing with large numbers of colliding bodies. You'll need to adapt it for your code, but that's the basic premise behind sweep and prune.

The other thing i want to remind you is that you should use a profiler, like the one made by Red Gate. There's a free trial which should last you long enough.

RCIX
Yeah, I have been using the Red Gate profiler. It's pretty sweet.
Rosarch
A: 

I'm in the exact same boat as you. I'm trying to create an overhead shooter and need to push efficiency to the max so I can have tons of bullets and enemies on screen at once.

I'd get all of my collidable objects in an array with a numbered index. This affords the opportunity to take advantage of an observation: if you iterate over the list fully for each item you'll be duplicating efforts. That is (and note, I'm making up variables names just to make it easier to spit out some pseudo-code)

 if (objs[49].Intersects(objs[51]))

is equivalent to:

 if (objs[51].Intersects(objs[49]))

So if you use a numbered index you can save some time by not duplicating efforts. Do this instead:

for (int i1 = 0; i1 < collidables.Count; i1++)
{
    //By setting i2 = i1 + 1 you ensure an obj isn't checking collision with itself, and that objects already checked against i1 aren't checked again. For instance, collidables[4] doesn't need to check against collidables[0] again since this was checked earlier.
    for (int i2 = i1 + 1; i2 < collidables.Count; i2++)
    {
        //Check collisions here
    }
}

Also, I'd have each cell either have a count or a flag to determine if you even need to check for collisions. If a certain flag is set, or if the count is less than 2, than no need to check for collisions.

Bob
A: 

Just a heads up: Some people suggest farseer; which is a great 2D physics library for use with XNA. If you're in the market for a 3D physics engine for XNA, I've used bulletx (a c# port of bullet) in XNA projects to great effect.

Note: I have no affiliation to the bullet or bulletx projects.

SnOrfus