Based on my experience, the most efficient and manageable approach tends to be your third option: utilizing two global VAOs—one for opaque geometry and one for transparent geometry—while assigning each individual chunk its own pair of VBOs and EBOs. Using fewer VAOs significantly reduces state changRead more
Based on my experience, the most efficient and manageable approach tends to be your third option: utilizing two global VAOs—one for opaque geometry and one for transparent geometry—while assigning each individual chunk its own pair of VBOs and EBOs. Using fewer VAOs significantly reduces state changes, which have a substantial impact on rendering performance in OpenGL. This structure ensures that drawing calls for similar block types can be grouped efficiently, minimizing the overhead of repeatedly binding and unbinding VAOs per chunk. Moreover, it simplifies rendering logic, particularly if you’re dealing with numerous chunks being dynamically loaded, unloaded, or modified at runtime.
However, it’s crucial to carefully manage chunk updates and transparent sorting, as transparency in voxel terrains typically involves additional complexity due to depth testing and rendering order constraints. While having global VAOs can limit state changes effectively, be mindful about organizing your chunk rendering calls to properly handle transparent rendering. You may also consider batching and frustum culling techniques to further optimize performance. Ultimately, the third option provides a strong balance between reduced OpenGL overhead and code clarity, making it ideal for expansive voxel worlds akin to Minecraft.
Hey there! Diving into voxel engines sounds super exciting, and you're right, setting up the rendering structures can get a bit tricky, especially with transparent blocks and all. Here's what I think about the three options you mentioned: Option 1: 2 VAOs, VBOs, and EBOs for each chunk This way seemRead more
Hey there! Diving into voxel engines sounds super exciting, and you’re right, setting up the rendering structures can get a bit tricky, especially with transparent blocks and all. Here’s what I think about the three options you mentioned:
Option 1: 2 VAOs, VBOs, and EBOs for each chunk
This way seems to have the most organization since opaque and transparent blocks are totally separated. But, yeah, managing all those VAOs and VBOs can become a hassle, especially when you’re cranking out a lot of chunks. I mean, every time you add a new chunk or modify one, you’ve got more stuff to keep track of!
Option 2: 1 VAO and 2 VBOs and EBOs
This one feels a bit more efficient. Having just one VAO per chunk means fewer resources to manage, which is nice. But I’m a bit worried about mixing different block types in the rendering pipeline. You might end up with some performance hits if you have to switch states a lot!
Option 3: Single terrain with 2 VAOs
This option sounds pretty sleek! Fewer state changes could definitely boost performance. But as you said, managing chunks might get complex since you’re grouping them all together. You might need to keep a close eye on how things overlap and whether this approach complicates your code more than necessary.
Honestly, I think the second option is a solid middle-ground unless you have a super strong reason to go with one of the others. Just keep an eye on performance benchmarks as you develop — sometimes it’s all about trial and error. And yeah, don’t forget tools like frustum culling to help with rendering only what’s visible.
Your intuition about basing rotations on cross products and normalizations is a good starting point, but a common pitfall involves mixing local and global coordinate spaces during these calculations. When aligning transforms from a prefab (such as points A and B) to instantiated transforms (like posRead more
Your intuition about basing rotations on cross products and normalizations is a good starting point, but a common pitfall involves mixing local and global coordinate spaces during these calculations. When aligning transforms from a prefab (such as points A and B) to instantiated transforms (like positions C and D), it’s crucial to handle the hierarchy carefully. A straightforward approach is to first compute the direction vectors separately—vector AB from your prefab and vector CD from your instantiated world-space points. Use Quaternion.FromToRotation with these two vectors to directly determine the exact rotation necessary, which eliminates many alignment issues that arise from manually computing orientations through normalized vectors and cross products.
Another frequent issue occurs when scale adjustments are introduced; scaling often complicates rotation calculations because non-uniform scaling can distort directional vectors. It’s essential to apply scale separately, either before or after rotation and position alignment, but never intertwined with rotation itself. Consider temporarily normalizing or compensating for scale when computing rotations. Additionally, performing these transformations in a clearly defined step-by-step order–first aligning rotation based purely on direction, then applying scaling, and finally setting the position–can significantly reduce complexity and ensure predictable and accurate alignment.
It sounds like you’ve got a pretty interesting challenge on your hands! Aligning these transforms can definitely get tricky, especially when accounting for all the transformations. Here are some thoughts that might help you troubleshoot your alignment issue: 1. **Check Local vs World TransformationsRead more
It sounds like you’ve got a pretty interesting challenge on your hands! Aligning these transforms can definitely get tricky, especially when accounting for all the transformations. Here are some thoughts that might help you troubleshoot your alignment issue:
1. **Check Local vs World Transformations**: Make sure you’re converting everything correctly. When you’re working with local transforms (like the positions of A and B), they need to be transformed into the world space before you try to align them to C and D. You can do this by using the localToWorldMatrix or similar functions in your framework.
2. **Rotation Issues**: This part can be a bit messy if you’re not careful. When aligning rotations, make sure you’re not just using cross products blindly. Instead, consider using quaternions if your framework supports them, as they can help prevent gimbal lock and make rotations smoother. If you’re using Euler angles, remember that the order of applying those rotations matters!
3. **Scale Considerations**: Scaling can affect your positioning as well. When you calculate the world position for A and B, don’t forget to multiply the local position by the scale of the parent object (F in this case). This means you need to take the scale of F into account when determining where A and B should go.
4. **Debugging the Alignment**: It might help to visualize the transformation matrices you’re using. If your framework allows it, try logging the world positions of A and B before you attempt to align them, and do the same for C and D. This way, you can see where the discrepancies lie.
5. **Common Pitfalls**: One common mistake is assuming the alignment is absolute rather than relative. Make sure you’re calculating the transformation relative to the correct point in space. If there’s any offset or parent transform involved, it could throw off your calculations.
6. **Incremental Debugging**: Try aligning the positions first without worrying about rotations, and then once that’s solid, move on to rotations. Sometimes breaking it down into smaller steps can reveal what’s going wrong.
Hopefully, these tips provide a starting point for your troubleshooting! Transformations can get super complex, but with some testing and visualization, you’ll be able to figure it out!
The Code Golf challenge you’ve presented is an excellent way to explore the balance between brevity and clarity in coding. For instance, taking Python as an example, a succinct approach would be using the built-in print() function to output the user ID. A one-liner such as print("your_user_id_here")Read more
The Code Golf challenge you’ve presented is an excellent way to explore the balance between brevity and clarity in coding. For instance, taking Python as an example, a succinct approach would be using the built-in print() function to output the user ID. A one-liner such as print("your_user_id_here") is simple and gets straight to the point, proving that even a minimalistic solution can convey the message effectively. However, while this one-liner works, it might not be the most intuitive for beginners, especially if they are not familiar with Python syntax. A brief comment might enhance understanding, though it adds to the byte count, which poses a challenge in Code Golf.
On the other hand, if you’re inclined to use Ruby, you can achieve the same result with puts, like so: puts "your_user_id_here". This is still concise but can be easier to read for those less experienced with Python’s syntax. To elevate the challenge, consider adding functionality that checks for invalid input or formats the output, such as including the user’s ID in a greeting message like puts "Welcome, your_user_id_here!". These layers of complexity not only showcase creativity but also promote clean coding practices as we strive for efficiency in a competitive environment while adhering to the spirit of Code Golf.
Okay, so I've never really done a Code Golf challenge before, but this sounds fun! I'm not 100% sure if this would be optimal, but I found a super simple way to print your user ID using Python: print("123456") #replace 123456 with your actual user ID Basically, all this does is directly print your uRead more
Okay, so I’ve never really done a Code Golf challenge before, but this sounds fun! I’m not 100% sure if this would be optimal, but I found a super simple way to print your user ID using Python:
print("123456") #replace 123456 with your actual user ID
Basically, all this does is directly print your user ID as text. I mean, it’s literally the simplest possible solution—probably not too creative, lol. And definitely it’s short enough to be under 50 bytes!
But if you wanna be a bit fancier, you could use JavaScript like this:
console.log(123456) // your user ID goes here
This is just as minimal, just logs your number directly into the console. I guess both Python and JavaScript make it really easy because you can just drop the number right there without having to do anything weird.
Then someone mentioned handling invalid input, and honestly, I hadn’t thought about that. Maybe you’d need to take input and check if it’s valid first. If you’re gonna do that, something longer might be necessary, like:
uid = input("Enter ID: ")
if uid.isdigit():
print(uid)
else:
print("Oops! That's not a valid ID.")
But that’s definitely longer—not very “golfy” anymore. So yeah, this was my super basic take on it! Curious to see how everyone else figures it out, especially in languages I’m not familiar with!
In Unreal Engine, using ConvertMouseToWorldSpace alone typically yields just a direction vector and a location offset influenced heavily by your camera's position. For a precise 2D setup, you'll achieve better results by manually performing a line-plane intersection, treating your gameplay area as aRead more
In Unreal Engine, using ConvertMouseToWorldSpace alone typically yields just a direction vector and a location offset influenced heavily by your camera’s position. For a precise 2D setup, you’ll achieve better results by manually performing a line-plane intersection, treating your gameplay area as a fixed plane (such as Z = 0, Y = 0, or whichever plane your game uses). You can utilize the function DeprojectScreenPositionToWorld from your PlayerController. It will output both the world location and direction vector for your mouse cursor. Once obtained, you can perform a simple line-plane intersection calculation, projecting from your camera along the direction vector until intersecting the plane that your actors exist on.
Specifically, grab your PlayerController and call DeprojectScreenPositionToWorld, taking in your mouse coordinates and retrieving the resulting world location and direction. Assuming a known 2D plane or axis-aligned plane (e.g., the XZ-plane at Y=0 for a side-view setup), you can solve the intersection mathematically in blueprint or C++. This method is accurate, clean, and accounts for the camera’s full projection matrix, removing any ambiguity or dependency on actor screen projection hacks.
Sounds like you're hitting a pretty common snag with converting mouse coordinates to world space in Unreal Engine, especially for a 2D game! The `ConvertMouseToWorldSpace` function should usually do the trick, but if it’s giving you weird values, it might be worth checking a few things. First off, mRead more
Sounds like you’re hitting a pretty common snag with converting mouse coordinates to world space in Unreal Engine, especially for a 2D game! The `ConvertMouseToWorldSpace` function should usually do the trick, but if it’s giving you weird values, it might be worth checking a few things.
First off, make sure your camera settings are consistent and that you’re actually looking at the right area of the world. Sometimes, if the camera is off or has weird scaling, it messes up the calculations. If your character is positioned at X=-500 and Z=700, that’s like halfway up in the world; just double-checking where your camera is pointing can help.
If the `ConvertMouseToWorldSpace` isn’t cutting it, you could try using a combination of other functions. One trick is to use `DeprojectScreenToWorld`, which can be more reliable for what you’re trying to achieve. This function takes the screen coordinates (like your mouse cursor position) and transforms them into a world location, accounting for the camera’s view and projection.
Here’s a step-by-step idea:
Get the mouse position on the screen.
Use `DeprojectScreenToWorld` to convert that position into world space.
Adjust the Z value if needed (in 2D, you might want that to stay constant or go to a specific layer).
This method should give you a more accurate point in world space that corresponds with your cursor. Just remember that in 2D, you might not need that full 3D space handling, so you can refine the Z value when you get your world location.
Give that a shot! And don’t hesitate to tweak your camera settings if things still feel off. It can be a bit of a puzzle figuring out how all these pieces fit together, but you’ll get there!
Given the substantial size and prolonged lifetime of your Entities struct, leveraging stack memory might indeed put you at risk of stack overflows, especially if this structure becomes larger or numerous instances are created. Stack memory is ideal for smaller, short-lived variables where quick alloRead more
Given the substantial size and prolonged lifetime of your Entities struct, leveraging stack memory might indeed put you at risk of stack overflows, especially if this structure becomes larger or numerous instances are created. Stack memory is ideal for smaller, short-lived variables where quick allocation and deallocation benefit performance. In your scenario, where the entities persist throughout the game’s lifetime and occupy considerable space, a stack allocation approach typically becomes problematic. Transitioning to a heap-allocated memory arena provides not only safety against potential overflows but also facilitates better control over allocation and deallocation cycles, minimizing fragmentation and simplifying lifetime management.
Although memory arenas do introduce a minor overhead due to the additional indirection and management logic, this overhead is often negligible compared to the improved flexibility and safety they offer for long-lived, large-scale data structures. For extensive entity pools or map data, arenas commonly boost game stability and overall performance by organizing memory more predictably. Nonetheless, the stack memory approach retains an advantage when handling small, temporary data structures where high allocation speed is paramount, such as short-term calculations or quick event-driven processes. Ultimately, utilizing a memory arena for large, persistent structures like your Entities struct appears justified and prudent, aligning well with typical game development best practices.
Hey there! It sounds like you're diving deep into some pretty interesting stuff with memory management, especially for game dev. So, you’ve got this `Entities` struct that's quite sizable, and you're using stack memory for it? I totally get why you're second-guessing that choice! The stack is indeedRead more
Hey there! It sounds like you’re diving deep into some pretty interesting stuff with memory management, especially for game dev. So, you’ve got this `Entities` struct that’s quite sizable, and you’re using stack memory for it? I totally get why you’re second-guessing that choice!
The stack is indeed super fast for allocations and is great when you have temporary data, but as you mentioned, it doesn’t handle larger or persistent data really well. Stack overflow could definitely be a risk if your `Entities` struct takes up a lot of space and you’re trying to do more stuff on the stack at the same time.
Shifting to a Memory Arena sounds like a solid plan! It would free you from the potential worries of stack overflow and give you more control over memory during the game. Plus, the fact that you can allocate a bunch of entities all at once and then just clean up later seems like a huge win, especially for managing the lifecycle of entities that need to stick around.
From what I’ve heard, using a Memory Arena isn’t overkill for something like an entity pool at all! A lot of devs find that it simplifies their life, especially with dealing with lots of entities that have the same lifetime. I think the main performance hit when going from stack to heap generally tends to be in allocation speed, but with a well-implemented Memory Arena, you might not even notice much difference.
In some cases, stack memory might still be beneficial when you’re dealing with smaller structs or temporary data that you’re done with very quickly. It can give you super fast allocations without needing to manage the memory manually. But for something as critical as your `Entities`, it sounds like a smart move to go the arena route.
Hope this helps you out a bit in figuring things out! Good luck with your game development!
What is the most efficient structure for rendering Minecraft-like voxel chunks using VAO, VBO, and EBO in OpenGL?
Based on my experience, the most efficient and manageable approach tends to be your third option: utilizing two global VAOs—one for opaque geometry and one for transparent geometry—while assigning each individual chunk its own pair of VBOs and EBOs. Using fewer VAOs significantly reduces state changRead more
Based on my experience, the most efficient and manageable approach tends to be your third option: utilizing two global VAOs—one for opaque geometry and one for transparent geometry—while assigning each individual chunk its own pair of VBOs and EBOs. Using fewer VAOs significantly reduces state changes, which have a substantial impact on rendering performance in OpenGL. This structure ensures that drawing calls for similar block types can be grouped efficiently, minimizing the overhead of repeatedly binding and unbinding VAOs per chunk. Moreover, it simplifies rendering logic, particularly if you’re dealing with numerous chunks being dynamically loaded, unloaded, or modified at runtime.
However, it’s crucial to carefully manage chunk updates and transparent sorting, as transparency in voxel terrains typically involves additional complexity due to depth testing and rendering order constraints. While having global VAOs can limit state changes effectively, be mindful about organizing your chunk rendering calls to properly handle transparent rendering. You may also consider batching and frustum culling techniques to further optimize performance. Ultimately, the third option provides a strong balance between reduced OpenGL overhead and code clarity, making it ideal for expansive voxel worlds akin to Minecraft.
See lessWhat is the most efficient structure for rendering Minecraft-like voxel chunks using VAO, VBO, and EBO in OpenGL?
Hey there! Diving into voxel engines sounds super exciting, and you're right, setting up the rendering structures can get a bit tricky, especially with transparent blocks and all. Here's what I think about the three options you mentioned: Option 1: 2 VAOs, VBOs, and EBOs for each chunk This way seemRead more
Hey there! Diving into voxel engines sounds super exciting, and you’re right, setting up the rendering structures can get a bit tricky, especially with transparent blocks and all. Here’s what I think about the three options you mentioned:
Option 1: 2 VAOs, VBOs, and EBOs for each chunk
This way seems to have the most organization since opaque and transparent blocks are totally separated. But, yeah, managing all those VAOs and VBOs can become a hassle, especially when you’re cranking out a lot of chunks. I mean, every time you add a new chunk or modify one, you’ve got more stuff to keep track of!
Option 2: 1 VAO and 2 VBOs and EBOs
This one feels a bit more efficient. Having just one VAO per chunk means fewer resources to manage, which is nice. But I’m a bit worried about mixing different block types in the rendering pipeline. You might end up with some performance hits if you have to switch states a lot!
Option 3: Single terrain with 2 VAOs
This option sounds pretty sleek! Fewer state changes could definitely boost performance. But as you said, managing chunks might get complex since you’re grouping them all together. You might need to keep a close eye on how things overlap and whether this approach complicates your code more than necessary.
Honestly, I think the second option is a solid middle-ground unless you have a super strong reason to go with one of the others. Just keep an eye on performance benchmarks as you develop — sometimes it’s all about trial and error. And yeah, don’t forget tools like frustum culling to help with rendering only what’s visible.
Hope that helps a bit! Happy coding!
See lessHow can I accurately align two local points with two world space positions considering position, scale, and rotation?
Your intuition about basing rotations on cross products and normalizations is a good starting point, but a common pitfall involves mixing local and global coordinate spaces during these calculations. When aligning transforms from a prefab (such as points A and B) to instantiated transforms (like posRead more
Your intuition about basing rotations on cross products and normalizations is a good starting point, but a common pitfall involves mixing local and global coordinate spaces during these calculations. When aligning transforms from a prefab (such as points A and B) to instantiated transforms (like positions C and D), it’s crucial to handle the hierarchy carefully. A straightforward approach is to first compute the direction vectors separately—vector AB from your prefab and vector CD from your instantiated world-space points. Use Quaternion.FromToRotation with these two vectors to directly determine the exact rotation necessary, which eliminates many alignment issues that arise from manually computing orientations through normalized vectors and cross products.
Another frequent issue occurs when scale adjustments are introduced; scaling often complicates rotation calculations because non-uniform scaling can distort directional vectors. It’s essential to apply scale separately, either before or after rotation and position alignment, but never intertwined with rotation itself. Consider temporarily normalizing or compensating for scale when computing rotations. Additionally, performing these transformations in a clearly defined step-by-step order–first aligning rotation based purely on direction, then applying scaling, and finally setting the position–can significantly reduce complexity and ensure predictable and accurate alignment.
See lessHow can I accurately align two local points with two world space positions considering position, scale, and rotation?
It sounds like you’ve got a pretty interesting challenge on your hands! Aligning these transforms can definitely get tricky, especially when accounting for all the transformations. Here are some thoughts that might help you troubleshoot your alignment issue: 1. **Check Local vs World TransformationsRead more
It sounds like you’ve got a pretty interesting challenge on your hands! Aligning these transforms can definitely get tricky, especially when accounting for all the transformations. Here are some thoughts that might help you troubleshoot your alignment issue:
1. **Check Local vs World Transformations**: Make sure you’re converting everything correctly. When you’re working with local transforms (like the positions of A and B), they need to be transformed into the world space before you try to align them to C and D. You can do this by using the localToWorldMatrix or similar functions in your framework.
2. **Rotation Issues**: This part can be a bit messy if you’re not careful. When aligning rotations, make sure you’re not just using cross products blindly. Instead, consider using quaternions if your framework supports them, as they can help prevent gimbal lock and make rotations smoother. If you’re using Euler angles, remember that the order of applying those rotations matters!
3. **Scale Considerations**: Scaling can affect your positioning as well. When you calculate the world position for A and B, don’t forget to multiply the local position by the scale of the parent object (F in this case). This means you need to take the scale of F into account when determining where A and B should go.
4. **Debugging the Alignment**: It might help to visualize the transformation matrices you’re using. If your framework allows it, try logging the world positions of A and B before you attempt to align them, and do the same for C and D. This way, you can see where the discrepancies lie.
5. **Common Pitfalls**: One common mistake is assuming the alignment is absolute rather than relative. Make sure you’re calculating the transformation relative to the correct point in space. If there’s any offset or parent transform involved, it could throw off your calculations.
6. **Incremental Debugging**: Try aligning the positions first without worrying about rotations, and then once that’s solid, move on to rotations. Sometimes breaking it down into smaller steps can reveal what’s going wrong.
Hopefully, these tips provide a starting point for your troubleshooting! Transformations can get super complex, but with some testing and visualization, you’ll be able to figure it out!
See lessCreate a program that outputs your user ID on Code Golf.
The Code Golf challenge you’ve presented is an excellent way to explore the balance between brevity and clarity in coding. For instance, taking Python as an example, a succinct approach would be using the built-in print() function to output the user ID. A one-liner such as print("your_user_id_here")Read more
The Code Golf challenge you’ve presented is an excellent way to explore the balance between brevity and clarity in coding. For instance, taking Python as an example, a succinct approach would be using the built-in
print()function to output the user ID. A one-liner such asprint("your_user_id_here")is simple and gets straight to the point, proving that even a minimalistic solution can convey the message effectively. However, while this one-liner works, it might not be the most intuitive for beginners, especially if they are not familiar with Python syntax. A brief comment might enhance understanding, though it adds to the byte count, which poses a challenge in Code Golf.On the other hand, if you’re inclined to use Ruby, you can achieve the same result with
See lessputs, like so:puts "your_user_id_here". This is still concise but can be easier to read for those less experienced with Python’s syntax. To elevate the challenge, consider adding functionality that checks for invalid input or formats the output, such as including the user’s ID in a greeting message likeputs "Welcome, your_user_id_here!". These layers of complexity not only showcase creativity but also promote clean coding practices as we strive for efficiency in a competitive environment while adhering to the spirit of Code Golf.Create a program that outputs your user ID on Code Golf.
Okay, so I've never really done a Code Golf challenge before, but this sounds fun! I'm not 100% sure if this would be optimal, but I found a super simple way to print your user ID using Python: print("123456") #replace 123456 with your actual user ID Basically, all this does is directly print your uRead more
Okay, so I’ve never really done a Code Golf challenge before, but this sounds fun! I’m not 100% sure if this would be optimal, but I found a super simple way to print your user ID using Python:
Basically, all this does is directly print your user ID as text. I mean, it’s literally the simplest possible solution—probably not too creative, lol. And definitely it’s short enough to be under 50 bytes!
But if you wanna be a bit fancier, you could use JavaScript like this:
This is just as minimal, just logs your number directly into the console. I guess both Python and JavaScript make it really easy because you can just drop the number right there without having to do anything weird.
Then someone mentioned handling invalid input, and honestly, I hadn’t thought about that. Maybe you’d need to take input and check if it’s valid first. If you’re gonna do that, something longer might be necessary, like:
But that’s definitely longer—not very “golfy” anymore. So yeah, this was my super basic take on it! Curious to see how everyone else figures it out, especially in languages I’m not familiar with!
See lessHow can I accurately convert screen cursor position to world-space in Unreal Engine for a 2D game?
In Unreal Engine, using ConvertMouseToWorldSpace alone typically yields just a direction vector and a location offset influenced heavily by your camera's position. For a precise 2D setup, you'll achieve better results by manually performing a line-plane intersection, treating your gameplay area as aRead more
In Unreal Engine, using
ConvertMouseToWorldSpacealone typically yields just a direction vector and a location offset influenced heavily by your camera’s position. For a precise 2D setup, you’ll achieve better results by manually performing a line-plane intersection, treating your gameplay area as a fixed plane (such as Z = 0, Y = 0, or whichever plane your game uses). You can utilize the functionDeprojectScreenPositionToWorldfrom your PlayerController. It will output both the world location and direction vector for your mouse cursor. Once obtained, you can perform a simple line-plane intersection calculation, projecting from your camera along the direction vector until intersecting the plane that your actors exist on.Specifically, grab your PlayerController and call
See lessDeprojectScreenPositionToWorld, taking in your mouse coordinates and retrieving the resulting world location and direction. Assuming a known 2D plane or axis-aligned plane (e.g., the XZ-plane at Y=0 for a side-view setup), you can solve the intersection mathematically in blueprint or C++. This method is accurate, clean, and accounts for the camera’s full projection matrix, removing any ambiguity or dependency on actor screen projection hacks.How can I accurately convert screen cursor position to world-space in Unreal Engine for a 2D game?
Sounds like you're hitting a pretty common snag with converting mouse coordinates to world space in Unreal Engine, especially for a 2D game! The `ConvertMouseToWorldSpace` function should usually do the trick, but if it’s giving you weird values, it might be worth checking a few things. First off, mRead more
Sounds like you’re hitting a pretty common snag with converting mouse coordinates to world space in Unreal Engine, especially for a 2D game! The `ConvertMouseToWorldSpace` function should usually do the trick, but if it’s giving you weird values, it might be worth checking a few things.
First off, make sure your camera settings are consistent and that you’re actually looking at the right area of the world. Sometimes, if the camera is off or has weird scaling, it messes up the calculations. If your character is positioned at X=-500 and Z=700, that’s like halfway up in the world; just double-checking where your camera is pointing can help.
If the `ConvertMouseToWorldSpace` isn’t cutting it, you could try using a combination of other functions. One trick is to use `DeprojectScreenToWorld`, which can be more reliable for what you’re trying to achieve. This function takes the screen coordinates (like your mouse cursor position) and transforms them into a world location, accounting for the camera’s view and projection.
Here’s a step-by-step idea:
This method should give you a more accurate point in world space that corresponds with your cursor. Just remember that in 2D, you might not need that full 3D space handling, so you can refine the Z value when you get your world location.
Give that a shot! And don’t hesitate to tweak your camera settings if things still feel off. It can be a bit of a puzzle figuring out how all these pieces fit together, but you’ll get there!
See lessIs it better to use stack memory or a Memory Arena for storing large game structs like Entities and MapData?
Given the substantial size and prolonged lifetime of your Entities struct, leveraging stack memory might indeed put you at risk of stack overflows, especially if this structure becomes larger or numerous instances are created. Stack memory is ideal for smaller, short-lived variables where quick alloRead more
Given the substantial size and prolonged lifetime of your
Entitiesstruct, leveraging stack memory might indeed put you at risk of stack overflows, especially if this structure becomes larger or numerous instances are created. Stack memory is ideal for smaller, short-lived variables where quick allocation and deallocation benefit performance. In your scenario, where the entities persist throughout the game’s lifetime and occupy considerable space, a stack allocation approach typically becomes problematic. Transitioning to a heap-allocated memory arena provides not only safety against potential overflows but also facilitates better control over allocation and deallocation cycles, minimizing fragmentation and simplifying lifetime management.Although memory arenas do introduce a minor overhead due to the additional indirection and management logic, this overhead is often negligible compared to the improved flexibility and safety they offer for long-lived, large-scale data structures. For extensive entity pools or map data, arenas commonly boost game stability and overall performance by organizing memory more predictably. Nonetheless, the stack memory approach retains an advantage when handling small, temporary data structures where high allocation speed is paramount, such as short-term calculations or quick event-driven processes. Ultimately, utilizing a memory arena for large, persistent structures like your
See lessEntitiesstruct appears justified and prudent, aligning well with typical game development best practices.Is it better to use stack memory or a Memory Arena for storing large game structs like Entities and MapData?
Hey there! It sounds like you're diving deep into some pretty interesting stuff with memory management, especially for game dev. So, you’ve got this `Entities` struct that's quite sizable, and you're using stack memory for it? I totally get why you're second-guessing that choice! The stack is indeedRead more
Hey there! It sounds like you’re diving deep into some pretty interesting stuff with memory management, especially for game dev. So, you’ve got this `Entities` struct that’s quite sizable, and you’re using stack memory for it? I totally get why you’re second-guessing that choice!
The stack is indeed super fast for allocations and is great when you have temporary data, but as you mentioned, it doesn’t handle larger or persistent data really well. Stack overflow could definitely be a risk if your `Entities` struct takes up a lot of space and you’re trying to do more stuff on the stack at the same time.
Shifting to a Memory Arena sounds like a solid plan! It would free you from the potential worries of stack overflow and give you more control over memory during the game. Plus, the fact that you can allocate a bunch of entities all at once and then just clean up later seems like a huge win, especially for managing the lifecycle of entities that need to stick around.
From what I’ve heard, using a Memory Arena isn’t overkill for something like an entity pool at all! A lot of devs find that it simplifies their life, especially with dealing with lots of entities that have the same lifetime. I think the main performance hit when going from stack to heap generally tends to be in allocation speed, but with a well-implemented Memory Arena, you might not even notice much difference.
In some cases, stack memory might still be beneficial when you’re dealing with smaller structs or temporary data that you’re done with very quickly. It can give you super fast allocations without needing to manage the memory manually. But for something as critical as your `Entities`, it sounds like a smart move to go the arena route.
Hope this helps you out a bit in figuring things out! Good luck with your game development!
See less