Call me old fashioned...
...but I like stuff to blow up when I shoot at it. There are some enemy sprites flying around, some player bullets headed in their general direction and I'd like to know when a bullet hits a sprite so I can make it asplode.
One way is by comparing the coordinates. If you imagine subtracting the coords of one object from another, then the result will say something about how close together those objects are. Small numbers = close together, big numbers = far apart.
In fact we can tell if two rectangular regions are overlapping by subtracting the coordinates and comparing the resulting numbers against limits:
; Hit. You sunk my battleship.
That takes about 56 cycles. It can be reduced to 52 cycles by noting that each cmpd # can be replaced with a faster subd # and modifying the limits. (Also handy to know is that cmp #value can be replaced with add #-value, which allows you, for example, to compare against positive and negative versions of the same variable)
More cycles than Halfords
Now, here's the thing: We need to check each object against every other object with which we wish to detect a collision.
Taking the case of eight player bullets and eight enemy sprites, that makes 8 x 8 = 64 collision checks. At 52 cycles per check that amounts to well over 3ms. Ouch. That's 10% of the total time budget, or a very large chunk of the time remaining after the background and sprites have been drawn. And I still have to detect collisions with the player and implement sound.
I did some research on optimising collision detection, using space partitioning methods such as quadtrees, but soon began to realise that these techniques are better suited for more powerful systems dealing with larger numbers of objects. Not only that, the worst case scenario would still require the maximum number of checks, resulting in dropped frames and slow downs. Suddenly the performance of my game wasn't looking so good. Reality had invited itself round for dinner, like some kind of unwelcome freeloading walrus, and there was nothing I could do about it, except perhaps to hide in a cupboard until the problem went away.
But then I started to think about how collision detection was often done in games written in BASIC. For example in text mode games, before an object is drawn, the destination address can be checked to see what's already there. Or in graphics modes, PPOINT was often used to check the colour of a target pixel. Both amount to the same thing: Using the data in the screen buffer to detect collisions.
One of these pixels is not like the others
So the new strategy could work like this: The routine that draws the bullets records data for each bullet location. Then, after each sprite is drawn, the data is compared against the new screen contents. If something is different then we know that the sprite just drawn has been hit by the bullet just checked.
Because the bullets are only one pixel in size, we just need to record one pixel of information for each. The information is comprised of address, mask and pixel value. The address tells us where in the buffer the bullet is drawn, the mask selects the pixel of interest (out of the four pixels making up a byte), and the pixel value is the bullet colour ANDed with the mask, giving us something we can use to detect changes.
After each sprite is drawn, it will need to check for all eight bullets, using something like the following bit of code repeated eight times:
lda addr1 ; grab data from screen
anda mask1 ; select pixel of interest
cmpa pix1 ; compare with bullet colour
bne hit ; collision if not equal
As this code fragment could be run 64 times, every single cycle matters, so I've opted to use self-modifying code, with the bullet update routine storing the data directly into the collision detect code:
addr1 lda >0 ; 5 cycles
mask1 anda #0 ; 2
pix1 cmpa #0 ; 2
bne hit ; 3
We're now down to 12 cycles per check, which when added to the additional code in the bullet update routine, takes less than a third of the time taken by the coord comparison method. Much better!
Now I should mention that this method does have a flaw: If the sprite pixel is the same colour as the bullet pixel then the collision won't be detected. It's not as bad as it sounds, because there is a good chance that a missed collision will be picked up on the next frame when the bullet moves to a different part of the sprite. Consider also that the coord comparison method is not perfect either, and requires the collision region to be a rectangular approximation of the true shape of the sprite image. On balance I think the faster method easily wins.
That leaves us with detecting collisions with the player. The coord comparison method could be viable here, because we only need one check per enemy sprite. The downside is that the accuracy will be a compromise. To avoid unfair situations, the bounding rectangles will have to be completely contained within the sprite images, which could mean large parts of sprites overlapping without a collision being detected. Instead, a more accurate screen buffer method could be used:
- First draw the player
- Then draw all the sprites that are dangerous to the player
- Then check the screen buffer to see if anything has been drawn on top of the player
To determine if anything has been drawn on top of the player, we can use the player mask data to extract a player-shaped region of the screen. This should be identical to the player image, otherwise something must have been drawn on top. The following bit of code does just that:
loop pulu d ; get two mask bytes
coma ; invert mask bytes
anda ,x ; collect data from mask-
andb 1,x ; -shaped region of screen
subd ofs,u ; compare with image data
bne hit ; difference means collision
pulu d ; get next two mask bytes
coma ; and do same again
anda 2,x ;
andb 3,x ;
subd ofs,u ;
bne hit ;
leax 64,x ; check every other row
leau 4,u ;
dec count ;
bne loop ; repeat until done
u is pointing to the player mask and image data, with ofs being the size of the mask data minus two, to allow for pulu d adding two. x is pointing to the screen buffer. Note that I'm testing every other row to save time, the assumption being that this is sufficient to detect a collision with a large object. If I needed to detect collisions with single pixels then I may have to check every row.
This routine takes about 500 cycles to check six rows of player sprite, which is actually a little slower than comparing coords, but has the advantage of greater accuracy. It could be accelerated by using a compiled sprite technique, unrolling and converting instructions to immediate mode, but it would consume a lot of memory, requiring one routine for each of the 16 player directions. Worth keeping in mind for a high-performance 64K version.
Another advantage over coord comparisons is that the run time is independent of the number of objects. I could decide to add a load of enemy bullets for example and the player collision check would take the same amount of time.
The downside is that we don't know which object collided with the player. This is OK for my purposes, but might not be enough for some games. One way to work out which object was in collision would be additional code after the screen buffer test to determine which object was nearest to the player. (Though be careful of situations where the nearest object may not actually be the one colliding with the player)
He's making a list
These collision detection methods require the sprites to be handled in different ways. There are collidable sprites, such as enemies, that need to be checked for collisions, and there are non-collidable sprites, such as explosions, which skip the checks. These are allocated from a pool of eight free sprites.
And checking it twice
I have implemented three linked lists, to keep track of the collidable, non-collidable and free sprites. The non-collidable sprites are drawn before the player and skip the player bullet checks. The collidable sprites are drawn after the player and before the player collision check and have the bullet checks enabled. (Drawing the non-collidable sprites before the player avoids drawing the same sprite twice in one frame as would happen when an enemy sprite is turned into an explosion.)
Oh crap it's almost Christmas
I'm using one-way linked lists to keep the overhead down (each list item having a pointer to the next list item), and this is working OK, but I'm not sure if that will be the solution used in the final version of the game. Moving an item from the collidable to the non-collidable list takes six load/stores to modify the pointers leaving me wondering if there's a better way. Perhaps a job for another time...