On Monday, January 18, 2038, at 08:14 PM, malte brill wrote:
> And checking > the masked data is much too slow. At most you need only check the pixels that overlap. If the rectangles of two images do not overlap, there is no collision. If they do, check only the overlapping part. Perhaps a collision occurs when the product of the overlaping alphas are greater than some threshold. If your physics prevents two objects being at the same place, you might not have a lot of overlap. Keep your images tight; don't leave a lot of transparent space about a picture. Depending on your physics, you might need only check the edges of the picture. You might be able to check even less pixels with certain assumptions, such as the shape being convex. If pixel by pixel checking is too slow, you might roughly model each object with a small list of rectangles in a custom property. An overlap occurs if any rectangle from one's list overlaps one from the other. This is n**2, so... How about limiting this to a few rectangles and then use the pixel method for within that? Or, related, breaking up larger images into smaller. Just a handful of wild ideas. I'd try checking the alphas and seeing how slow that really is. Dar Scott _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
