Hi,
I am wondering why tiles give “diagonal” shapes with the nodes connections.
It seems longer when moving from top/left corner to bottom/right corner than top/right corner to bottom/left corner. In my opinion it gives oriented graph, or do I missed something ?
Thank you in advance for your feedback
Best
This is due to the triangulation, enable the Outline option to see all triangles.
The connections go between all adjacent triangle centers. Your screenshot looks perfectly reasonable to me.
See below a computation based on the nodes graph where each color is for a given time (for example 1min). As you can see, it seems easier to move from top/left to bottom/right. So, by range of times, the distance traveled on the graph is so longer is this direction. I am using a ConstantPath to do so.
I have noticed that adding dual-cut (mostly circles) can change this behavior and I was able to get something more uniform but I did not find the good patterns & densities (ie where to add exctly them) yet to solve this issue. Any idea here how to improve the results ? Realtime is not crucial here.
Many thks
Best
Ah. Yes there is some non-uniformity due to how pathfinding works. In version 5 it is more accurate than in v4, but it’s still an approximation. I believe you can see the actual shortest paths if you enable the “Show Search Tree” option under A* Inspector → Settings → Pathfinding. If you need a more predictable search, I would recommend that you use a grid graph instead.
I first tried the grid but its size limitation was an issue. We could not cover a complete 3D model (was not enough accurate). Recast graph has also limitation because we now would like to support bigger models. I am wondering if we could go with multiple graphes linked together with several links. What do you think there ? The best would be to link several grid graphes together.
The non-uniformity is a big issue for us. I will try the v5. What is the accuracy difference ?
In fact, I think that adding cuts (in each tile center or in each center of significant triangles) might be a solution. Doing this gave me sometimes a good and accurate result but what I would like to do is being able to find the good shape to get. Any clue on this ?
Many thks for your great support
Best
I believe previously the path cost could be wrong by up to around 1.8x in my tests, but in v5, it is down to around 1.1x (where 1.0x would be perfect).
In v5 you can enable an option to increase the size limit for grid graphs under the Optimizations tab. However, larger grid graphs will use a lot of RAM, so it’s not be recommended. However, it would use the same amount of RAM as stiching several smaller graphs together.
Ok, fine I will try the v5 right now ^_^.
Regarding recast graphes only, do you think that linking 2-3 graphes together (using one link at least per tile) may work to reduce cell size & tile size ? Or this is not recommended for this use ?
Many thks again
Best
Why would you link 2-3 graphs together to achieve that?
You can already set the tile size and cell size directly in the recast graph settings.
There is a limitation in the number of tiles (if I remember 4096).
I tried to enter my invoice # on your website but nothing happens : “After you have submitted the form, the download button for the pro version will become enabled. Note that it might take some time to load. Please be patient.”. I was patient…
Package manager seems not being able to verify my licence probably because the package was not installed with it few years ago.
Sorry for this issue.
Best
In v5, the default limit is 524287.
There’s an option in the Optimizations tab to either have large tiles instead (raising the vertex limit, but reducing the max number of tiles).
Are you sure you entered the right invoice number? If it doesn’t work, you can PM me your invoice number and I’ll have a look.
I checked your invoice number.
It works fine for me. I think it’s just due to confusion about how to use it on the website. Just press the button to download the pro version, you’ll get to this page A* Pathfinding Project, and there you can enter your invoice number.
I admit it is very confusing at the moment. I have a draft of a new design which I’ll hopefully launch some time soon.
