前言：
A*算法是路徑搜索中的經(jīng)典算法，也是公認(rèn)的最優(yōu)算法之一，網(wǎng)上找到一篇文章講的很好，適合入門，所以翻譯了一下，沒有完全參照原文，主要還是意譯，網(wǎng)上也有其他人翻譯好的，個(gè)人覺得還是自己來一遍比較好，讀者自斟：
原文
開始：搜索區(qū)域
這里假設(shè)有人要從A點(diǎn)去往B點(diǎn)，另外有一面墻將兩者分開。如下圖所示，綠色方塊代表A點(diǎn)，紅色方塊代表B點(diǎn)，藍(lán)色代表分開他們的墻。
    
圖一

首先要注意的是我們這里先將整個(gè)搜索區(qū)域網(wǎng)格化，以方便路徑搜索。這一方法將搜索區(qū)域簡(jiǎn)化為一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的2為數(shù)組。數(shù)組的每個(gè)元素代表網(wǎng)格上的一片區(qū)域，并且標(biāo)記為可通過或不可通過兩種狀態(tài)。路徑由從A點(diǎn)到達(dá)B點(diǎn)所經(jīng)過的方塊來表示。
這些點(diǎn)被稱為節(jié)點(diǎn)。之所以不直接叫方塊是因?yàn)閰^(qū)域可以被劃分為矩形，六邊形，等。而點(diǎn)也不一定是在中心，可以在邊緣或其他地方。

開始搜索

一旦我們?nèi)缟蠄D將搜索區(qū)域網(wǎng)格化，將之轉(zhuǎn)化為可操作數(shù)量的節(jié)點(diǎn)，然后下一步就是找到一個(gè)搜索算法找出最短路徑。我們從A點(diǎn)出發(fā)，搜索遞歸周圍領(lǐng)域，直到到達(dá)目標(biāo)點(diǎn)

  圖2
接下來，我們?cè)谶x擇“候選列表”中的一個(gè)領(lǐng)域然后大致上重復(fù)剛才的步驟，如下所述。然后選擇擁有最小F值的那個(gè)方塊

路徑評(píng)估

在路徑選擇是關(guān)鍵指標(biāo)等式描述如下：

F = G + H 

這里：

• G= 表示從A點(diǎn)到當(dāng)前點(diǎn)的所經(jīng)過的路徑長(zhǎng)度
• H=從當(dāng)前點(diǎn)到目標(biāo)點(diǎn)B的估計(jì)路徑長(zhǎng)度。這經(jīng)常被描述為“啟發(fā)式”，有時(shí)這樣會(huì)引起歧義。之所以這么叫是因?yàn)檫@僅僅是一種猜測(cè)。事實(shí)上在找到路徑之前我們并不知道實(shí)際路徑長(zhǎng)度，因?yàn)闀?huì)有如墻，水等東西阻擋。這里給出一種計(jì)算H的方法，同時(shí)在網(wǎng)上有許多其他計(jì)算H值的方法。

我們的路徑正式不斷的遍歷“候選列表”并選擇最小F值的點(diǎn)。這個(gè)過程會(huì)在稍后詳細(xì)說明。首先來了解我們是如何計(jì)算等式的。

如上所述，G是利用先前產(chǎn)生的路徑到達(dá)當(dāng)前點(diǎn)所得長(zhǎng)度。此例中，出于簡(jiǎn)化目的，我們定義單元格之間的距離為10，對(duì)角單元格距離為14，同時(shí)這樣做也會(huì)大大減少計(jì)算量。

有多中計(jì)算方法。這里所使用的方法是曼哈頓方法，該方法累計(jì)從當(dāng)前點(diǎn)到目標(biāo)點(diǎn)在水平方向和垂直方向（忽略對(duì)角線方向）所要經(jīng)過的所有方塊數(shù)，同時(shí)忽略可能遇到的障礙。然后將結(jié)果乘以10（單位距離），之所以成為曼哈頓方法，是因?yàn)檫@就像要數(shù)從一個(gè)地方到另一個(gè)地方要走過多少個(gè)街區(qū)，而同時(shí)你有不能斜穿街區(qū)。

看完這個(gè)描述，你或許會(huì)認(rèn)為所謂的“啟發(fā)式”不過是將剩余的路徑長(zhǎng)度粗略的估計(jì)為兩點(diǎn)間的直線距離。事實(shí)上并非如此。我們正是在試圖估計(jì)實(shí)際剩余距離（一般會(huì)比實(shí)際距離更長(zhǎng)），與實(shí)際距離越接近，算法越快速，如果估計(jì)值過大，就會(huì)有可能出現(xiàn)找出的路徑不是最短路徑的情況。這種情況我們稱之為“不可接受啟發(fā)式”
第一步搜索的F，G，H可表示如下圖

 
圖三

繼續(xù)搜索

4) 將其從“候選列表”中刪除加入到“排除列表”

1.  Other Units (collision avoidance): If you happen to look closely at my example code, you will notice that it completely ignores other units on the screen. The units pass right through each other. Depending on the game, this may be acceptable or it may not. If you want to consider other units in the pathfinding algorithm and have them move around one another, I suggest that you only consider units that are either stopped or adjacent to the pathfinding unit at the time the path is calculated, treating their current locations as unwalkable. For adjacent units that are moving, you can discourage collisions by penalizing nodes that lie along their respective paths, thereby encouraging the pathfinding unit to find an alternate route (described more under #2).

If you choose to consider other units that are moving and not adjacent to the pathfinding unit, you will need to develop a method for predicting where they will be at any given point in time so that they can be dodged properly. Otherwise you will probably end up with strange paths where units zig-zag to avoid other units that aren't there anymore.

You will also, of course, need to develop some collision detection code because no matter how good the path is at the time it is calculated, things can change over time. When a collision occurs a unit must either calculate a new path or, if the other unit is moving and it is not a head-on collision, wait for the other unit to step out of the way before proceeding with the current path.

These tips are probably enough to get you started. If you want to learn more, here are some links that you might find helpful:

• Steering Behavior for Autonomous Characters: Craig Reynold's work on steering is a bit different from pathfinding, but it can be integrated with pathfinding to make a more complete movement and collision avoidance system.
• The Long and Short of Steering in Computer Games: An interesting survey of the literature on steering and pathfinding. This is a pdf file.
• Coordinated Unit Movement: First in a two-part series of articles on formation and group-based movement by Age of Empires designer Dave Pottinger.
  
• Implementing Coordinated Movement: Second in Dave Pottinger's two-part series.

譯者注：看了以上這段我想起魔獸中那些小人在移動(dòng)時(shí)遇到一起會(huì)停一下，然后排隊(duì)繼續(xù)運(yùn)動(dòng)，原因就在這里。

2. Variable Terrain Cost: In this tutorial and my accompanying program, terrain is just one of two things – walkable or unwalkable. But what if you have terrain that is walkable, but at a higher movement cost? Swamps, hills, stairs in a dungeon, etc. – these are all examples of terrain that is walkable, but at a higher cost than flat, open ground. Similarly, a road might have a lower movement cost than the surrounding terrain.

This problem is easily handled by adding the terrain cost in when you are calculating the G cost of any given node. Simply add a bonus cost to such nodes. The A* pathfinding algorithm is already written to find the lowest cost path and should handle this easily. In the simple example I described, when terrain is only walkable or unwalkable, A* will look for the shortest, most direct path. But in a variable-cost terrain environment, the least cost path might involve traveling a longer distance – like taking a road around a swamp rather than plowing straight through it.

An interesting additional consideration is something the professionals call “influence mapping.” Just as with the variable terrain costs described above, you could create an additional point system and apply it to paths for AI purposes. Imagine that you have a map with a bunch of units defending a pass through a mountain region. Every time the computer sends somebody on a path through that pass, it gets whacked. If you wanted, you could create an influence map that penalized nodes where lots of carnage is taking place. This would teach the computer to favor safer paths, and help it avoid dumb situations where it keeps sending troops through a particular path, just because it is shorter (but also more dangerous).

Yet another possible use is penalizing nodes that lie along the paths of nearby moving units. One of the downsides of A* is that when a group of units all try to find paths to a similar location, there is usually a significant amount of overlap, as one or more units try to take the same or similar routes to their destinations. Adding a penalty to nodes already 'claimed' by other units will help ensure a degree of separation, and reduce collisions. Don't treat such nodes as unwalkable, however, because you still want multiple units to be able to squeeze through tight passageways in single file, if necessary. Also, you should only penalize the paths of units that are near the pathfinding unit, not all paths, or you will get strange dodging behavior as units avoid paths of units that are nowhere near them at the time. Also, you should only penalize path nodes that lie along the current and future portion of a path, not previous path nodes that have already been visited and left behind.

3. Handling Unexplored Areas: Have you ever played a PC game where the computer always knows exactly what path to take, even though the map hasn't been explored yet? Depending upon the game, pathfinding that is too good can be unrealistic. Fortunately, this is a problem that is can be handled fairly easily.

The answer is to create a separate "knownWalkability" array for each of the various players and computer opponents (each player, not each unit -- that would require a lot more computer memory). Each array would contain information about the areas that the player has explored, with the rest of the map assumed to be walkable until proven otherwise. Using this approach, units will wander down dead ends and make similar wrong choices until they have learned their way around. Once the map is explored, however, pathfinding would work normally.

4. Smoother Paths: While A* will automatically give you the shortest, lowest cost path, it won't automatically give you the smoothest looking path. Take a look at the final path calculated in our example (in Figure 7). On that path, the very first step is below, and to the right of the starting square. Wouldn't our path be smoother if the first step was instead the square directly below the starting square?

There are several ways to address this problem. While you are calculating the path you could penalize nodes where there is a change of direction, adding a penalty to their G scores. Alternatively, you could run through your path after it is calculated, looking for places where choosing an adjacent node would give you a path that looks better. For more on the whole issue, check out Toward More Realistic Pathfinding, a (free, but registration required) article at Gamasutra.com by Marco Pinter.

5. Non-square Search Areas: In our example, we used a simple 2D square layout. You don't need to use this approach. You could use irregularly shaped areas. Think of the board game Risk, and the countries in that game. You could devise a pathfinding scenario for a game like that. To do this, you would need to create a table for storing which countries are adjacent to which, and a G cost associated with moving from one country to the next. You would also need to come up with a method for estimating H. Everything else would be handled the same as in the above example. Instead of using adjacent squares, you would simply look up the adjacent countries in the table when adding new items to your open list.

Similarly, you could create a waypoint system for paths on a fixed terrain map. Waypoints are commonly traversed points on a path, perhaps on a road or key tunnel in a dungeon. As the game designer, you could pre-assign these waypoints. Two waypoints would be considered "adjacent" to one another if there were no obstacles on the direct line path between them. As in the Risk example, you would save this adjacency information in a lookup table of some kind and use it when generating your new open list items. You would then record the associated G costs (perhaps by using the direct line distance between the nodes) and H costs (perhaps using a direct line distance from the node to the goal). Everything else would proceed as usual.

6. Some Speed Tips: As you develop your own A* program, or adapt the one I wrote, you will eventually find that pathfinding is using a hefty chunk of your CPU time, particularly if you have a decent number of pathfinding units on the board and a reasonably large map. If you read the stuff on the net, you will find that this is true even for the professionals who design games like Starcraft or Age of Empires. If you see things start to slow down due to pathfinding, here are some ideas that may speed things up: 

• Consider a smaller map or fewer units.
• Never do path finding for more than a few units at a time. Instead put them in a queue and spread them out over several game cycles. If your game is running at, say, 40 cycles per second, no one will ever notice. But they will notice if the game seems to slow down every once in a while when a bunch of units are all calculating paths at the same time.
• Consider using larger squares (or whatever shape you are using) for your map. This reduces the total number of nodes searched to find the path. If you are ambitious, you can devise two or more pathfinding systems that are used in different situations, depending upon the length of the path. This is what the professionals do, using large areas for long paths, and then switching to finer searches using smaller squares/areas when you get close to the target. If you are interested in this concept, check out my article Two-Tiered A* Pathfinding.
• For longer paths, consider devising precalculated paths that are hardwired into the game.
• Consider pre-processing your map to figure out what areas are inaccessible from the rest of the map. I call these areas "islands." In reality, they can be islands or any other area that is otherwise walled off and inaccessible. One of the downsides of A* is that if you tell it to look for paths to such areas, it will search the whole map, stopping only when every accessible square/node has been processed through the open and closed lists. That can waste a lot of CPU time. It can be prevented by predetermining which areas are inaccessible (via a flood-fill or similar routine), recording that information in an array of some kind, and then checking it before beginning a path search.
• In a crowded, maze-like environment, consider tagging nodes that don't lead anywhere as dead ends. Such areas can be manually pre-designated in your map editor or, if you are ambitious, you could develop an algorithm to identify such areas automatically. Any collection of nodes in a given dead end area could be given a unique identifying number. Then you could safely ignore all dead ends when pathfinding, pausing only to consider nodes in a dead end area if the starting location or destination happen to be in the particular dead end area in question.

7. Maintaining the Open List: This is actually one of the most time consuming elements of the A* pathfinding algorithm. Every time you access the open list, you need to find the square that has the lowest F cost. There are several ways you could do this. You could save the path items as needed, and simply go through the whole list each time you need to find the lowest F cost square. This is simple, but really slow for long paths. This can be improved by maintaining a sorted list and simply grabbing the first item off the list every time you need the lowest F-cost square. When I wrote my program, this was the first method I used.

This will work reasonably well for small maps, but it isn’t the fastest solution. Serious A* programmers who want real speed use something called a binary heap, and this is what I use in my code. In my experience, this approach will be at least 2-3 times as fast in most situations, and geometrically faster (10+ times as fast) on longer paths. If you are motivated to find out more about binary heaps, check out my article, Using Binary Heaps in A* Pathfinding.

Another possible bottleneck is the way you clear and maintain your data structures between pathfinding calls. I personally prefer to store everything in arrays. While nodes can be generated, recorded and maintained in a dynamic, object-oriented manner, I find that the amount of time needed to create and delete such objects adds an extra, unnecessary level of overhead that slows things down. If you use arrays, however, you will need to clean things up between calls. The last thing you will want to do in such cases is spend time zero-ing everything out after a pathfinding call, especially if you have a large map.

I avoid this overhead by creating a 2d array called whichList(x,y) that designates each node on my map as either on the open list or closed list. After pathfinding attempts, I do not zero out this array. Instead I reset the values of onClosedList and onOpenList in every pathfinding call, incrementing both by +5 or something similar on each path finding attempt. This way, the algorithm can safely ignore as garbage any data left over from previous pathfinding attempts. I also store values like F, G and H costs in arrays. In this case, I simply write over any pre-existing values and don't bother clearing the arrays when I'm done.

Storing data in multiple arrays consumes more memory, though, so there is a trade off. Ultimately, you should use whatever method you are most comfortable with.

8. Dijkstra's Algorithm: While A* is generally considered to be the best pathfinding algorithm (see rant above), there is at least one other algorithm that has its uses - Dijkstra's algorithm. Dijkstra's is essentially the same as A*, except there is no heuristic (H is always 0). Because it has no heuristic, it searches by expanding out equally in every direction. As you might imagine, because of this Dijkstra's usually ends up exploring a much larger area before the target is found. This generally makes it slower than A*.

So why use it? Sometimes we don't know where our target destination is. Say you have a resource-gathering unit that needs to go get some resources of some kind. It may know where several resource areas are, but it wants to go to the closest one. Here, Dijkstra's is better than A* because we don't know which one is closest. Our only alternative is to repeatedly use A* to find the distance to each one, and then choose that path. There are probably countless similar situations where we know the kind of location we might be searching for, want to find the closest one, but not know where it is or which one might be closest.

Further Reading

If you do not have access to C++ or Blitz Basic, two small exe files can be found in the C++ version. The Blitz Basic version can be run by downloading the free demo version of Blitz Basic 3D (not Blitz Plus) at the Blitz Basic web site.

You should also consider reading through the following web pages. They should be much easier to understand now that you have read this tutorial.

• Amit’s A* Pages: This is a very widely referenced page by Amit Patel, but it can be a bit confusing if you haven’t read this article first. Well worth checking out. See especially Amit's own thoughts on the topic.
• Smart Moves: Intelligent Path Finding: This article by Bryan Stout at Gamasutra.com requires registration to read. The registration is free and well worth it just to reach this article, much less the other resources that are available there. The program written in Delphi by Bryan helped me learn A*, and it is the inspiration behind my A* program. It also describes some alternatives to A*.
• Terrain Analysis: This is an advanced, but interesting, article by Dave Pottinger, a professional at Ensemble Studios. This guy coordinated the development of Age of Empires and Age of Kings. Don’t expect to understand everything here, but it is an interesting article that might give you some ideas of your own. It includes some discussion of mip-mapping, influence mapping, and some other advanced AI/pathfinding concepts.

Some other sites worth checking out:

• aiGuru: Pathfinding
• Game AI Resource: Pathfinding
• GameDev.net: Pathfinding