Gravity Simulator 3.1

[Moderator]

v3.1
IcemanBo:
http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/spells-569/gravity-simulator-3-1-a-237184/index3.html#post2767878

old

10:37, 15th Jul 2013
Magtheridon96:

This is just a reminder to what we've spoken about in chat to keep you from forgetting the discussion:

- Scalability and Speed in Physics Systems are important
- ExecuteFunc is not the kind of function you'd want running in a loop for this kind of system ;O
- Merge the functions into 1 function to reduce the impact of the ExecuteFunc calls.
- In order to stay away from the op limit, you can test for how many instances it takes for your system to go kaboom, and use that as a threshold. To iterate over the instances in the system, you would iterate over <threshold> instances, stop, make the trigger run itself again and loop over the remaining instances until it does <threshold> instances again, and repeat.

 

[Magtheridon96]

• Set i_index_max = 1890

You mean 8190, right?

 

[Tonex]

Whoops, that was really dumb. Let me fix that.

 

[gorillabull]

i tested it, the unit went off bounds and the game crashed also the variable names look weird and im not sure what your aim is when uploading something this simple

 

[deathismyfriend]

also making multiple triggers for something so simple makes it harder for someone to copy, less efficient since u dont need all these triggers, and hard to read. u should really change how u code spells. Also note that using multiple triggers makes it so u cant use as many tempVariables which are better to use than creating more and more unnecessary variables.

 

[Tonex]

i tested it, the unit went off bounds and the game crashed also the variable names look weird and im not sure what your aim is when uploading something this simple

1. At the moment, I'm leaving the out of bounds as is, since I figure it should be open to the person whether to remove the unit, move it somewhere else, or do whatever else with the unit.
2. My variable names just happen to be the conventions I use in C++ to make sure I always match up correct data types, though I guess I don't really need that if I'm working in GUI. If it bothers peaople that much, I guess I'll change it.
3. I don't see this as being that much simpler than other GUI spells I've glanced at, but it is true that it's much less flashy than other spells, since it's just a system that moves units.

also making multiple triggers for something so simple makes it harder for someone to copy, less efficient since u dont need all these triggers, and hard to read. u should really change how u code spells. Also note that using multiple triggers makes it so u cant use as many tempVariables which are better to use than creating more and more unnecessary variables.

1. That is indeed true now that I think about it. However, there are some triggers I', fairly sure that I can't compress, such as the giant loops, as I'm fairly sure that a loop 8000 x 8000 times would hit the operation limit. I'll look into it though.
2. That is what I aim to do, as this is my first spell posted on Hive, I plan to change my coding to be more user friendly.
3. I totally forgot about local variables when I was coding. I'll go back and put some in.

 

[deathismyfriend]

yes that would hit the op-limit. but u should never need a loop that big. if u do then use things to start a new thread so u wont hit the op-limit

 

[Tonex]

Is there another way to start a new thread other than creating an entirely new trigger or inserting a wait? I need the double 8k loops because I have to take every indexed unit (max 8k) and calculate the force all of the other indexed units exert on it (max 8k-1) Otherwise I would gladly combine as many triggers as I can.

 

[deathismyfriend]

i am not entirely sure about all the options to create a new thread. i know using a TriggerSleepAction does. but im not sure what else does. if u ask in WEHZ mybe someone will know them.

 

[gorillabull]

what was the implementation of the gravity system you wrote in c++?

 

[Tonex]

Originally it was for a little game where you navigate your spaceship to different parts of the star system and fired gravity pulled projectiles. I still have yet to figure out OpenGL, so atm I just use it in physics ball dropping simulations.

 

[Tank-Commander]

For something like this to be approvable, you ought to have Z velocity/gravity as well, also the loop shoul;d run every 0.03 seconds not 0.01, and this should be reduced to 3 triggers max. And where is the deallocation?

 

[Tonex]

I was about to ask about z next, are the units the same as x/y? The deallocation is in the "Run" trigger. The update speed is customizable, I just set it to 0.01 since what I have atm is not that lag intensive with just 2 units. And I am about to update to the three-trigger version.

 

[Tank-Commander]

Ah yes I see it, though, if you're using dynamic indexing, then from what I can tell, the indexing is actually incorrectly done, normally you decrease the index size -after- recycling, as well as the current index number is decreased by one.

 

[Tonex]

There are many ways to do it. I think you're talking about if the array = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and you remove 3, it becomes 1, 2, 4, 5. My indexing style is that it becomes 1, 2, 5, 4. I fill in the removed index with the last index value and decrease the index pointer.

 

[Tank-Commander]

nah I'm talking about it becoming 1,2,5,4 as yours claims to. I'm just going to show a algorithm that yours is doing:

Algorithm

• instances 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
• loop variable reaches 3rd place
• instance 3 has ended
• decreases index size: 1, 2, 3, 4
• swap current index with last index: 1, 2, 4, 3
• loop variable reaches 4th place
• loop runs instance 3 again

if I'm wrong on this I'd love to be corrected, but that seems to me to be what's happening, have you tested the indexing?

 

[Tonex]

Actually if I have 5 values stored, my current_index is sitting at the non-allocated 6th value. I know it's kind of awkward, but that's just how my indexing system works. For now.

 

[deathismyfriend]

u should only decrease the index after u de-index everything. also u should decrease the current looping integer after u reduce the max index variable

edit: i see how ur indexing works and it is inefficient.

u should increase the index then index all the units and other things. in ur loop u should then decrease ur max index and then ur current index after de-indexing.

the method u use now is inefficient because u are looping through a non-existent index every looping period. also u do a lot of math which isnt necessary if u do it the normal way.

 

[Tonex]

Actually, I was only looping through current index - 1, so it wasn't doing the uber extra calculations. But you're right that it's kind of awkward, so I'm changing it right now. Along with a bug I may have found with the calculations.

 

[deathismyfriend]

every time u loop / increase the iteration it recalculates this current index - 1 to see if the loop should end.
so if u loop 8000 times u do 8000 extra math operations.

 

[Tonex]

Herp, forgot about that. I'll update the map when I get home though.

 

[deathismyfriend]

Herp, forgot about that. I'll update the map when I get home though.

its easy to forget lol

 

[Tonex]

I knew something was off with the force, turned out I had it so force was a function of time. Now I can finally get my binary stars and orbits.

 

[Almia]

How about this allocation/deallocation?
Allocate:

• Get first a recycled instance from stack
• If the stack is empty, increment instances
• If not, push the next instance of the recycled instance as the top of stack.

Deallocate:

• Push top of stack back of the to-be-recycled instance
• Set the recycled instance as the top of stack

Or simply in code:

function Allocate takes nothing returns integer
    local integer i = recycle[0]
    if 0 == recycle[0] then
        set i = instances + 1
        set instances = i
    else
        set recycle[0] = recycle[i]
    endif
    return i
endfunction

function Deallocate takes integer i returns nothing
    set recycle[i] = recycle[0]
    set recycle[0] = i
endfunction

 

[Tonex]

Yeah, I realize my indexing is inefficient because every time I recycle I basically entirely reindex the last index.

Anyways, I don't pretend to understand your indexing method, it seems to work for only integers? Or is your indexing system kind of a guide so that when I allocate/deallocate, recycle[0] points to where I should move the data values in the array?

Otherwise I plan to use Bribe's Indexer's method where I don't actually have to move around variables around the array, since I just let new index values fill the gaps.

 

[Almia]

To use it :

set index = Allocate()
set data_string[index]= "ahaha"
set data_unit[index] = GetTriggerUnit()

Recycle:

set data_string[index] = ""
set data_unit[index] = null
call Deallocate(index)

Note that this is an example.

Also, Bribe's Unit Indexer also uses the same method as of what I posted

 

[Tonex]

Ohhhhh I see. I guess I need to know how to use something to understand how it works.

 

[Almia]

Just imagine it as GUI bro
It is just variables that make up the recycle system.

 

[deathismyfriend]

u should just use the indexing i have in my tutorial. since ur a GUIer its good to use. i still use that same method when i write jass.

 

[Tonex]

The problem is that in your method when you deallocate, you essentially both allocate the data in the maxindex into the deallocated index and clear the maxindex. What I changed to only clears the deallocated index and stores it into an array and the next time I index, instead of incrementing the maxindex, the new data is indexed to the index stored in the variable. Basically, if I again use the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and I deallocate 4, I get 1, 2, 3, , 5, and the next time I index, it will be to the 4th position.

 

[maddeem]

i tested it, the unit went off bounds and the game crashed also the variable names look weird and im not sure what your aim is when uploading something this simple

Preventing units from going off map should be controlled by the user, many maps have preventative features of out of bound crashes.

 

[Tonex]

Does anybody else think that I should just convert this all to JASS? Looking at it, almost all of the actions are custom script anyways...

 

[maddeem]

Nah, it tricks GUIers into using it lol.
Also, constants should be pre-calculated.

 

[Tonex]

• Set i_index_max = 1890

You mean 8190, right?

The irony of how the system can only support 500 units due to lag.

 

[Tonex]

...And I am still here dejectedly waiting for approval.

 

[maddeem]

...And I am still here dejectedly waiting for approval.

Some spells just have a priority lol

 

[Tonex]

It's been 7 months though, lol

 

[IcemanBo]

Hiho.

- All system related stuff should be put together in one folder.
- Using own UnitIndexer attempt is currently unacceptable. (conflict with real indexer)
- Add a guide/description for user what/how to use the system.
- The demo is not very explained and idk what to do in game.
- The system should not handle to remove units from game since that are no dummies.
- The system manipulates unit height, unit x, and unit y. Describe what the system exactly is expected to do.