Develop Reference

Animating a "Wobbly Canvas" like in Discord's Login page?

For reference, I'm talking about the dark-gray space in the upper left of Discord's Login Page. For anyone who can't access that link, here's a screenshot:
It has a number of effects that are really cool, the dots and (darker shadows) move with the mouse, but I'm more interested in the "wobbly edge" effect, and to a lesser extent the "fast wobble/scale in" on page load (scaling in the canvas on load would give a similar, if not "cheaper" effect).
Unfortunately, I can't produce much in the way of a MCVE, because I'm not really sure where to start. I tried digging through Discord's assets, but I'm not familiar enough to Webpack to be able to determine what's going on.
Everything I've been able to dig up on "animated wave/wobble" is CSS powered SVG or clip-path borders, I'd like to produce something a bit more organic.

Very interesting problem. I've scaled the blob down so it is visible in the preview below.
Here is a codepen as well at a larger size.
const SCALE = 0.25;
const TWO_PI = Math.PI * 2;
const HALF_PI = Math.PI / 2;
const canvas = document.createElement("canvas");
const c = canvas.getContext("2d");
canvas.width = window.innerWidth;
canvas.height = window.innerHeight;
document.body.appendChild(canvas);
class Blob {
constructor() {
this.wobbleIncrement = 0;
// use this to change the size of the blob
this.radius = 500;
// think of this as detail level
// number of conections in the `bezierSkin`
this.segments = 12;
this.step = HALF_PI / this.segments;
this.anchors = [];
this.radii = [];
this.thetaOff = [];
const bumpRadius = 100;
const halfBumpRadius = bumpRadius / 2;
for (let i = 0; i < this.segments + 2; i++) {
this.anchors.push(0, 0);
this.radii.push(Math.random() * bumpRadius - halfBumpRadius);
this.thetaOff.push(Math.random() * TWO_PI);
}
this.theta = 0;
this.thetaRamp = 0;
this.thetaRampDest = 12;
this.rampDamp = 25;
}
update() {
this.thetaRamp += (this.thetaRampDest - this.thetaRamp) / this.rampDamp;
this.theta += 0.03;
this.anchors = [0, this.radius];
for (let i = 0; i <= this.segments + 2; i++) {
const sine = Math.sin(this.thetaOff[i] + this.theta + this.thetaRamp);
const rad = this.radius + this.radii[i] * sine;
const theta = this.step * i;
const x = rad * Math.sin(theta);
const y = rad * Math.cos(theta);
this.anchors.push(x, y);
}
c.save();
c.translate(-10, -10);
c.scale(SCALE, SCALE);
c.fillStyle = "blue";
c.beginPath();
c.moveTo(0, 0);
bezierSkin(this.anchors, false);
c.lineTo(0, 0);
c.fill();
c.restore();
}
}
const blob = new Blob();
function loop() {
c.clearRect(0, 0, canvas.width, canvas.height);
blob.update();
window.requestAnimationFrame(loop);
}
loop();
// array of xy coords, closed boolean
function bezierSkin(bez, closed = true) {
const avg = calcAvgs(bez);
const leng = bez.length;
if (closed) {
c.moveTo(avg[0], avg[1]);
for (let i = 2; i < leng; i += 2) {
let n = i + 1;
c.quadraticCurveTo(bez[i], bez[n], avg[i], avg[n]);
}
c.quadraticCurveTo(bez[0], bez[1], avg[0], avg[1]);
} else {
c.moveTo(bez[0], bez[1]);
c.lineTo(avg[0], avg[1]);
for (let i = 2; i < leng - 2; i += 2) {
let n = i + 1;
c.quadraticCurveTo(bez[i], bez[n], avg[i], avg[n]);
}
c.lineTo(bez[leng - 2], bez[leng - 1]);
}
}
// create anchor points by averaging the control points
function calcAvgs(p) {
const avg = [];
const leng = p.length;
let prev;
for (let i = 2; i < leng; i++) {
prev = i - 2;
avg.push((p[prev] + p[i]) / 2);
}
// close
avg.push((p[0] + p[leng - 2]) / 2, (p[1] + p[leng - 1]) / 2);
return avg;
}
There are lots of things going on here. In order to create this effect you need a good working knowledge of how quadratic bezier curves are defined. Once you have that, there is an old trick that I've used many many times over the years. To generate smooth linked quadratic bezier curves, define a list of points and calculate their averages. Then use the points as control points and the new averaged points as anchor points. See the bezierSkin and calcAvgs functions.
With the ability to draw smooth bezier curves, the rest is about positioning the points in an arc and then animating them. For this we use a little math:
x = radius * sin(theta)
y = radius * cos(theta)
That converts polar to cartesian coordinates. Where theta is the angle on the circumference of a circle [0 - 2pi].
As for the animation, there is a good deal more going on here - I'll see if I have some more time this weekend to update the answer with more details and info, but hopefully this will be helpful.

The animation runs on a canvas and it is a simple bezier curve animation.
For organic feel, you should look at perlin noise, that was introduced when developing original Tron video FX.
You can find a good guide to understand perlin noise here.
In the example I've used https://github.com/josephg/noisejs
var c = $('canvas').get(0).getContext('2d');
var simplex = new SimplexNoise();
var t = 0;
function init() {
window.requestAnimationFrame(draw);
}
function draw() {
c.clearRect(0, 0, 600, 300);
c.strokeStyle="blue";
c.moveTo(100,100);
c.lineTo(300,100);
c.stroke();
// Draw a Bézier curve by using the same line cooridinates.
c.beginPath();
c.lineWidth="3";
c.strokeStyle="black";
c.moveTo(100,100);
c.bezierCurveTo((simplex.noise2D(t,t)+1)*200,(simplex.noise2D(t,t)+1)*200,(simplex.noise2D(t,t)+1)*200,0,300,100);
c.stroke();
// draw reference points
c.fillRect(100-5,100-5,10,10);
c.fillRect(200-5,200-5,10,10);
c.fillRect(200-5,0-5,10,10);
c.fillRect(300-5,100-5,10,10);
t+=0.001;
window.requestAnimationFrame(draw);
}
init();
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/simplex-noise/2.4.0/simplex-noise.js"></script>
<canvas width="600" height="300"></canvas>
Note: further investigation on Discord source code, I've pointed out that's is using https://www.npm.red/~epistemex libraries. Epistemex NPM packages are still online, while GitHub repos and profile does not exists anymore.
Note 2: Another approach could be relying on physics libraries like this demo, but it can be an overkill, if you just need a single effect.

Collision detection between a Polyline and a Circle

So I am rendering a Polyline with the Y-Values of a sin wave with the code below
var amplitude = 50;
var dx = (TWO_PI / period) * 10
var yValues = new Array(floor(widthOfWave / xSpacing));
var poly = [];
this.calculate = () => {
//Increment theta
theta += 0.02;
//For every x value, calculate the y value with SIN function
var x = theta;
for(var i = 0; i < yValues.length; i++) {
yValues[i] = sin(x) * amplitude;
x += dx;
}
this.render = () => {
this.calculate();
ellipseMode(CENTER);
beginShape();
for(var i = 0; i < yValues.length; i++) {
var temp = createVector((i * spacing), windowWidth + yValues[i]);
curveVertex(temp.x, temp.y);
poly.push(temp);
}
endShape();
}
Which renders the wave
This is exactly what I want, but the problem I am having is when I try to incorporate p5.collide2d (Github Link Here). I want to have an ellipse, the 'Player' in this case, be able to ride the wave by holding left and right on the keyboard arrows. I haven't gotten to the keyboard interaction, because I am currently stuck on having the Ellipse (a perfect circle) not just falling through the curve at sometimes.
Here is my code for the current collision I am testing with.
this.checkCollision = (objX, objY, objSize) => {
var hit = false;
var hit = collideCirclePoly(objX, objY, objSize, poly);
return hit;
}
//Check for the collision
var hit = hill.checkCollision(player1.x, player1.y, player1.size);
if(hit) player1.didCollide();
//Player's didCollide function
this.didCollide = () => {
newSpeed = this.ySpeed * -0.8;
this.ySpeed = newSpeed;
}
This is how the circle (the "Player") and the wave intereact whenever I try to run it though.
I can't seem to figure out why the interaction is happening this way. I have tried extending the bounds of the collision, but it just makes it appear very glitchy and it still sometimes just passes through the wave with what appears to be no collision.
I am fairly new to p5.js and processing, so I am most likely missing something very simple. Thanks for your help ahead of time!

Javascript Julia Fractal slow and not detailed

I am trying to generate a Julia fractal in a canvas in javascript using math.js
Unfortunately every time the fractal is drawn on the canvas, it is rather slow and not very detailed.
Can anyone tell me if there is a specific reason this script is so slow or is it just to much to ask of a browser? (note: the mouse move part is disabled and it is still kinda slow)
I have tried raising and lowering the “bail_num” but everything above 1 makes the browser crash and everything below 0.2 makes everything black.
// Get the canvas and context
var canvas = document.getElementById("myCanvas");
var context = canvas.getContext("2d");
// Width and height of the image
var imagew = canvas.width;
var imageh = canvas.height;
// Image Data (RGBA)
var imagedata = context.createImageData(imagew, imageh);
// Pan and zoom parameters
var offsetx = -imagew/2;
var offsety = -imageh/2;
var panx = -2000;
var pany = -1000;
var zoom = 12000;
// c complexnumber
var c = math.complex(-0.310, 0.353);
// Palette array of 256 colors
var palette = [];
// The maximum number of iterations per pixel
var maxiterations = 200;
var bail_num = 1;
// Initialize the game
function init() {
//onmousemove listener
canvas.addEventListener('mousemove', onmousemove);
// Generate image
generateImage();
// Enter main loop
main(0);
}
// Main loop
function main(tframe) {
// Request animation frames
window.requestAnimationFrame(main);
// Draw the generate image
context.putImageData(imagedata, 0, 0);
}
// Generate the fractal image
function generateImage() {
// Iterate over the pixels
for (var y=0; y<imageh; y++) {
for (var x=0; x<imagew; x++) {
iterate(x, y, maxiterations);
}
}
}
// Calculate the color of a specific pixel
function iterate(x, y, maxiterations) {
// Convert the screen coordinate to a fractal coordinate
var x0 = (x + offsetx + panx) / zoom;
var y0 = (y + offsety + pany) / zoom;
var cn = math.complex(x0, y0);
// Iterate
var iterations = 0;
while (iterations < maxiterations && math.norm(math.complex(cn))< bail_num ) {
cn = math.add( math.sqrt(cn) , c);
iterations++;
}
// Get color based on the number of iterations
var color;
if (iterations == maxiterations) {
color = { r:0, g:0, b:0}; // Black
} else {
var index = Math.floor((iterations / (maxiterations)) * 255);
color = index;
}
// Apply the color
var pixelindex = (y * imagew + x) * 4;
imagedata.data[pixelindex] = color;
imagedata.data[pixelindex+1] = color;
imagedata.data[pixelindex+2] = color;
imagedata.data[pixelindex+3] = 255;
}
function onmousemove(e){
var pos = getMousePos(canvas, e);
//c = math.complex(-0.3+pos.x/imagew, 0.413-pos.y/imageh);
//console.log( 'Mouse position: ' + pos.x/imagew + ',' + pos.y/imageh );
// Generate a new image
generateImage();
}
function getMousePos(canvas, e) {
var rect = canvas.getBoundingClientRect();
return {
x: Math.round((e.clientX - rect.left)/(rect.right - rect.left)*canvas.width),
y: Math.round((e.clientY - rect.top)/(rect.bottom - rect.top)*canvas.height)
};
}
init();

The part of the code that is executed most is this piece:
while (iterations < maxiterations && math.norm(math.complex(cn))< bail_num ) {
cn = math.add( math.sqrt(cn) , c);
iterations++;
}
For the given canvas size and offsets you use, the above while body is executed 19,575,194 times. Therefore there are some obvious ways to improve performance:
somehow reduce the number of points for which the loop must be executed
somehow reduce the number of times these statements are executed per point
somehow improve these statements so they execute faster
The first idea is easy: reduce the canvas dimensions. But this is maybe not something you'd like to do.
The second idea can be achieved by reducing the value for bail_num, because then the while condition will be violated sooner (given that the norm of a complex number is always a positive real number). However, this will just result in more blackness, and gives the same visual effect as zooming out of the center of the fractal. Try for instance with 0.225: there just remains a "distant star". When bail_num is reduced too much, you wont even find the fractal anymore, as everything turns black. So to compensate you would then probably want to change your offset and zoom factors to get a closer view at the center of the fractal (which is still there, BTW!). But towards the center of the fractal, points need more iterations to get below bail_num, so in the end nothing is gained: you'll be back at square one with this method. It's not really a solution.
Another way to work along the second idea is to reduce maxiterations. However, this will reduce the resolution accordingly. It is clear that you will have fewer colors at your disposal, as this number directly corresponds to the number of iterations you can have at the most.
The third idea means that you would somehow optimise the calculations with complex numbers. It turns out to give a lot of gain:
Use efficient calculations
The norm that is calculated in the while condition could be used as an intermediate value for calculating the square root of the same number, which is needed in the next statement. This is the formula for getting the square root from a complex number, if you already have its norm:
__________________
root.re = √ ½(cn.re + norm)
root.im = ½cn.im/root.re
Where the re and im properties denote the real and imaginary components of the respective complex numbers. You can find the background for these formulas in this answer on math.stackexchange.
As in your code the square root is calculated separately, without taking benefit of the previous calculation of the norm, this will certainly bring a benefit.
Also, in the while condition you don't really need the norm (which involves a square root) for comparing with bail_num. You could omit the square root operation and compare with the square of bail_num, which comes down to the same thing. Obviously you would have to calculate the square of bail_num only once at the start of your code. This way you can delay that square root operation for when the condition is found true. The formula for calculating the square of the norm is as follows:
square_norm = cn.re² + cn.im²
The calls of methods on the math object have some overhead, since this library allows different types of arguments in several of its methods. So it would help performance if you would code the calculations directly without relying on math.js. The above improvements already started doing that anyway. In my attempts this also resulted in a considerable gain in performance.
Predefine colours
Although not related to the costly while loop, you can probably gain a litte bit more by calculating all possible colors (per number of iterations) at the start of the code, and store them in an array keyed by number of iterations. That way you can just perform a look-up during the actual calculations.
Some other similar things can be done to save on calculations: For instance, you could avoid translating the screen y coordinate to world coordinates while moving along the X axis, as it will always be the same value.
Here is the code that reduced the original time to complete by a factor of 10, on my PC:
Added intialisation:
// Pre-calculate the square of bail_num:
var bail_num_square = bail_num*bail_num;
// Pre-calculate the colors:
colors = [];
for (var iterations = 0; iterations <= maxiterations; iterations++) {
// Note that I have stored colours in the opposite direction to
// allow for a more efficient "countdown" loop later
colors[iterations] = 255 - Math.floor((iterations / maxiterations) * 255);
}
// Instead of using math for initialising c:
var cx = -0.310;
var cy = 0.353;
Replace functions generateImage and iterate by this one function
// Generate the fractal image
function generateImage() {
// Iterate over the pixels
var pixelindex = 0,
step = 1/zoom,
worldX, worldY,
sq, rootX, rootY, x0, y0;
for (var y=0; y<imageh; y++) {
worldY = (y + offsety + pany)/zoom;
worldX = (offsetx + panx)/zoom;
for (var x=0; x<imagew; x++) {
x0 = worldX;
y0 = worldY;
// For this point: iterate to determine color index
for (var iterations = maxiterations; iterations && (sq = (x0*x0+y0*y0)) < bail_num_square; iterations-- ) {
// root of complex number
rootX = Math.sqrt((x0 + Math.sqrt(sq))/2);
rootY = y0/(2*rootX);
x0 = rootX + cx;
y0 = rootY + cy;
}
// Apply the color
imagedata.data[pixelindex++] =
imagedata.data[pixelindex++] =
imagedata.data[pixelindex++] = colors[iterations];
imagedata.data[pixelindex++] = 255;
worldX += step;
}
}
}
With the above code you don't need to include math.js anymore.
Here is a smaller sized snippet with mouse events handled:
// Get the canvas and context
var canvas = document.getElementById("myCanvas");
var context = canvas.getContext("2d");
// Width and height of the image
var imagew = canvas.width;
var imageh = canvas.height;
// Image Data (RGBA)
var imagedata = context.createImageData(imagew, imageh);
// Pan and zoom parameters
var offsetx = -512
var offsety = -430;
var panx = -2000;
var pany = -1000;
var zoom = 12000;
// Palette array of 256 colors
var palette = [];
// The maximum number of iterations per pixel
var maxiterations = 200;
var bail_num = 0.8; //0.225; //1.15;//0.25;
// Pre-calculate the square of bail_num:
var bail_num_square = bail_num*bail_num;
// Pre-calculate the colors:
colors = [];
for (var iterations = 0; iterations <= maxiterations; iterations++) {
colors[iterations] = 255 - Math.floor((iterations / maxiterations) * 255);
}
// Instead of using math for initialising c:
var cx = -0.310;
var cy = 0.353;
// Initialize the game
function init() {
// onmousemove listener
canvas.addEventListener('mousemove', onmousemove);
// Generate image
generateImage();
// Enter main loop
main(0);
}
// Main loop
function main(tframe) {
// Request animation frames
window.requestAnimationFrame(main);
// Draw the generate image
context.putImageData(imagedata, 0, 0);
}
// Generate the fractal image
function generateImage() {
// Iterate over the pixels
console.log('generate', cx, cy);
var pixelindex = 0,
step = 1/zoom,
worldX, worldY,
sq_norm, rootX, rootY, x0, y0;
for (var y=0; y<imageh; y++) {
worldY = (y + offsety + pany)/zoom;
worldX = (offsetx + panx)/zoom;
for (var x=0; x<imagew; x++) {
x0 = worldX;
y0 = worldY;
// For this point: iterate to determine color index
for (var iterations = maxiterations; iterations && (sq_norm = (x0*x0+y0*y0)) < bail_num_square; iterations-- ) {
// root of complex number
rootX = Math.sqrt((x0 + Math.sqrt(sq_norm))/2);
rootY = y0/(2*rootX);
x0 = rootX + cx;
y0 = rootY + cy;
}
// Apply the color
imagedata.data[pixelindex++] =
imagedata.data[pixelindex++] =
imagedata.data[pixelindex++] = colors[iterations];
imagedata.data[pixelindex++] = 255;
worldX += step;
}
}
console.log(pixelindex);
}
function onmousemove(e){
var pos = getMousePos(canvas, e);
cx = -0.31+pos.x/imagew/150;
cy = 0.35-pos.y/imageh/30;
generateImage();
}
function getMousePos(canvas, e) {
var rect = canvas.getBoundingClientRect();
return {
x: Math.round((e.clientX - rect.left)/(rect.right - rect.left)*canvas.width),
y: Math.round((e.clientY - rect.top)/(rect.bottom - rect.top)*canvas.height)
};
}
init();
<canvas id="myCanvas" width="512" height="200"></canvas>

Is their a better structure for collision handling on multiple graphics?

I am a novice who is working on a simple JavaScript web page that using the processing.js plugin to generated moving graphics. I have started to work on collision detection and handling. I examine each graphic and change it's direction if it gets too close to any of the other graphics. The program is buggy because the graphics eventually have simultaneous collisions on more than one other graphic. This then creates an interesting (but undesired) effect of getting the graphics "stuck" inside one another.
I could work on a function to detect multiple collisions and handle them in a way that stops the graphical objects from getting inside each other. However, I feel like their is a more fundamental flaw in my approach. I don't want to create a band aide solution when their may be a more structural flaw in my collision handling approach.
Should I just write a function that handles the bug of multiple simultaneous collisions or should I go back to the drawing board with program structure?
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<body bgcolor="lightblue" style="margin:0;">
<center>
<script src="processing.js"></script>
<script type="application/processing">
int orbNumber = 30;
void setup(){
h=[];
float t;
size(600,600);
frameRate(60);
//assign starting variables for floating objects
for(int a = 0; a < orbNumber; a++){
h[a] = new orb(0, 200, 1, 64);
h[a].xpos = random(1,width);
h[a].ypos = a * 100;
h[a].red = random(128,255);
h[a].blue = random(128,255);
h[a].green = random(128,255);
}
}
void draw() {
background(200,200,200,0);
//call the update method from the orb class to calculate postion and display graphic
for(int a = 0; a < orbNumber; a++)h[a].update();
//number the graphics
textFont("Arial", 22);
fill(255,255,255,80);
for(int a = 0; a < orbNumber; a++)text(a,h[a].xpos-6,h[a].ypos+6);
//for each graphic, check distance for each other graphic and change
//movement direction upon collisions
for(int a = 0; a < orbNumber; a++)for(int b = a+1; b < (orbNumber); b++){
if(circleCollision(h[a],h[b])){
t=h[a].xOffset;
h[a].xOffset=h[b].xOffset;
h[b].xOffset = t;
t=h[a].yOffset;
h[a].yOffset=h[b].yOffset;
h[b].yOffset = t;
h[a].update;
h[b].update;
h[a].imperfectEdge()
h[b].imperfectEdge()
}
}
}
function circleCollision(circle1,circle2){
var x1 = circle1.xpos;
var x2 = circle2.xpos;
var y1 = circle1.ypos;
var y2 = circle2.ypos;
var distance = sqrt( (x1-x2) * (x1-x2) + (y1-y2) * (y1-y2) );
var widths = circle1.radius + circle2.radius;
var t = false;
if(distance<widths)t = true;
//text("distance = " + distance,20,20);
return t;
}
class orb {
float xpos, ypos, speed, diameter, xOffset, yOffset, radius;
int red, blue, green;
orb (float x, float y, float s, float size) {
xpos = x;
ypos = y;
diameter = size;
xOffset = s;
yOffset = s;
radius = .5 * diameter;
}
void update() {
ypos += yOffset;
xpos += xOffset;
if(yOffset<0&&ypos<0+radius){
yOffset=-yOffset;
imperfectEdge();
}
if(yOffset>0&&ypos>height-radius){
yOffset=-yOffset;
imperfectEdge();
}
if(xOffset<0&&xpos<0+radius){
xOffset=-xOffset;
imperfectEdge();
}
if(xOffset>0&&xpos>width-radius){
xOffset=-xOffset;
imperfectEdge();
}
noStroke();
for(a = diameter; a > 0; a-=5){
fill(red-a,blue-a,green-a);
ellipse(xpos, ypos, a, a);
}
}
void imperfectEdge(){
xOffset=xOffset+random(-.1,.1);
yOffset=yOffset+random(-.1,.1);
}
}
</script><canvas></canvas>
</body>
</html>

How come my lines aren't matching up?

EDIT: So apparently, PI is finite in JavaScript (which makes sense). But that leaves me with a major problem. What's the next best way to calculate the angles I need?
Alright, first, my code:
http://jsfiddle.net/joshlalonde/vtfyj/34/
I'm drawing cubes that open up to a 120 degree angle.
So the coordinates are calculated based on (h)eight and theta (120).
On line 46, I have a for loop that contains a nested for loop used for creating rows/columns.
It's somewhat subtle, but I noticed that the lines aren't matching up exactly. The code for figuring out each cubes position is on line 49. One of the things in the first parameter (my x value) for the origin of the cube is off. Can anyone help figure out what it is?
var cube = new Cube(
origin.x + (j * -w * (Math.PI)) +
(i * w * (Math.PI))
, origin.y + j * (h / 2) +
i * (h / 2) +
(-k*h), h);
Sorry if that's confusing. I,j, and k refer to the variable being incremented by the for loops. So basically, a three dimensional for loop.
I think the problem lies with Math.PI.
The width isn't the problem, or so I believe. I originally used 3.2 (which I somehow guessed and it seemed to line up pretty good. But I have no clue what the magical number is). I'm guessing it has to do with the angle being converted to Radians, but I don't understand why Math.PI/180 isn't the solution. I tried multiple things. 60 (in degrees) * Math.PI/180 doesn't work. What is it for?
EDIT: It might just be a JavaScript related math problem. The math is theoretically correct but can't be calculated correctly. I'll accept the imperfection to spare myself from re-writing code in unorthodox manners. I can tell it would take a lot to circumvent using trig math.

There are 2 problems...
Change line 35 to var w=h*Math.sin(30);. The 30 here matches the this.theta / 4 in the Cube getWidthmethod since this.theta equals 120.
Use the following code to generate the position of your new cube. You don't need Math.Pi. You needed to use both the cube width and height in your calculation.
var cube = new Cube(
origin.x+ -j*w - i*h,
origin.y + -j*w/2 + i*h/2,
h);

Alright I found the solution!
It's really simple - I was using degrees instead of radians.
function Cube(x, y, h) {
this.x = x
this.y = y
this.h = h;
this.theta = 120*Math.PI/180;
this.getWidth = function () {
return (this.h * Math.sin(this.theta / 2));
};
this.width = this.getWidth();
this.getCorner = function () {
return (this.h / 2);
};
this.corner = this.getCorner();
}
So apparently Javascript trig functions use Radians, so that's one problem.
Next fix I made was to the offset of each point in the cube. It doesn't need one! (o.O idk why. But whatever it works. I left the old code just in case I discover why later on).
function draw() {
var canvas = document.getElementById("canvas");
var ctx = canvas.getContext("2d");
ctx.fillStyle = "#000";
ctx.fillRect(0, 0, canvas.width, canvas.height); // Draw a black canvas
var h = 32;
var width = Math.sin(60*Math.PI/180);
var w = h*width;
var row = 9; // column and row will always be same (to make cube)
var column = row;
var area = row * column;
var height = 1;
row--;
column--;
height--;
var origin = {
x: canvas.width / 2,
y: (canvas.height / 2) - (h * column/2) + height*h
};
var offset = Math.sqrt(3)/2;
offset = 1;
for (var i = 0; i <= row; i++) {
for (var j = 0; j <= column; j++) {
for (var k = 0; k <= height; k++) {
var cube = new Cube(
origin.x + (j * -w * offset) +
(i * w * offset)
, origin.y + (j * (h / 2) * offset) +
(i * (h / 2) * offset) +
(-k*h*offset), h);
var cubes = {};
cubes[i+j+k] = cube; // Store to array
if (j == column) {
drawCube(2, cube);
}
if (i == row) {
drawCube(1, cube);
}
if (k == height) {
drawCube(0,cube);
}
}
}
}
}
See the full Jsfiddle here: http://jsfiddle.net/joshlalonde/vtfyj/41/