Develop Reference

struggling to create a smooth-moving snake in p5 js - tail catching up to head

I'm putting together a p5 sketch with little wiggling snakes that move randomly across the screen.
Unfortunately, the tail keeps catching up to the head every time it does a sharpish turn.
Here is the function I'm using to calculate the move, I've tried with a few different ways of calculating the speed, fixed numbers, relative to the snake's length.
It's supposed to work by moving the snakes head (points[3]) in a semi-random direction and then having each body point move towards the one before it by the same amount. This isn't working, and I feel there's something wrong with my algorithm itself. I'm not familiar with these kinds of intermediate random-walks, so I've just been going by guesswork for the most part.
this["moveCurve"] = function() {
let newDir = this["oldDir"] + (random() - 1/2)*PI/6;
let velocity = createVector(1,0);
velocity.setMag(5);
velocity.setHeading(newDir);
this["points"][3].add(velocity);
for (let i = 2; i >= 0; i--) {
this["points"][i].add(p5.Vector.sub(this["points"][i + 1],this["points"][i]).setMag(5));
}
this["oldDir"] = newDir;
}
If you have any idea what I could do to make this work properly, I'd love to hear your advice. Thanks!

This does look like an algorithmic issue / not a bug with how you implemented it.
Here's my go at explaining why the gap between two points must decrease in this algorithm:
Let's consider just a two point snake, with two points Hi (head) and Ti (tail) at an initial locations Hi: (20, 0), and Ti: (0, 0). So, the heading here is 0 radians.
What happens when moveCurve is called? A new heading is chosen (let's use PI/2, a right angle to make it easy to imagine) and using a fixed velocity of 5 we calculate a new position for the head of (20, 5), let's call it Hf. T also moves, but it also moves toward Hf at the same 5 unit velocity, ending up at about (4.85, 1.21). The distance between these two final positions is now 15.62657, which is smaller than the initial distance.
To visualize this, think of the triangle formed between Ti, Hi, and Hf. Ti, and Hi, form the base of this triangle. Ti will move along the hypotenuse to get to Tf, while Hi will move along the other side. The directions they are moving in form an angle which is smaller than PI radians and both points are moving at the same speed so intuitively the points must be getting closer together.
So how to solve this? Well if we consider our tiny snake's movement, the tail moved in a decent direction but too far. One solution might be to scale the velocity vector in order to maintain a fixed distance between points instead of using a fixed velocity. For example instead of stepping 5 units along the hypotenuse from Ti toward Hf in the example, you could step 20 units along the hypotenuse from Hf toward Ti. I'm not sure how this would work out for your snake, just an idea!
Keep slithering!

Fortunately, it turns out p5's documentation itself had the answer for me. By adapting the code from here to use p5 Vectors, I was able to get it all working.
The segLengths property is defined when the object is made, just takes the distances between all the points.
this["moveCurve"] = function() {
let newDir = this["oldDir"] + (random() - 1/2)*PI/6;
let velocity = p5.Vector.fromAngle(newDir).setMag(5);
this["points"][3].add(velocity);
for (let i = 2; i >= 0; i--) {
this["points"][i].set(p5.Vector.sub(this["points"][i+1], p5.Vector.fromAngle(p5.Vector.sub(this["points"][i+1],this["points"][i]).heading()).setMag(this["segLengths"][i])));
}
this["oldDir"] = newDir;
}
I might spend a little time trying to clean up the code a bit, it's a jot messy for my tastes at the moment. But it works.

THREE.js raycasting very slow against single > 500k poly (faces) object, line intersection with globe

in my project I have a player walk around a globe. The globe is not just a sphere, it has mountains and valleys, so I need the players z position to change. For this I'm raycasting a single ray from player's position against a single object (the globe) and I get the point they intersect and change players position accordingly. I'm only raycasting when the player moves, not on every frame.
For a complex object it takes forever. It takes ~200ms for an object with ~1m polys (faces) (1024x512 segments sphere). Does raycasting cast against every single face ?
Is there a traditional fast way to achieve this in THREE, like some acceleration structure (octree? bvh? -- tbh from my google searches I haven't seem to find such a thing included in THREE) or some other thinking-out-of-the-box (no ray casting) method?
var dir = g_Game.earthPosition.clone();
var startPoint = g_Game.cubePlayer.position.clone();
var directionVector = dir.sub(startPoint.multiplyScalar(10));
g_Game.raycaster.set(startPoint, directionVector.clone().normalize());
var t1 = new Date().getTime();
var rayIntersects = g_Game.raycaster.intersectObject(g_Game.earth, true);
if (rayIntersects[0]) {
var dist = rayIntersects[0].point.distanceTo(g_Game.earthPosition);
dist = Math.round(dist * 100 + Number.EPSILON) / 100;
g_Player.DistanceFromCenter = dist + 5;
}
var t2 = new Date().getTime();
console.log(t2-t1);
Thank you in advance

Do not use three.js Raycaster.
Consider Ray.js that offers function intersectTriangle(a, b, c, backfaceCulling, target)
Suggested optimizations:
If player starts from some known positions ⇒ you must know his initial height, − no need to raycast (or just do one time full mesh slow intersection)
if player moves with small steps ⇒ next raycast will most likely intersect the same face as before.
Optimization #1 − remember previous face, and raycast it first.
if player does not jump ⇒ next raycast will most likely intersect the adjacent face to the face where player was before.
Optimization #2 − build up a cache, so that given a face idx you could retrieve adjacent faces in O(1) time.
This cache may be loaded from the file, if your planet is not generated in real time.
So with my approach on each move you do O(1) read operation from cache and raycast 1-6 faces.
Win!

For a complex object it takes forever. It takes ~200ms for an object with ~1m polys (faces) (1024x512 segments sphere). Does raycasting cast against every single face ?
Out of the box THREE.js does check every triangle when performing a raycast against a mesh and there are no acceleration structures built into THREE.
I've worked with others on the three-mesh-bvh package (github, npm) to help address this problem, though, which may help you get up to the speeds your looking for. Here's how you might use it:
import * as THREE from 'three';
import { MeshBVH, acceleratedRaycast } from 'three-mesh-bvh';
THREE.Mesh.prototype.raycast = acceleratedRaycast;
// ... initialize the scene...
globeMesh.geometry.boundsTree = new MeshBVH(globeMesh.geometry);
// ... initialize raycaster...
// Optional. Improves the performance of the raycast
// if you only need the first collision
raycaster.firstHitOnly = true;
const intersects = raycaster.intersectObject(globeMesh, true);
// do something with the intersections
There are some caveats mentioned in the README so keep those in mind (the mesh index is modified, only nonanimated BufferGeometry is supported, etc). And there's still some memory optimization that could be done but there are some tweakable options to help tune that.
I'll be interested to hear how this works for you! Feel free to leave feedback in the issues on how to improve the package, as well. Hope that helps!

I think you should pre-render the height map of your globe into a texture, assuming your terrain is not dynamic. Read all of it into a typed array, and then whenever your player moves, you only need to back-project her coordinates into that texture, query it, offset and multiply and you should get what you need in O(1) time.
It's up to you how you generate that height map. Actually if you have a bumpy globe, then you should probably start with height map in the first place, and use that in your vertex shader to render the globe (with the input sphere being perfectly smooth). Then you can use the same height map to query the player's Z.

Edit: Danger! This may cause someone's death one day. The edge case I see here is the nearest collision will be not be seen because searchRange will not contain the nearest triangle but will contain the second nearest one returning it as the closest one. I.e. a robotic arm may stop nearby the torso instead of stopping at the arm right in front of it.
anyway
Here's a hack when raycasting not too far from the previous result i.e. during consecutive mousemove events. This will not work for completely random rays
Mesh raycast supports drawRange to limit how many triangles will be searched. Also each raycast result comes with faceIndex telling which triangle was hit. If you're continuously looking for raycasts i.e. with mousemove or there's a laser linearly scanning a mesh you can first search the area nearby* the previous hit.
triangles' distance in the data may look like they're neighbours but it's not guaranteed they are sorted in any way. Still it's very possible that the close ones in the data are close in space.
let lastFaceIndex = null
const searchRange = 2000 * 3
function raycast(mesh, raycaster) {
// limited search
if (lastFaceIndex !== null) {
const drawRange = mesh.geometry.drawRange
drawRange.start = Math.max(0, lastFaceIndex * 3 - searchRange)
drawRange.count = searchRange * 2
const intersects = raycaster.intersectObjects([mesh]);
drawRange.start = 0
drawRange.count = Infinity
if (intersects.length) {
lastFaceIndex = intersects[0].faceIndex
return intersects[0]
}
}
// regular search
const intersects = raycaster.intersectObjects([mesh]);
if (!intersects.length) {
lastFaceIndex = null
return null
}
lastFaceIndex = intersects[0].faceIndex
return intersects[0]
}

Calculate Angle between two 3D Vectors

Note: I have absolutely no clue about Vector math, especially not in 3D.
I am currently working on some Javascript code that determines if a Finger that got captured by a Leap Motion Controller is extended (i.e. completely straight) or not.
Leap Motion provides us with an API that gives us Object for Hands, Fingers and Bones. Bones in particular have several properties, such as position Vectors, direction Vectors and so on, see here for the Documentation.
My idea was to take the Distal Phalang (tip of your finger) and Proximal Phalang (first bone of your finger), calculate the angle between them by getting the dot product of the two direction Vectors of the bones and then decide if it is straight or not. Like this, essentially:
var a = hand.indexFinger.distal.direction();
var b = hand.indexFinger.proximal.direction();
var dot = Leap.vec3.dot(a,b);
var degree = Math.acos(dot)*180/Math.PI;
The issue here is that these values are not reliable, especially if other fingers move about. It seems like the direction Vectors of the bones change when other fingers change direction (???).
For example, when all my Fingers are extended, the value of degree is roughly 0 and fluctuates between -5 and 5. When I make a fist, the value shoots up to 10, 15, 20. Logging the values of the direction Vectors reveals that they indeed do get changed, but how does this make sense? The Finger doesn't move, so its direction should stay the same.
Even worse for the thumb, the values don't add up there at all. An extended thumb can get values similar to the IndexFinger, but rotation the thumb upwards or downwards has changes in the range of 60 degrees!
I've tried using positional values instead, which gives me NaN results because the values seem to be to big.
So, my question is: how could I reliably calculate the angle between two Vectors? What am I missing here?

The correct formula is
cos(angle) = dot(a,b)/(norm(a)*norm(b))
where norm is the euclidean norm or length.
You should have gotten a wrong result, but the lengths of a and b should be constant, so the result should have been consistently wrong…

dot product is the cosine of the angle between vectors if those vectors are normalized. So be sure that a and b are normalized prior to calculate the dot product

Three.JS: Get position of rotated object

In Three.JS, I am capable of rotating an object about its origin. If I were to do this with a line, for instance, the line rotates, but the positions of its vertices are not updated with their new locations. Is there some way to apply the rotation matrix to the position of the vertices to find the new position of the point? Say I rotate a line with points at (0,0,0) and (0,100,100) by 45° on the x, 20° on the y, and 100° on the z. How would I go about finding the actual position of the vertices with respect to the entire scene.
Thanks

yes, 'entire scene' means world position.
THREE.Vector3() has a applyMatrix4() method,
you can do the same things that the shader does so in order to project a vertex into world space you would do this
yourPoint.applyMatrix4(yourObject.matrixWorld);
to project that into camera space you can apply this next
yourPoint.applyMatrix4(camera.matrixWorld);
to get an actual screen position in -1 to 1
yourPoint.applyMatrix4(camera.projectionMatrix);
you would access your point like this
var yourPoint = yourObject.geometry.vertices[0]; //first vertex
also, rather than doing this three times, you can just combine the matrices. Didnt test this, but something along the lines of this. Might go the other way:
var neededPVMmatrix = new THREE.Matrix4().multiplyMatrices(yourObject.matrixWorld, camera.matrixWorld);
neededPVMmatrix.multiplyMatrices(neededPVMmatrix, camera.projectionMatrix);
if you need a good tutorial on what this does under the hood i recommend this
Alteredq posted everything there is to know about three.js matrices here
edit
One thing to note though, if you want just the rotation, not the translation, you need to use the upper 3x3 portion which is the rotation matrix, of the models world matrix. This might be slightly more complicated. I forgot what three.js gives you, but i think the normalMatrix would do the trick, or perhaps you can convert your THREE.Vector3() to THREE.Vector4(), and set .w to 0, this will prevent any translation from being applied.
edit2
if you want to move the line point in your example, instead of applying it to the particle, apply it to
var yourVertexWorldPosition = new THREE.Vector3().clone(geo.vertices[1]); //this is your second line point, to whatever you set it in your init function
yourVertexWorldPosition.applyMatrix4();//this transforms the new vector into world space based on the matrix you provide (line.matrixWorld)

Javascript physics engine and simulated infinite curve

I'm trying to do a Tiny Wings like in javascript.
I first saw a technique using Box2D, I'm using the closure-web version (because of the memory leaks fix).
In short, I explode the curve into polygons so it looks like that:
I also tried with Chipmunk-js and I use the segment shape to simulate my ground like that:
In both cases, I'm experiencing some "crashes" or "bumps" at the common points between polygons or segments when a circle is rolling.
I asked about it for Chipmunk and the author said he implemented a radius property for the segment to reduce this behavior. I tried and it indeed did the trick but it's not perfect. I still have some bumps(I had to set to 30px of radius to get a positive effect).
The "bumps" append at the shared points between two polygons :
Using, as illandril suggested to me, the edging technique (he only tested with polygon-polygon contact) to avoid the circle to crash on an edge:
Also tried to add the bullet option as Luc suggested and nothing seems to change.
Here the demo of the issue.
You can try to change the value to check :
bullet option
edge size
iterations count
the physics
(only tested on latest dev Chrome)
Be patient (or change the horizontal gravity) and you'll see what I mean.
Here the repo for the interested.

The best solution is edge shapes with ghost vertices, but if that's not available in the version/port you're using, the next best thing is like the diagram in your question called 'edging', but extend the polygons further underground with a very shallow slope, like in this thread: http://www.box2d.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7917

I first thought the problem could come from the change of slope between two adjacent segments, but since on a flat surface of polygons you still have bumps I think the problem is rather hitting the corner of a polygon.
I don't know if you can set two sets of polygons, overlapping each other ? Just use the same interpolation calculations and generate a second set of polygons just like in the diagram hereafter : you have the red set of polygons built and add the green set by setting the left vertices of a green polygon in the middle of a red polygon, and its right vertices in the middle of the next red polygon.
![diagram][1]
This should work on concave curves and... well you should be flying over the convex ones anyway.
If this doesn't work try setting a big number of polygons to build the slope. Use a tenth of the circle's radius for the polygon's width, maybe even less. That should reduce your slope discontinuities.
-- Edit
In Box2D.js line 5082 (in this repo at least) you have the PreSolve(contact, manifold) function that you can override to check if the manifolds (directions in which the snowball are impulsed when colliding the polygons) are correct.
To do so, you would need to recover the manifold vector and compare it to the normal of the curve. It should look like that (maybe not exactly) :
Box2D.Dynamics.b2ContactListener.prototype.PreSolve = function (contact, oldManifold) {
// contact instanceof Box2D.Dynamics.Contacts.b2Contact == true
var localManifold, worldManifold, xA, xB, man_vect, curve_vect, normal_vect, angle;
localManifold = contact.GetManifold();
if(localManifold.m_pointCount == 0)
return; // or raise an exception
worldManifold = new Box2D.Collision.b2WorldManifold();
contact.GetWorldManifold( worldManifold );
// deduce the impulse direction from the manifold points
man_vect = worldManifold.m_normal.Copy();
// we need two points close to & surrounding the collision to compute the normal vector
// not sure this is the right order of magnitude
xA = worldManifold.m_points[0].x - 0.1;
xB = worldManifold.m_points[0].x + 0.1;
man_vect.Normalize();
// now we have the abscissas let's get the ordinate of these points on the curve
// the subtraction of these two points will give us a vector parallel to the curve
var SmoothConfig;
SmoothConfig = {
params: {
method: 'cubic',
clip: 'mirror',
cubicTension: 0,
deepValidation: false
},
options: {
averageLineLength: .5
}
}
// get the points, smooth and smooth config stuff here
smooth = Smooth(global_points,SmoothConfig);
curve_vect = new Box2D.Common.Math.b2Vec2(xB, smooth(xB)[1]);
curve_vect.Subtract(new Box2D.Common.Math.b2Vec2(xA, smooth(xA)[1]));
// now turn it to have a normal vector, turned upwards
normal_vect = new Box2D.Common.Math.b2Vec2(-curve_vect.y, curve_vect.x);
if(normal_vect.y > 0)
normal_vect.NegativeSelf();
normal_vect.Normalize();
worldManifold.m_normal = normal_vect.Copy();
// and finally compute the angle between the two vectors
angle = Box2D.Common.Math.b2Math.Dot(man_vect, normal_vect);
$('#angle').text("" + Math.round(Math.acos(angle)*36000/Math.PI)/100 + "°");
// here try to raise an exception if the angle is too big (maybe after a few ms)
// with different thresholds on the angle value to see if the bumps correspond
// to a manifold that's not normal enough to your curve
};

I'd say the problem has been tackled in Box2D 2.2.0 , see its manual, section 4.5 "Edge Shapes"
The thing is it's a feature of the 2.2.0 version, along with the chainshape thing, and the box2dweb is actually ported from 2.2.1a - don't know about box2dweb-closure.
Anything I've tried by modifying Box2D.Collision.b2Collision.CollidePolygonAndCircle has resulted in erratic behaviour. At least a part of the time (e.g. ball bumping in random directions, but only when it rolls slowly).