Develop Reference

Why does my 1D gravity simulation not act like a pendulum?

My gravity simulation acts more like a gravity slingshot. Once the two bodies pass over each other, they accelerate far more than they decelerate on the other side. It's not balanced. It won't oscillate around an attractor.
How do other gravity simulators get around it? example: http://www.testtubegames.com/gravity.html, if you create 2 bodies they will just oscillate back and forth, not drifting any further apart than their original distance even though they move through each other as in my example.
That's how it should be. But in my case, as soon as they get close they just shoot away from each other to the edges of the imaginary galaxy never to come back for a gazillion years.
edit: Here is a video of the bug https://imgur.com/PhhRhP7
Here is a minimal test case to run in processing.
//Constants:
float v;
int unit = 1; //1 pixel = 1 meter
float x;
float y;
float alx;
float aly;
float g = 6.67408 * pow(10, -11) * sq(unit); //g constant
float m1 = (1 * pow(10, 15)); // attractor mass
float m2 = 1; //object mass
void setup() {
size (200,200);
a = 0;
v = 0;
x = width/2; // object x
y = 0; // object y
alx = width/2; //attractor x
aly = height/2; //attractor y
}
void draw() {
background(0);
getAcc();
applyAcc();
fill(0,255,0);
ellipse(x, y, 10, 10); //object
fill(255,0,0);
ellipse(alx, aly, 10, 10); //attractor
}
void applyAcc() {
a = getAcc();
v += a * (1/frameRate); //add acceleration to velocity
y += v * (1/frameRate); //add velocity to Y
a = 0;
}
float getAcc() {
float a = 0;
float d = dist(x, y, alx, aly); //distance to attractor
float gravity = (g * m1 * m2)/sq(d); //gforce
a += gravity/m2;
if (y > aly){
a *= -1;}
return a;
}

Your distance doesn't include width of the object, so the objects effectively occupy the same space at the same time.
The way to "cap gravity" as suggested above is add a normal force when the outer edges touch, if it's a physical simulation.

You should get into the habit of debugging your code. Which line of code is behaving differently from what you expected?
For example, if I were you I would start by printing out the value of gravity every time you calculate it:
float gravity = (g * m1 * m2)/sq(d); //gforce
println(gravity);
You'll notice that your gravity value skyrockets as your circles get closer to each other. And this makes sense, because you're dividing by sq(d). Ad d gets smaller, your gravity increases.
You could simply cap your gravity value so it doesn't go off the charts anymore:
float gravity = (g * m1 * m2)/sq(d);
if(gravity > 100){
gravity = 100;
}
Alternatively you could cap d so it never goes below a certain value, but the result is the same.
In the end you'll find that this is not going to be as easy as you expected. You're going to have to tune the parameters quite a bit so your simulation works how you want.

Working demo here: https://beta.observablehq.com/#shaunlebron/1d-gravity
I followed the solution posted by the author of the sim that inspired this question here:
-First off, shrinking the timestep is always helpful. My simulation runs, as a baseline, about 40 ‘steps’ per frame, and 30 frames per second.
-To deal with the exact issue you talk about, I think modeling the bodies not as pure point masses - but rather spherical masses with a certain radius will be vital. That prevents the force of gravity from diverging to infinity. So, for instance, if you drop an asteroid into a star in my simulation (with collisions turned off), the force of gravity will increase as the asteroid gets closer, up until it reaches the surface of the star, at which point the force will begin to decrease. And the moment it’s at the center of the star (or nearby), the force will be zero (or nearly zero) - instead of near-infinite.
In my demo, I just completed turned off gravity when two objects are close enough together. Seems to work well enough.

Issues with Raytracing triangles (orientation and coloring)

EDIT: I found out that all the pixels were upside down because of the difference between screen and world coordinates, so that is no longer a problem.
EDIT: After following a suggestion from #TheVee (using absolute values), my image got much better, but I'm still seeing issues with color.
I having a little trouble with ray-tracing triangles. This is a follow-up to my previous question about the same topic. The answers to that question made me realize that I needed to take a different approach. The new approach I took worked much better, but I'm seeing a couple of issues with my raytracer now:
There is one triangle that never renders in color (it is always black, even though it's color is supposed to be yellow).
Here is what I am expecting to see:
But here is what I am actually seeing:
Addressing debugging the first problem, even if I remove all other objects (including the blue triangle), the yellow triangle is always rendered black, so I don't believe that it is an issues with my shadow rays that I am sending out. I suspect that it has to do with the angle that the triangle/plane is at relative to the camera.
Here is my process for ray-tracing triangles which is based off of the process in this website.
Determine if the ray intersects the plane.
If it does, determine if the ray intersects inside of the triangle (using parametric coordinates).
Here is the code for determining if the ray hits the plane:
private Vector getPlaneIntersectionVector(Ray ray)
{
double epsilon = 0.00000001;
Vector w0 = ray.getOrigin().subtract(getB());
double numerator = -(getPlaneNormal().dotProduct(w0));
double denominator = getPlaneNormal().dotProduct(ray.getDirection());
//ray is parallel to triangle plane
if (Math.abs(denominator) < epsilon)
{
//ray lies in triangle plane
if (numerator == 0)
{
return null;
}
//ray is disjoint from plane
else
{
return null;
}
}
double intersectionDistance = numerator / denominator;
//intersectionDistance < 0 means the "intersection" is behind the ray (pointing away from plane), so not a real intersection
return (intersectionDistance >= 0) ? ray.getLocationWithMagnitude(intersectionDistance) : null;
}
And once I have determined that the ray intersects the plane, here is the code to determine if the ray is inside the triangle:
private boolean isIntersectionVectorInsideTriangle(Vector planeIntersectionVector)
{
//Get edges of triangle
Vector u = getU();
Vector v = getV();
//Pre-compute unique five dot-products
double uu = u.dotProduct(u);
double uv = u.dotProduct(v);
double vv = v.dotProduct(v);
Vector w = planeIntersectionVector.subtract(getB());
double wu = w.dotProduct(u);
double wv = w.dotProduct(v);
double denominator = (uv * uv) - (uu * vv);
//get and test parametric coordinates
double s = ((uv * wv) - (vv * wu)) / denominator;
if (s < 0 || s > 1)
{
return false;
}
double t = ((uv * wu) - (uu * wv)) / denominator;
if (t < 0 || (s + t) > 1)
{
return false;
}
return true;
}
Is think that I am having some issue with my coloring. I think that it has to do with the normals of the various triangles. Here is the equation I am considering when I am building my lighting model for spheres and triangles:
Now, here is the code that does this:
public Color calculateIlluminationModel(Vector normal, boolean isInShadow, Scene scene, Ray ray, Vector intersectionPoint)
{
//c = cr * ca + cr * cl * max(0, n \dot l)) + cl * cp * max(0, e \dot r)^p
Vector lightSourceColor = getColorVector(scene.getLightColor()); //cl
Vector diffuseReflectanceColor = getColorVector(getMaterialColor()); //cr
Vector ambientColor = getColorVector(scene.getAmbientLightColor()); //ca
Vector specularHighlightColor = getColorVector(getSpecularHighlight()); //cp
Vector directionToLight = scene.getDirectionToLight().normalize(); //l
double angleBetweenLightAndNormal = directionToLight.dotProduct(normal);
Vector reflectionVector = normal.multiply(2).multiply(angleBetweenLightAndNormal).subtract(directionToLight).normalize(); //r
double visibilityTerm = isInShadow ? 0 : 1;
Vector ambientTerm = diffuseReflectanceColor.multiply(ambientColor);
double lambertianComponent = Math.max(0, angleBetweenLightAndNormal);
Vector diffuseTerm = diffuseReflectanceColor.multiply(lightSourceColor).multiply(lambertianComponent).multiply(visibilityTerm);
double angleBetweenEyeAndReflection = scene.getLookFrom().dotProduct(reflectionVector);
angleBetweenEyeAndReflection = Math.max(0, angleBetweenEyeAndReflection);
double phongComponent = Math.pow(angleBetweenEyeAndReflection, getPhongConstant());
Vector phongTerm = lightSourceColor.multiply(specularHighlightColor).multiply(phongComponent).multiply(visibilityTerm);
return getVectorColor(ambientTerm.add(diffuseTerm).add(phongTerm));
}
I am seeing that the dot product between the normal and the light source is -1 for the yellow triangle, and about -.707 for the blue triangle, so I'm not sure if the normal being the wrong way is the problem. Regardless, when I added made sure the angle between the light and the normal was positive (Math.abs(directionToLight.dotProduct(normal));), it caused the opposite problem:
I suspect that it will be a small typo/bug, but I need another pair of eyes to spot what I couldn't.
Note: My triangles have vertices(a,b,c), and the edges (u,v) are computed using a-b and c-b respectively (also, those are used for calculating the plane/triangle normal). A Vector is made up of an (x,y,z) point, and a Ray is made up of a origin Vector and a normalized direction Vector.
Here is how I am calculating normals for all triangles:
private Vector getPlaneNormal()
{
Vector v1 = getU();
Vector v2 = getV();
return v1.crossProduct(v2).normalize();
}
Please let me know if I left out anything that you think is important for solving these issues.
EDIT: After help from #TheVee, this is what I have at then end:
There are still problems with z-buffering, And with phong highlights with the triangles, but the problem I was trying to solve here was fixed.

It is an usual problem in ray tracing of scenes including planar objects that we hit them from a wrong side. The formulas containing the dot product are presented with an inherent assumption that light is incident at the object from a direction to which the outer-facing normal is pointing. This can be true only for half the possible orientations of your triangle and you've been in bad luck to orient it with its normal facing away from the light.
Technically speaking, in a physical world your triangle would not have zero volume. It's composed of some layer of material which is just thin. On either side it has a proper normal that points outside. Assigning a single normal is a simplification that's fair to take because the two only differ in sign.
However, if we made a simplification we need to account for it. Having what technically is an inwards facing normal in our formulas gives negative dot products, which case they are not made for. It's like light was coming from the inside of the object or that it hit a surface could not possibly be in its way. That's why they give an erroneous result. The negative value will subtract light from other sources, and depending on the magnitude and implementation may result in darkening, full black, or numerical underflow.
But because we know the correct normal is either what we're using or its negative, we can simply fix the cases at once by taking a preventive absolute value where a positive dot product is implicitly assumed (in your code, that's angleBetweenLightAndNormal). Some libraries like OpenGL do that for you, and on top use the additional information (the sign) to choose between two different materials (front and back) you may provide if desired. Alternatively, they can be set to not draw the back faces for solid object at all because they will be overdrawn by front faces in solid objects anyway (known as face culling), saving about half of the numerical work.

Animating translation between two fixed points (Libgdx)

I'm making a 2d game in libgdx and I would like to know what the standard way of moving (translating between two known points) on the screen is.
On a button press, I am trying to animate a diagonal movement of a sprite between two points. I know the x and y coordinates of start and finish point. However I can't figure out the maths that determines where the texture should be in between on each call to render. At the moment my algorithm is sort of like:
textureProperty = new TextureProperty();
firstPtX = textureProperty.currentLocationX
firstPtY = textureProperty.currentLocationY
nextPtX = textureProperty.getNextLocationX()
nextPtX = textureProperty.getNextLocationX()
diffX = nextPtX - firstPtX
diffY = nextPtY - firstPtY
deltaX = diffX/speedFactor // Arbitrary, controlls speed of the translation
deltaX = diffX/speedFactor
renderLocX = textureProperty.renderLocX()
renderLocY = textureProperty.renderLocY()
if(textureProperty.getFirstPoint() != textureProperty.getNextPoint()){
animating = true
}
if (animating) {
newLocationX = renderLocX + deltaX
newLocationY = renderLocY + deltaY
textureProperty.setRenderPoint(renderLocX, renderLocY)
}
if (textureProperty.getRenderPoint() == textureProperty.getNextPoint()){
animating = false
textureProperty.setFirstPoint(textureProperty.getNextPoint())
}
batch.draw(texture, textureProperty.renderLocX(), textureProperty.renderLocY())
However, I can foresee a few issues with this code.
1) Since pixels are integers, if I divide that number by something that doesn't go evenly, it will round. 2) as a result of number 1, it will miss the target.
Also when I do test the animation, the objects moving from point1, miss by a long shot, which suggests something may be wrong with my maths.
Here is what I mean graphically:
Desired outcome:
Actual outcome:
Surely this is a standard problem. I welcome any suggestions.

Let's say you have start coordinates X1,Y1 and end coordinates X2,Y2. And let's say you have some variable p which holds percantage of passed path. So if p == 0 that means you are at X1,Y1 and if p == 100 that means you are at X2, Y2 and if 0<p<100 you are somewhere in between. In that case you can calculate current coordinates depending on p like:
X = X1 + ((X2 - X1)*p)/100;
Y = Y1 + ((Y2 - Y1)*p)/100;
So, you are not basing current coords on previous one, but you always calculate depending on start and end point and percentage of passed path.

First of all you need a Vector2 direction, giving the direction between the 2 points.
This Vector should be normalized, so that it's length is 1:
Vector2 dir = new Vector2(x2-x1,y2-y1).nor();
Then in the render method you need to move the object, which means you need to change it's position. You have the speed (given in distance/seconds), a normalized Vector, giving the direction, and the time since the last update.
So the new position can be calculated like this:
position.x += speed * delta * dir.x;
position.y += speed * delta * dir.y;
Now you only need to limit the position to the target position, so that you don't go to far:
boolean stop = false;
if (position.x >= target.x) {
position.x = target.x;
stop = true;
}
if (position.y >= target.y) {
position.y = target.y;
stop = true;
}
Now to the pixel-problem:
Do not use pixels! Using pixels will make your game resolution dependent.
Use Libgdx Viewport and Camera instead.
This alows you do calculate everything in you own world unit (for example meters) and Libgdx will convert it for you.

I didn't saw any big errors, tho' i saw some like you are comparing two objects using == and !=, But i suggest u to use a.equals(b) and !a.equals(b) like that. And secondly i found that your renderLock coords are always being set same in textureProperty.setRenderPoint(renderLocX, renderLocY) you are assigning the same back. Maybe you were supposed to use newLocation coords.
BTW Thanks for your code, i was searching Something that i got by you <3

Minimising cumulative floating point arithmetic error

I have a 2D convex polygon in 3D space and a function to measure the area of the polygon.
public double area() {
if (vertices.size() >= 3) {
double area = 0;
Vector3 origin = vertices.get(0);
Vector3 prev = vertices.get(1).clone();
prev.sub(origin);
for (int i = 2; i < vertices.size(); i++) {
Vector3 current = vertices.get(i).clone();
current.sub(origin);
Vector3 cross = prev.cross(current);
area += cross.magnitude();
prev = current;
}
area /= 2;
return area;
} else {
return 0;
}
}
To test that this method works at all orientations of the polygon I had my program rotate it a little bit each iteration and calculate the area. Like so...
Face f = poly.getFaces().get(0);
for (int i = 0; i < f.size(); i++) {
Vector3 v = f.getVertex(i);
v.rotate(0.1f, 0.2f, 0.3f);
}
if (blah % 1000 == 0)
System.out.println(blah + ":\t" + f.area());
My method seems correct when testing with a 20x20 square. However the rotate method (a method in the Vector3 class) seems to introduce some error into the position of each vertex in the polygon, which affects the area calculation. Here is the Vector3.rotate() method
public void rotate(double xAngle, double yAngle, double zAngle) {
double oldY = y;
double oldZ = z;
y = oldY * Math.cos(xAngle) - oldZ * Math.sin(xAngle);
z = oldY * Math.sin(xAngle) + oldZ * Math.cos(xAngle);
oldZ = z;
double oldX = x;
z = oldZ * Math.cos(yAngle) - oldX * Math.sin(yAngle);
x = oldZ * Math.sin(yAngle) + oldX * Math.cos(yAngle);
oldX = x;
oldY = y;
x = oldX * Math.cos(zAngle) - oldY * Math.sin(zAngle);
y = oldX * Math.sin(zAngle) + oldY * Math.cos(zAngle);
}
Here is the output for my program in the format "iteration: area":
0: 400.0
1000: 399.9999999999981
2000: 399.99999999999744
3000: 399.9999999999959
4000: 399.9999999999924
5000: 399.9999999999912
6000: 399.99999999999187
7000: 399.9999999999892
8000: 399.9999999999868
9000: 399.99999999998664
10000: 399.99999999998386
11000: 399.99999999998283
12000: 399.99999999998215
13000: 399.9999999999805
14000: 399.99999999998016
15000: 399.99999999997897
16000: 399.9999999999782
17000: 399.99999999997715
18000: 399.99999999997726
19000: 399.9999999999769
20000: 399.99999999997584
Since this is intended to eventually be for a physics engine I would like to know how I can minimise the cumulative error since the Vector3.rotate() method will be used on a very regular basis.
Thanks!
A couple of odd notes:
The error is proportional to the amount rotated. ie. bigger rotation per iteration -> bigger error per iteration.
There is more error when passing doubles to the rotate function than when passing it floats.

You'll always have some cumulative error with repeated floating point trig operations — that's just how they work. To deal with it, you basically have two options:
Just ignore it. Note that, in your example, after 20,000 iterations(!) the area is still accurate down to 13 decimal places. That's not bad, considering that doubles can only store about 16 decimal places to begin with.
Indeed, plotting your graph, the area of your square seems to be going down more or less linearly:
This makes sense, assuming that the effective determinant of your approximate rotation matrix is about 1 − 3.417825 × 10-18, which is well within normal double precision floating point error range of one. If that's the case, the area of your square would continue a very slow exponential decay towards zero, such that you'd need about two billion (2 × 109) 7.3 × 1014 iterations to get the area down to 399. Assuming 100 iterations per second, that's about seven and a half months 230 thousand years.
Edit: When I first calculated how long it would take for the area to reach 399, it seems I made a mistake and somehow managed to overestimate the decay rate by a factor of about 400,000(!). I've corrected the mistake above.
If you still feel you don't want any cumulative error, the answer is simple: don't iterate floating point rotations. Instead, have your object store its current orientation in a member variable, and use that information to always rotate the object from its original orientation to its current one.
This is simple in 2D, since you just have to store an angle. In 3D, I'd suggest storing either a quaternion or a matrix, and occasionally rescaling it so that its norm / determinant stays approximately one (and, if you're using a matrix to represent the orientation of a rigid body, that it remains approximately orthogonal).
Of course, this approach won't eliminate cumulative error in the orientation of the object, but the rescaling does ensure that the volume, area and/or shape of the object won't be affected.

You say there is cumulative error but I don't believe there is (note how your output desn't always go down) and the rest of the error is just due to rounding and loss of precision in a float.
I did work on a 2d physics engine in university (in java) and found double to be more precise (of course it is see oracles datatype sizes
In short you will never get rid of this behaviour you just have to accept the limitations of precision
EDIT:
Now I look at your .area function there is possibly some cumulative due to
+= cross.magnitude
but I have to say that whole function looks a bit odd. Why does it need to know the previous vertices to calculate the current area?

The Math of a Jump in a 2D game

I'm working in J2ME, I have my gameloop doing the following:
public void run() {
Graphics g = this.getGraphics();
while (running) {
long diff = System.currentTimeMillis() - lastLoop;
lastLoop = System.currentTimeMillis();
input();
this.level.doLogic();
render(g, diff);
try {
Thread.sleep(10);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
stop(e);
}
}
}
So it's just a basic gameloop, the doLogic() function calls for all the logic functions of the characters in the scene and render(g, diff) calls the animateChar function of every character on scene, following this, the animChar function in the Character class sets up everything in the screen as this:
protected void animChar(long diff) {
this.checkGravity();
this.move((int) ((diff * this.dx) / 1000), (int) ((diff * this.dy) / 1000));
if (this.acumFrame > this.framerate) {
this.nextFrame();
this.acumFrame = 0;
} else {
this.acumFrame += diff;
}
}
This ensures me that everything must to move according to the time that the machine takes to go from cycle to cycle (remember it's a phone, not a gaming rig). I'm sure it's not the most efficient way to achieve this behavior so I'm totally open for criticism of my programming skills in the comments, but here my problem: When I make I character jump, what I do is that I put his dy to a negative value, say -200 and I set the boolean jumping to true, that makes the character go up, and then I have this function called checkGravity() that ensure that everything that goes up has to go down, checkGravity also checks for the character being over platforms so I will strip it down a little for the sake of your time:
public void checkGravity() {
if (this.jumping) {
this.jumpSpeed += 10;
if (this.jumpSpeed > 0) {
this.jumping = false;
this.falling = true;
}
this.dy = this.jumpSpeed;
}
if (this.falling) {
this.jumpSpeed += 10;
if (this.jumpSpeed > 200) this.jumpSpeed = 200;
this.dy = this.jumpSpeed;
if (this.collidesWithPlatform()) {
this.falling = false;
this.standing = true;
this.jumping = false;
this.jumpSpeed = 0;
this.dy = this.jumpSpeed;
}
}
}
So, the problem is, that this function updates the dy regardless of the diff, making the characters fly like Superman in slow machines, and I have no idea how to implement the diff factor so that when a character is jumping, his speed decrement in a proportional way to the game speed. Can anyone help me fix this issue? Or give me pointers on how to make a 2D Jump in J2ME the right way.

Shouldn't you be adjusting the jumpSpeed based on the elapsed time? That is, perhaps the speed changes by -75/sec, so your diff should be a weight for the amount of change applied to the jumpSpeed.
So pass in diff to checkGrav and do something like... jumpSpeed += (diff * (rate_per_second)) / 1000;
(assuming diff in milliseconds)
(Ideally, this would make it just like real gravity :D)

Why not just scale all constants by diff?
By the way, I'm embarrassed to say this, but I worked on a commercial game where gravity was twice as strong on characters going down as going up. For some reason, people preferred this.

This seems to be more of a question about game design than the math of a jump. It is a common problem that in games running on different processors one game will be executed faster and on other games it will be executed slower (thus changing the entire speed of the game). I'm not sure what common practice is in games, but whenever I made home-brewed 2D games (they were fun to make) I would have the concept of a game-tick. On faster machines
long diff = System.currentTimeMillis() - lastLoop;
lastLoop = System.currentTimeMillis();
Would be lower. A wait time would be derived from the diff so that the game would run at the same speed on most machines. I would also have the render method in a separate thread so that the game speed isn't dependent on the graphics.

I can give a formula like this (I use it everywhere). The X is the parameter of it starting from zero and ending on the length of jump.
if you want someone to jump at some Height (H) and at some Length (L), then function of the jump will look like this (and it won't' be able to ever look different):
y = minus(power(x - Length of Jump divided by two) multiply by 4 and
multiply by Height of the jump) divide by power of Length and add
Height of jump in the very end.
y = -(x-l/2)(x-l/2)*4*h/(l*l) + h
And if you want the jumping object to land on something, then you can check every new X if it's approximately standing on a platform and if it is standing on something, then don't make it just stop, make it's Y position exactly equal to the Y of platform.
If you're using something like Flash or other base which has inverted y axis, then multiply the function output by -1;