try performance.now() for stabler results #22
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request includes several updates across multiple files, primarily focusing on modifying the Changes
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Copilot reviewed 11 out of 26 changed files in this pull request and generated no suggestions.
Files not reviewed (15)
- deps.cirru: Language not supported
- package.json: Language not supported
- src/apps/attractor/bouali.wgsl: Language not supported
- src/apps/attractor/lorenz.wgsl: Language not supported
- src/apps/attractor/sprott.mts: Evaluated as low risk
- src/apps/attractor/aizawa.mts: Evaluated as low risk
- src/apps/attractor/chen.mts: Evaluated as low risk
- src/apps/attractor/dadras.mts: Evaluated as low risk
- src/apps/attractor/dequanli.mts: Evaluated as low risk
- src/apps/attractor/den-tsucs.mts: Evaluated as low risk
- src/apps/collision.mts: Evaluated as low risk
- src/apps/attractor/halvorsen.mts: Evaluated as low risk
- src/apps/feday.mts: Evaluated as low risk
- src/apps/bounce-trail.mts: Evaluated as low risk
- src/apps/bounce.mts: Evaluated as low risk
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (13)
deps.cirru (1)
Pin dependencies to their latest stable releases for improved stability
Based on the verification results, all dependencies have stable releases available:
- calcit-lang/lilac: 0.5.0
- calcit-lang/memof: 0.0.16
- Respo/respo.calcit: 0.16.11
- Respo/respo-ui.calcit: 0.6.2
- Respo/reel.calcit: 0.6.3
- Triadica/hud-nav: 0.0.1
Recent commits show active development in these repositories, including breaking changes (e.g., "drop memof-call" in memof). Using
mainbranch could lead to unexpected behavior. Consider updating deps.cirru to use these specific versions instead.🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
4-10: Consider pinning dependencies to specific versionsAll dependencies are currently pointing to their respective
mainbranches. This could lead to unexpected behavior or breaking changes when the main branches are updated. Consider pinning these dependencies to specific versions or commit hashes for better stability and reproducibility.Let's verify the stability of these dependencies:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check if these repositories have had recent changes that might affect stability for repo in "calcit-lang/lilac" "calcit-lang/memof" "Respo/respo.calcit" "Respo/respo-ui.calcit" "Respo/reel.calcit" "Triadica/hud-nav"; do echo "Checking recent commits for $repo:" gh api "repos/$repo/commits?per_page=1" --jq '.[0].commit.message' gh api "repos/$repo/releases?per_page=1" --jq '.[0].tag_name' doneLength of output: 2720
src/util.mts (1)
46-49: Consider using const for immutable variablesThe implementation correctly uses
performance.now()and accurately calculates elapsed time in seconds. However, since these variables aren't reassigned, usingconstwould better express intent.- let now = performance.now(); - let elapsed = now - this.startedAt; + const now = performance.now(); + const elapsed = now - this.startedAt;src/apps/attractor/fourwing.mts (1)
Line range hint
14-18: Consider documenting the time scaling assumptionsThe significant increase in the deltaT multiplier (40) combined with other parameters (scale: 100.0, width: 0.004, opacity: 0.99) could affect the simulation stability. Consider:
- Adding comments explaining the relationship between deltaT and the time measurement method
- Documenting any assumptions about the expected dt range
getParams: (dt) => [ - dt * 40, // deltaT + dt * 40, // deltaT - scaled for performance.now() (milliseconds) 100.0, // scale 0.004, // width 0.99, // opacitysrc/apps/attractor/sprott.mts (1)
Line range hint
6-22: Consider adding time step configuration parameterGiven that different attractors may require different time steps for optimal visualization, consider making the deltaT multiplier configurable through the renderer options rather than hardcoding it.
Consider refactoring like this:
export let loadRenderer = async (canvas: HTMLCanvasElement) => { let seedSize = 4000000; + let timeScale = 4.0; // configurable time scaling factor let renderFrame = await createRenderer( canvas, { seedSize, seedData: makeSeed(seedSize, 0), getParams: (dt) => [ - dt * 4, // deltaT + dt * timeScale, // deltaT 600.0, // scale 0.001, // width 0.99, // opacity ],src/apps/attractor/halvorsen.mts (1)
Line range hint
6-21: Consider adding FPS control mechanismsSince this change is related to timing stability (using performance.now()), consider adding:
- FPS limiting to ensure consistent visualization across different devices
- Adaptive deltaT scaling based on actual frame timing
- Maximum deltaT bounds to prevent instability
Consider adding these parameters to the renderer options:
let renderFrame = await createRenderer( canvas, { seedSize, seedData: makeSeed(seedSize, 0), + timing: { + maxDeltaT: 1.0, + targetFPS: 60, + adaptiveScaling: true, + }, getParams: (dt) => [ dt * 12, // deltaT 600.0, // scalesrc/apps/attractor/chen.mts (1)
Line range hint
6-29: Consider adding performance monitoringWith 4.1M particles and the increased time step, it would be valuable to:
- Monitor and log performance metrics
- Track numerical stability across frames
- Ensure efficient GPU memory usage
This is especially important given the large particle count and the significant change in simulation time step.
Consider adding performance monitoring code:
let performanceStats = { frameTime: 0, particleCount: seedSize, timeStep: 0, // Add more metrics as needed }; // Update in render loop performanceStats.frameTime = await measureFrameTime(renderFrame);src/apps/attractor/burke-shaw.mts (1)
Line range hint
6-21: Consider adding time step boundsGiven the significant change in deltaT and the PR's focus on timing stability, consider adding upper/lower bounds for the time step to prevent extreme values that could destabilize the simulation.
let renderFrame = await createRenderer( canvas, { seedSize, seedData: makeSeed(seedSize, 0), getParams: (dt) => [ - dt * 2, // deltaT + Math.min(Math.max(dt * 2, 0.001), 0.1), // deltaT with bounds 20.0, // scale 0.008, // width 0.99, // opacity ],src/apps/collision.mts (1)
Line range hint
6-21: Consider adding time step clampingGiven the significant increase in deltaT, it would be prudent to add safety measures to prevent potential simulation instability.
Consider adding a maximum time step limit:
getParams: (dt) => [ - dt * 0.4, // deltaT + Math.min(dt * 0.4, 1/60), // deltaT, capped at 60fps equivalent 0.6, // height 0.2, // width 0.8, // opacity ],This would help prevent extreme time steps that could destabilize the simulation while still maintaining the benefits of using performance.now().
src/apps/ball-spin.mts (1)
Line range hint
6-19: Consider performance implications of increased deltaTWith 800,000 particles, the increased deltaT (0.2) means larger time steps in the simulation. While this could reduce the number of updates needed for similar visual effects, it might affect:
- Simulation accuracy
- Visual smoothness
- Numerical stability
Consider adding comments explaining the rationale behind this specific multiplier value and any performance benchmarks that led to this choice.
src/apps/orbit-spark.mts (1)
Line range hint
6-20: Missing performance.now() implementationThe PR title suggests using performance.now() for more stable results, but this implementation is not visible in the changes. Consider updating the time delta calculation to use performance.now() for more precise timing:
export let loadRenderer = async (canvas: HTMLCanvasElement) => { let seedSize = 400000; + let lastTime = performance.now(); let renderFrame = await createRenderer( canvas, { seedSize, seedData: makeSeed(seedSize, 0), - getParams: (dt) => [ + getParams: (_dt) => { + const currentTime = performance.now(); + const dt = (currentTime - lastTime) / 1000; // Convert to seconds + lastTime = currentTime; + return [ dt * 4, // deltaT 600.0, // scale 0.001, // width 0.99, // opacity - ], + ]; + }, computeShader: computeSpark, },src/apps/lamps.mts (1)
Line range hint
6-21: Consider documenting the timing assumptionsThe getParams function's deltaT calculation is crucial for simulation stability, but its relationship with the timing system isn't documented. Consider adding a comment explaining:
- Why 0.2 was chosen as the multiplier
- How it relates to the timing system (performance.now)
- What range of deltaT values are considered safe
src/apps/attractor/bouali.wgsl (1)
Distance tracking is consistently implemented across attractors, commented code should be removed
The search results show that distance tracking is an active feature used across most attractor implementations (sprott, lorenz83, fourwing, halvorsen, dadras, chen, aizawa). Only bouali and dequanli have some commented-out distance-related code, while the age-based color calculations are consistently used across all attractors.
bouali.wgsl: Remove the commented-out distance-related code since it's not useddequanli.wgsl: Remove the commented-out distance check since other attractors actively use this feature🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
76-82: Verify intentionality of commented-out distance trackingThere are several commented-out lines related to particle distance tracking, but some related code (like age-based color calculations) still remains active in the vertex shader. This suggests a potential incomplete cleanup.
Let's check if this is a pattern across other attractor files:
If these features are intentionally deprecated, consider:
- Documenting the reason in a comment
- Removing the commented code if it won't be needed
- Reviewing if other distance/age-related code should also be removed
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for similar commented-out distance tracking in other attractors # Look for patterns of commented distance-related code rg -A 2 "//.*distance" "src/apps/attractor/*.wgsl"Length of output: 118
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's first find all .wgsl files in the attractor directory fd -e wgsl . src/apps/attractor # Then search for distance-related code (both active and commented) rg -U "(?:^|\s+)distance" src/apps/attractor # Also search for age-related code to verify the color calculations claim rg -U "(?:^|\s+)age" src/apps/attractorLength of output: 12017
src/render.mts (1)
255-258: LGTM! Consider adding JSDoc for the parameters.The rename from
ttoloopTimesimproves clarity. Consider adding JSDoc to document the parameters:+/** + * @param loopTimes Counter used to alternate between particle buffers + * @param skipComputing Whether to skip the compute pass + */ async function render( loopTimes: number, skipComputing: boolean = false )
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
yarn.lockis excluded by!**/yarn.lock,!**/*.lock
📒 Files selected for processing (25)
.github/workflows/upload.yaml(1 hunks)deps.cirru(1 hunks)package.json(1 hunks)src/apps/attractor/aizawa.mts(1 hunks)src/apps/attractor/bouali.wgsl(1 hunks)src/apps/attractor/burke-shaw.mts(1 hunks)src/apps/attractor/chen.mts(1 hunks)src/apps/attractor/dadras.mts(1 hunks)src/apps/attractor/den-tsucs.mts(1 hunks)src/apps/attractor/dequanli.mts(1 hunks)src/apps/attractor/fourwing.mts(1 hunks)src/apps/attractor/halvorsen.mts(1 hunks)src/apps/attractor/lorenz.wgsl(1 hunks)src/apps/attractor/lorenz83.mts(1 hunks)src/apps/attractor/sprott.mts(1 hunks)src/apps/ball-spin.mts(1 hunks)src/apps/bounce-trail.mts(1 hunks)src/apps/bounce.mts(1 hunks)src/apps/collision.mts(1 hunks)src/apps/feday.mts(1 hunks)src/apps/fireworks.mts(1 hunks)src/apps/lamps.mts(1 hunks)src/apps/orbit-spark.mts(1 hunks)src/render.mts(4 hunks)src/util.mts(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- package.json
🔇 Additional comments (34)
deps.cirru (1)
3-3: LGTM on calcit-version pinning
Explicitly pinning the calcit-version to 0.9.6 is good practice for ensuring build stability.
.github/workflows/upload.yaml (1)
20-20: Verify the changelog for calcit-lang/[email protected]
The version bump from 0.0.7 to 0.0.8 looks reasonable given it's a minor version update. However, it's good practice to verify the changes.
Let's check the release notes and recent commits:
✅ Verification successful
Version 0.0.8 appears to be a maintenance update with dependency upgrades
Based on the commit history, version 0.0.8 is a recent release that primarily includes dependency updates. The changes appear to be routine maintenance without any breaking changes or significant feature additions. This aligns well with the minor version bump and should be safe to use.
- The main changes in 0.0.8 were:
- Dependency upgrades
- Removal of default version
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check the changelog and recent commits for calcit-lang/setup-cr
# to understand what changed between 0.0.7 and 0.0.8
# Get release information
gh api repos/calcit-lang/setup-cr/releases | jq -r '.[] | select(.tag_name == "0.0.8" or .tag_name == "0.0.7") | "Version: \(.tag_name)\nPublished: \(.published_at)\nChanges:\n\(.body)\n"'
# Get commits between these versions
gh api repos/calcit-lang/setup-cr/commits --query 'sha=0.0.8' | jq -r '.[].commit.message'
Length of output: 1763
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to get the commit history
gh api repos/calcit-lang/setup-cr/commits | jq -r '.[].commit.message' | head -n 10
Length of output: 337
src/util.mts (2)
41-41: Excellent choice using performance.now()!
Using performance.now() instead of Date.now() is a significant improvement as it provides:
- Microsecond precision (vs millisecond)
- Monotonic timing (not affected by system clock changes)
- More reliable performance measurements
41-49: Verify integration with attractor applications
The switch to performance.now() coincides with significant changes to dt scaling factors across various attractor applications. Let's verify the integration.
✅ Verification successful
Switch to performance.now() is well-integrated with attractor applications
The verification shows that each attractor application has carefully calibrated dt scaling factors that are consistently applied:
- Fast attractors use small dt multipliers (e.g. Lorenz: 0.04x, Den-Tsucs: 0.1x)
- Medium-speed attractors use moderate multipliers (e.g. Chen: 2x, Burke-Shaw: 2x)
- Slow attractors use larger multipliers (e.g. Fourwing: 40x, Halvorsen: 12x)
The switch to performance.now() provides high-resolution timestamps in milliseconds, which works well with these carefully tuned dt scales. The consistent pattern of dt scaling across attractors indicates this timing change has been properly integrated.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check how TimeTicker is used in attractor applications and verify dt parameter changes
# Find all attractor files and check their dt parameter usage
echo "Checking dt parameter usage in attractor applications:"
rg -A 5 "dt.*=.*" "src/apps/attractor/"
# Find all TimeTicker usage to ensure consistent timing approach
echo -e "\nChecking TimeTicker usage:"
rg -A 3 "new TimeTicker"
Length of output: 13262
src/apps/attractor/fourwing.mts (2)
14-14: Verify the time measurement implementation across the codebase
The deltaT multiplier has been significantly increased from 0.04 to 40 (1000x). While this suggests adaptation for a different time scale (possibly milliseconds), I don't see the corresponding switch to performance.now() mentioned in the PR title.
Let's verify the time measurement implementation:
✅ Verification successful
The deltaT multiplier change is consistent with the switch to performance.now()
The verification shows that:
- The codebase uses
performance.now()insrc/util.mtswhich returns elapsed time in seconds (multiplied by 0.001 to convert from milliseconds) - Different attractors use different deltaT multipliers based on their specific dynamics:
- fourwing: dt * 40
- aizawa: dt * 12
- halvorsen: dt * 12
- lorenz83: dt * 8
- sprott: dt * 4
- chen: dt * 2
- lorenz: dt * 0.04
The 1000x increase in the fourwing attractor's multiplier (from 0.04 to 40) correctly compensates for the milliseconds-to-seconds conversion in the time measurement, while also maintaining the attractor's specific dynamics requirements.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for performance.now() usage and time-related calculations
rg -g '!*.wgsl' -g '!*.glsl' "performance.now\(\)" -A 5
rg -g '!*.wgsl' -g '!*.glsl' "deltaT|dt \*" -A 5
# Look for other attractor implementations
fd "attractor.*\.mts$" src/ --exec grep -l "dt \*"
Length of output: 9676
14-14: Validate simulation stability with the increased deltaT
The 1000x increase in the deltaT multiplier (40) could potentially affect the numerical stability of the attractor simulation. Please verify that:
- The particle system remains stable across different initial conditions
- The attractor's characteristic behavior is preserved
- No numerical overflow occurs in the compute shader
✅ Verification successful
Simulation stability is maintained despite deltaT increase
After analyzing the shader code, the concern about numerical stability is mitigated by several factors:
- The actual time step used in the simulation is much smaller than it appears:
- The deltaT value of 40 is scaled down by 0.0006 in the shader
- The effective step size is approximately 0.024 (40 * 0.0006)
- The four_wing attractor implementation includes bounds checking:
- Positions are reset if they exceed length of 100.0
- The equations use conservative coefficients (a=0.2, b=0.01, c=-0.4)
- The deltaT scaling is consistent with other stable attractors in the codebase:
- Halvorsen and Aizawa also use similar magnitude time steps
- They all employ similar stability constraints
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the compute shader for numerical integration method
ast-grep --pattern 'struct $_ {
$$$
deltaT: f32,
$$$
}'
# Look for stability-related parameters or comments in other attractors
rg "deltaT|stability|step size" src/apps/attractor/
Length of output: 811
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the compute shader implementation for fourwing attractor
rg -A 20 "void main" src/apps/attractor/fourwing.wgsl
# Look for any historical changes to deltaT in fourwing
git log -p src/apps/attractor/fourwing.mts | rg "deltaT"
# Check if there are any test files or validation code
fd "test|spec" --extension ts --extension mts src/apps/attractor/
Length of output: 123
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the contents of the fourwing shader file
cat src/apps/attractor/fourwing.wgsl
# Look for any configuration or parameter files
fd "config|param|constant" src/apps/attractor/
# Check the implementation of other attractors with similar deltaT values
cat src/apps/attractor/halvorsen.wgsl
cat src/apps/attractor/aizawa.wgsl
Length of output: 13958
src/apps/attractor/sprott.mts (1)
14-14: Verify simulation stability with increased deltaT
The change from dt * 0.04 to dt * 4 represents a 100x increase in the time step. While this aligns with similar changes in other attractor implementations, such large time steps in chaotic systems like the Sprott attractor could potentially:
- Affect numerical stability
- Impact the accuracy of the trajectory
- Change the visual characteristics of the attractor
Let's check if other attractor implementations use similar scaling:
✅ Verification successful
deltaT change in Sprott attractor aligns with other implementations
The change from dt * 0.04 to dt * 4 in the Sprott attractor is consistent with the deltaT scaling used across other attractor implementations:
- Halvorsen and Aizawa use
dt * 12 - Fourwing uses
dt * 40 - Dequanli uses
dt * 4(identical) - Burke-Shaw and Chen use
dt * 2
The new value falls within the normal range used by other stable attractor implementations, suggesting this change should maintain numerical stability while improving performance.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check deltaT calculations across all attractor implementations
# Expected: Similar scale factors (around 4-12) in other attractor files
# Search for deltaT parameter definitions in all attractor files
rg -B 2 -A 2 "deltaT.*\/\/" src/apps/attractor/
Length of output: 136
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find deltaT calculations
# Search for deltaT or dt patterns in attractor files
rg -B 2 -A 2 "dt \*" src/apps/attractor/
Length of output: 3955
src/apps/attractor/aizawa.mts (2)
14-14: Verify the significant increase in deltaT multiplier
The change from 0.04 to 12 represents a 300x increase in the time step size. While this might improve performance, it could potentially:
- Reduce numerical accuracy of the simulation
- Affect the stability of the Aizawa attractor system
- Change the visual characteristics of the animation
Let's check if this change is coordinated across other attractor files:
Consider adding a configuration constant or runtime parameter for deltaT multiplier to:
- Make it easier to tune performance vs. accuracy
- Allow dynamic adjustment based on device capabilities
- Facilitate testing different values without code changes
✅ Verification successful
Different attractors require different time step multipliers
The deltaT multipliers vary significantly across different attractor types, which is expected due to their distinct mathematical characteristics:
- Fourwing: 40x
- Aizawa/Halvorsen: 12x
- Lorenz83: 8x
- Sprott/Dequanli: 4x
- Chen/Burke-Shaw: 2x
- Bouali: 1x
- Dadras: 0.4x
- Den-tsucs: 0.1x
- Lorenz: 0.04x
The 12x multiplier for Aizawa is within the normal range of values used across the attractor implementations and appears to be intentionally chosen for this specific system.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check deltaT changes across attractor files
# Expected: Similar scale of changes in other attractor files
# Search for deltaT comments and their values
rg -B 2 "deltaT" "src/apps/attractor/*.mts"
Length of output: 108
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try finding attractor files first and then search for deltaT
fd ".*\.mts$" src/apps/attractor/ --exec rg -B 2 "deltaT" {}
Length of output: 1152
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's get the file names along with deltaT values to understand which attractor uses which value
fd ".*\.mts$" src/apps/attractor/ --exec sh -c 'echo "=== {} ===" && rg -B 2 "deltaT" {}'
Length of output: 1651
Line range hint 13-18: Clarify relationship with performance.now() changes
The PR title mentions "performance.now() for stabler results", but this file only shows deltaT adjustments. Could you clarify:
- How this deltaT change relates to the performance.now() implementation?
- Whether the 300x increase was determined through performance measurements?
Let's check for performance.now() related changes:
✅ Verification successful
The deltaT change is directly related to performance.now() precision improvements
The changes are connected and justified:
- The switch from
Date.now()toperformance.now()inTimeTickerprovides higher precision timing with microsecond accuracy (vs millisecond for Date.now) - The deltaT multiplier increase from 0.04 to 12 (300x) compensates for the much smaller time deltas now being returned by
performance.now(), ensuring the simulation speed remains visually appropriate
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Look for performance.now() implementation
# Expected: Changes in timing-related code
# Search for performance.now usage
rg "performance\.now\(\)"
# Search for timing-related files that might contain the changes
fd -e ts -e mts -e js "time|ticker|clock"
Length of output: 170
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the timing-related changes in util.mts and its relationship with aizawa.mts
rg -B 5 -A 5 "performance\.now\(\)" src/util.mts
# Check how aizawa.mts uses timing utilities
rg -l "import.*util" src/apps/attractor/aizawa.mts
cat src/apps/attractor/aizawa.mts
# Look for any git changes to these files
git diff --staged src/util.mts src/apps/attractor/aizawa.mts
Length of output: 2495
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the git history to understand the changes
git show HEAD src/util.mts
git show HEAD src/apps/attractor/aizawa.mts
# Also check the index.mjs since it's imported and might show how timing is used
cat src/index.mjs
Length of output: 1451
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the index.mts since .mjs wasn't found
cat src/index.mts
# Also look for any animation frame or render loop code
rg -A 5 "createRenderer"
Length of output: 22098
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the render.mts file to understand how timing is used
cat src/render.mts
Length of output: 12354
src/apps/attractor/lorenz83.mts (1)
14-14: Verify simulation stability with increased deltaT
The change from dt * 0.04 to dt * 8 represents a 200x increase in the time step. While this might be necessary for adapting to performance.now(), such large time steps could potentially lead to numerical instability in the Lorenz83 attractor simulation.
Let's check if other attractor implementations use similar scaling:
Consider:
- Adding a comment explaining why this specific multiplier (8) was chosen
- Documenting the acceptable range for deltaT that maintains simulation stability
- Adding bounds checking to prevent potential instability with very large dt values
✅ Verification successful
deltaT multiplier is consistent with other attractor implementations
The change from dt * 0.04 to dt * 8 in Lorenz83 is part of a consistent pattern across different attractor implementations, where each attractor uses a specific multiplier tuned to its characteristics:
- Lorenz83:
dt * 8 - Halvorsen & Aizawa:
dt * 12 - Fourwing:
dt * 40 - Sprott & Dequanli:
dt * 4 - Chen & Burke-Shaw:
dt * 2 - Den-Tsucs:
dt * 0.1 - Dadras:
dt * 0.4 - Lorenz:
dt * 0.04
Each attractor's time step multiplier appears to be carefully chosen based on its specific dynamics, with multipliers ranging from 0.04 to 40. The Lorenz83's multiplier of 8 falls well within this established range, suggesting it has been appropriately tuned for numerical stability.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check deltaT calculations across all attractor implementations
# Expected: Different attractors might need different time scales for stability
# Search for deltaT calculations in attractor files
rg -B 2 -A 2 "deltaT" "src/apps/attractor/*.{ts,mts}"
Length of output: 123
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find attractor files and their deltaT usage
# First, find all attractor files
fd ".*\.(ts|mts)$" src/apps/attractor/
# Then search for deltaT patterns in these files
rg -B 2 -A 2 "dt \*" src/apps/attractor/
Length of output: 4370
src/apps/attractor/halvorsen.mts (1)
14-14: Verify the stability with increased deltaT
The change from dt * 0.04 to dt * 12 represents a 300x increase in the time step. While this might help with timing stability, such a large step size could potentially:
- Affect the numerical stability of the integration
- Impact the visual accuracy of the Halvorsen attractor
- Lead to artifacts or unexpected behavior
Let's check if similar changes were made consistently across other attractors:
Consider:
- Adding a comment explaining why this specific multiplier (12) was chosen
- Making the multiplier configurable to allow fine-tuning per attractor type
- Adding bounds checking to prevent potential instability
✅ Verification successful
deltaT multiplier variations are consistent with attractor characteristics
The search results show that different deltaT multipliers are used across various attractors, ranging from 0.04 to 40. The Halvorsen attractor's multiplier (12) is within this range and matches the Aizawa attractor, which has similar scale parameters (600.0) and width settings (0.001). The multipliers appear to be carefully tuned per attractor type, considering their individual characteristics and visualization requirements.
Key observations:
- Attractors with scale=600.0 use larger deltaT multipliers (8-12)
- Attractors with scale=20.0 use smaller deltaT multipliers (0.04-4)
- The multiplier correlations with scale/width parameters suggest intentional tuning
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check deltaT calculations across all attractor files
# Expected: Similar scale changes in other attractor implementations
# Search for deltaT parameter calculations in all attractor files
rg -A 5 "deltaT" "src/apps/attractor/"
Length of output: 4057
src/apps/attractor/chen.mts (2)
14-14: Clarify relationship with performance.now() changes
The PR title mentions using performance.now() for stabler results, but this file only shows changes to the time step scaling. Could you clarify:
- How does this increased deltaT value (dt * 2) relate to the switch to
performance.now()? - Are there corresponding changes in the timing measurement code?
Let's check for performance.now() usage in related files:
14-14: Verify simulation stability with increased deltaT
The change from dt * 0.04 to dt * 2 represents a 50x increase in the time step, which could significantly impact:
- Numerical stability of the Chen attractor simulation
- Visual quality and accuracy of the rendered results
- Performance characteristics
While larger time steps can improve performance, they may lead to:
- Numerical instabilities or divergence
- Loss of fine details in the attractor's structure
- Different visual behavior compared to the original implementation
Let's check if other attractor implementations have similar time step values:
Consider adding a configuration option to allow runtime adjustment of the time step, enabling users to balance between performance and accuracy. This would help in:
- Finding optimal deltaT values for different scenarios
- Debugging numerical stability issues
- Achieving desired visual effects
✅ Verification successful
Time step values are consistent with other attractors
The change to dt * 2 in the Chen attractor aligns well with the time step values used across other attractors in the codebase:
- Most attractors use multipliers between 0.1 and 40
- Similar attractors like Burke-Shaw also use
dt * 2 - More chaotic systems use smaller steps (Lorenz: 0.04, Den-Tsucs: 0.1)
- Simpler systems use larger steps (Fourwing: 40, Halvorsen: 12)
The chosen time step appears to be appropriately scaled for the Chen system's characteristics and is consistent with the established patterns in the codebase.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check deltaT values across all attractor implementations
# Expected: Similar scale factors in other attractor files
# Search for deltaT parameter definitions in all attractor files
rg -B 2 -A 2 "deltaT" "src/apps/attractor/*.{ts,mts}"
Length of output: 123
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find attractor files and their time step configurations
# First, find all files in the attractor directory
fd . "src/apps/attractor"
# Then search for dt or deltaT related parameters
rg -B 2 -A 2 "dt \*" "src/apps/attractor"
Length of output: 4740
src/apps/attractor/dadras.mts (2)
14-14: Verify simulation stability with increased time step
The time step multiplier has been increased by 10x (from 0.04 to 0.4). While this will speed up the simulation, larger time steps in numerical integration can lead to instability or inaccurate results in chaotic systems like the Dadras attractor.
Let's check if similar changes were made consistently across other attractor files:
Line range hint 1-85: Implementation missing for PR title objective
The PR title mentions using performance.now() for stabler results, but this implementation is not visible in this file. This suggests either:
- The change is incomplete
- The change exists in a different file
- The PR title needs updating
Let's search for any performance.now() implementations:
✅ Verification successful
Let me check the implementation in src/util.mts to understand if it's related to the PR's objective.
Let me check how this TimeTicker is used in relation to the attractor implementation.
Let me check how the ticker is used in the render.mts file since it seems to be the core implementation.
The PR title objective is already implemented
The implementation of performance.now() for stabler results is correctly implemented in the codebase. The TimeTicker class in src/util.mts uses performance.now() for precise timing, and this is actively used in src/render.mts to calculate delta time (dt) which is passed to getParams for computing attractor parameters. This provides stable, high-resolution timing for the animation.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Look for performance.now() usage
# Expected: Find where performance.now() is implemented for timing
rg 'performance\.now\(\)'
Length of output: 126
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get the content of src/util.mts to see how performance.now() is used
cat src/util.mts
Length of output: 1379
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for TimeTicker usage in the codebase
rg "TimeTicker" -B 2 -A 2
Length of output: 612
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get the content of src/render.mts to see how TimeTicker is used for timing
cat src/render.mts
Length of output: 12354
src/apps/attractor/burke-shaw.mts (1)
Line range hint 1-21: Verify integration with performance.now() changes
The PR title mentions using performance.now() for stabler results, but the implementation isn't visible in this file. Let's verify how this deltaT adjustment relates to the timing system changes.
✅ Verification successful
Timing system changes are part of a broader optimization
The deltaT adjustment in burke-shaw.mts is part of a systematic update across the codebase where:
- The timing system was changed from
Date.now()toperformance.now()for more precise measurements - All attractor and particle system files had their deltaT multipliers recalibrated to work with the new timing system
- The burke-shaw deltaT multiplier change from
0.04to2aligns with similar adjustments made to other attractors
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for performance.now() related changes
# Expected: Find timing-related changes that this deltaT adjustment compensates for
# Search for performance.now() usage
rg -B3 -A3 "performance\.now\(\)" --type ts
# Search for other timing-related changes
rg -B3 -A3 "timestamp|timing|tick|clock" --type ts
Length of output: 98
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search for timing-related changes in the codebase
# Search for deltaT usage to understand the timing system
rg -B3 -A3 "deltaT" --type ts
# Look for createRenderer implementation to understand timing
fd "index.mjs" --exec cat {}
# Check for any recent changes in timing-related files
fd "time|clock" --type f
Length of output: 87
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the implementation and shader files more specifically
# Check the renderer implementation
cat src/index.mjs
# Look at the compute shader for timing usage
cat src/apps/attractor/burke-shaw.wgsl
# Check git diff for timing-related changes
git diff HEAD~1 -- "*.ts" "*.mts" "*.wgsl" | grep -A 5 -B 5 "time\|deltaT\|performance"
Length of output: 12826
src/apps/attractor/den-tsucs.mts (2)
14-14:
Verify attractor stability with increased deltaT
The time step multiplier has been significantly increased from 0.0003 to 0.1 (~333x larger). While this might improve performance, it could potentially affect the stability and accuracy of the Den-Tsucs attractor simulation. Please ensure that:
- The attractor maintains its characteristic shape
- The simulation remains numerically stable
- The particle movement doesn't become too erratic
Would you like me to help generate test cases to verify the stability across different time steps?
Line range hint 1-14: Clarify missing performance.now() implementation
The PR title mentions using performance.now() for stabler results, but there are no visible changes related to this in the file. Consider:
- Is the performance.now() implementation missing from this file?
- Should the time delta calculation be updated to use performance.now()?
Run the following to check for performance.now() usage in other files:
src/apps/bounce.mts (1)
14-14:
Verify the significant increase in deltaT multiplier
The deltaT multiplier has been increased from 0.004 to 0.1 (25x larger). This substantial change could significantly affect:
- Simulation speed
- Physics stability
- Frame-to-frame particle movement magnitude
Please confirm if this increase was intentional and tested for stability across different frame rates.
✅ Verification successful
deltaT multiplier change is consistent with similar simulations
The change from 0.004 to 0.1 in bounce.mts aligns with the deltaT values used across similar simulation files in the codebase:
bounce-trail.mtsuses 0.1feday.mtsuses 0.1collision.mtsuses 0.4ball-spin.mtsuses 0.2
The original concern about stability is unwarranted as:
- Similar physics-based simulations are already using deltaT multipliers in the 0.1-0.4 range
- The value 0.004 appears to be an outlier, mainly used in non-physics simulations (rule30, lifegame, orbits)
- The new value brings the bounce simulation in line with related particle physics demos
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for other deltaT multipliers in related files to verify consistency
rg -A 1 "dt \*" "src/apps/*.mts"
Length of output: 89
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for deltaT multipliers in the entire codebase
rg -A 1 "dt \*"
Length of output: 3360
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# List all files in src directory to understand the correct structure
fd . src/
Length of output: 1853
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for bounce.mts file to verify its location
fd bounce.mts
Length of output: 35
src/apps/collision.mts (1)
14-14: Verify simulation stability with increased deltaT
The deltaT multiplier has been increased by 100x (from 0.004 to 0.4). While this might help with timing stability when using performance.now(), such a large time step could potentially:
- Affect simulation accuracy
- Lead to numerical instability in the physics calculations
- Cause particles to behave erratically or pass through each other
Let's check if similar large deltaT changes exist in other files and if there are any stability-related comments:
src/apps/bounce-trail.mts (1)
14-14: Verify the impact of 50x larger deltaT on simulation stability
The change from 0.002 to 0.1 represents a 50x increase in the time step. This significant change could affect:
- Particle movement speed
- Simulation stability
- Physics accuracy
Let's check for potential stability issues in the shader code:
✅ Verification successful
The deltaT change appears safe for simulation stability
The shader code shows a well-structured particle physics simulation where deltaT is used appropriately:
- Position updates use linear scaling:
next_pos = item.pos + velocity * params.delta_t - Collision responses maintain stability through:
- Proper velocity reflection calculations
- Decay factor (1.8) to dampen collisions
- Consistent deltaT usage in post-collision updates
- Constant downward acceleration (-2 in Y direction) is independent of deltaT
The 50x larger time step will make the simulation faster but won't destabilize it due to these safeguards.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check the compute shader for velocity/position update logic that might be affected by deltaT
# Look for deltaT usage in the shader
rg "deltaT|dt" "./src/apps/bounce-trail.wgsl"
Length of output: 236
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the compute shader implementation and particle update logic
rg -A 10 "struct Particle" "./src/apps/bounce-trail.wgsl"
# Also check the main compute shader entry point
rg -A 10 "@compute" "./src/apps/bounce-trail.wgsl"
# Check the actual bounce-trail.mts file for particle update logic
rg -A 10 "deltaT|dt" "./src/apps/bounce-trail.mts"
Length of output: 1333
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the compute shader's main function implementation to see how delta_t is used
rg -A 20 "fn main\(" "./src/apps/bounce-trail.wgsl"
# Also check for any velocity/position update logic
rg -B 2 -A 10 "pos =|velocity =|position =|vel =" "./src/apps/bounce-trail.wgsl"
Length of output: 3828
src/apps/ball-spin.mts (2)
14-14: Verify the significant increase in deltaT multiplier
The multiplier for dt has been increased by 50x (from 0.004 to 0.2). While this aligns with similar changes in other attractor files, such a large change could significantly impact:
- Animation speed
- Physics simulation stability
- Frame timing consistency
Let's check other attractor files for consistency in these changes:
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more context about the original deltaT value to confirm the scale of change.
Let me try a different approach to find the previous value.
The deltaT multiplier change appears intentional and consistent
The change from 0.004 to 0.2 (50x increase) in ball-spin.mts aligns with the range of deltaT multipliers used across other attractor implementations (0.04 to 40). Each attractor appears to have its own carefully tuned deltaT multiplier based on its specific characteristics:
- fourwing: 40
- halvorsen, aizawa: 12
- lorenz83: 8
- sprott, dequanli: 4
- chen, burke-shaw: 2
- den-tsucs: 0.1
- lorenz: 0.04
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check deltaT multiplier changes across attractor files
# Expected: Similar scale of changes in other files
rg -B2 -A2 "dt \*" "src/apps/attractor/"
Length of output: 3953
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check git history for the previous value of deltaT in ball-spin.mts
git log -L :deltaT:src/apps/ball-spin.mts
Length of output: 0
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for the file content in the base branch
git show HEAD^:src/apps/ball-spin.mts
Length of output: 2190
Line range hint 1-70: Inconsistency between PR title and implementation
The PR title mentions using performance.now() for more stable results, but there's no implementation of this timing mechanism in the code. This suggests either:
- The change is incomplete
- The implementation exists in other files not shown
- The PR title needs updating to reflect the actual changes
Let's search for any performance.now() implementations that might be related:
✅ Verification successful
Let me check if this timing mechanism from src/util.mts is being used in the ball-spin renderer:
PR title is accurate - performance.now() is being used for timing
The implementation does use performance.now() through the TimeTicker class imported from util.mts. The renderer creates a ticker instance (let ticker = new TimeTicker()) and uses it in the render function to get stable timing via ticker.ticked(). This ticker internally uses performance.now() as we saw in the earlier output from util.mts.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Look for performance.now() usage in the codebase
# Expected: Related timing implementation changes
rg -B3 -A3 "performance\.now\(\)"
Length of output: 451
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if ball-spin.mts imports anything from util.mts
rg -l "from.*util" src/apps/ball-spin.mts
# Also check for any direct usage of Timer class or performance.now()
rg -l "Timer|performance\.now" src/apps/ball-spin.mts
# Let's also check the main renderer code since ball-spin uses createRenderer
rg -B3 -A3 "createRenderer" src/index.mjs
Length of output: 195
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# The file might be in src/index.mts instead of src/index.mjs
# Let's find the correct file first
fd "index\.(mts|mjs)"
# Then check its content
rg -B3 -A3 "createRenderer" --type ts --type js
Length of output: 85
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the content of index.mts to see how createRenderer is implemented
cat src/index.mts
# Also check if Timer from util.mts is used in index.mts
rg "Timer|performance\.now" src/index.mts
Length of output: 460
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check render.mts since it contains the createRenderer implementation
cat src/render.mts
# Also check for Timer usage in render.mts
rg "Timer|performance\.now" src/render.mts
Length of output: 12399
src/apps/fireworks.mts (2)
15-15: Verify the significant increase in deltaT multiplier
The change from dt * 0.004 to dt * 4 represents a 1000x increase in the time step multiplier. While this might be intentional to compensate for different time measurement methods, such a large change could significantly impact:
- Particle simulation speed
- Animation smoothness
- Physics accuracy
Let's check if similar adjustments were made in other files and if there's any connection to performance.now():
Could you clarify:
- How was this multiplier value (4) determined?
- How does this relate to the switch to performance.now()?
✅ Verification successful
deltaT multiplier changes appear to be part of a broader timing adjustment pattern
The verification reveals that:
- The change from
0.004to4in fireworks.mts aligns with similar adjustments in other attractor-related files (sprott.mts, dequanli.mts both usedt * 4) - Different attractor implementations use varying multipliers (from 2 to 40) optimized for their specific equations
- Non-attractor animations consistently use smaller multipliers (0.004 to 0.4)
- The only performance.now() usage is in util.mts for timing purposes, not directly in simulation calculations
The 1000x increase is consistent with other attractor implementations and appears to be a deliberate optimization for this specific simulation type rather than a concerning change.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for deltaT changes and performance.now() usage across the codebase
# Search for deltaT changes in other files
echo "=== Checking deltaT changes ==="
rg "dt \* \d+" src/apps/
# Look for performance.now() usage that might explain this change
echo -e "\n=== Checking performance.now() usage ==="
rg "performance\.now\(\)" src/
Length of output: 2044
Line range hint 14-19: Validate simulation stability with the new deltaT
The increased deltaT could affect the fireworks particle simulation stability. Please ensure:
- Particles don't move too quickly or erratically
- The simulation remains stable across different frame rates
- The visual effect still matches the intended behavior
Let's check the compute shader to understand how deltaT is used:
✅ Verification successful
The deltaT change is safe for the fireworks simulation
After examining the shader code, the deltaT modification is well-balanced because:
- The actual velocity calculation uses
params.delta_t * velocity * (0. + 4. * rand(f32(index)))wherevelocityis fixed at0.04 - The particle movement is constrained by the
compute_movefunction which applies controlled forces (gravity at-40.1) - The visual effect is further stabilized by the age-based lifecycle management and hierarchical particle inheritance system
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Examine how deltaT affects particle calculations
# Look for deltaT usage in the shader
echo "=== Checking deltaT usage in fireworks shader ==="
rg "deltaT" src/apps/fireworks.wgsl
Length of output: 144
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try finding the shader file with a different approach
echo "=== Looking for shader files ==="
fd -e wgsl
# Also check the fireworks implementation for timing-related code
echo "=== Checking fireworks implementation ==="
rg -A 5 "getParams" src/apps/fireworks.mts
# Look for any particle simulation or physics-related code
echo "=== Checking for particle simulation code ==="
rg -l "particle|velocity|position" src/apps/fireworks.mts src/apps/fireworks.wgsl
Length of output: 1454
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the shader code to understand the particle physics implementation
echo "=== Checking fireworks shader implementation ==="
cat src/apps/fireworks.wgsl
# Also check the complete fireworks.mts for context
echo "=== Checking complete fireworks implementation ==="
cat src/apps/fireworks.mts
Length of output: 7625
src/apps/attractor/dequanli.mts (1)
16-16: Verify the stability with increased deltaT
The time step multiplier has been increased by a factor of 100 (from 0.04 to 4). While this might improve performance by requiring fewer steps, such a large time step could potentially:
- Affect the numerical stability of the Dequanli attractor simulation
- Change the visual behavior significantly
- Lead to different convergence patterns
Let's check if similar large increases are present in other attractor files:
✅ Verification successful
Different attractors use widely varying deltaT multipliers
The deltaT multiplier of 4 in the Dequanli attractor appears to be well within the normal range when compared to other attractors in the codebase:
- Some attractors use much larger multipliers: Fourwing (40), Halvorsen (12), Aizawa (12)
- Others use smaller ones: Lorenz (0.04), Den-Tsucs (0.1), Dadras (0.4)
- Several are in a similar range: Chen (2), Burke-Shaw (2), Sprott (4)
This variation is expected as different chaotic systems have different characteristic time scales and stability requirements. The Dequanli attractor's deltaT multiplier of 4 appears to be a reasonable value that aligns with the overall pattern in the codebase.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check deltaT changes across all attractor files
# Expected: Find similar patterns of increased deltaT values
rg -B 2 -A 2 "deltaT" "src/apps/attractor/"
Length of output: 3608
src/apps/feday.mts (2)
14-14:
Verify the impact of the increased deltaT multiplier
The change from 0.004 to 0.1 represents a 25x increase in the time step multiplier. While this might lead to more stable results, it could significantly affect:
- Animation speed
- Numerical stability of the particle simulation
- Visual smoothness of the animation
Please confirm if this substantial increase was intentional and tested across different devices/refresh rates.
✅ Verification successful
The deltaT multiplier change appears to be consistent with other animations
After reviewing the related files, I can see that:
bounce-trail.mtsuses the samedt * 0.1multiplierball-spin.mtsuses a similar scale withdt * 0.2
The change from 0.004 to 0.1 appears to be part of a deliberate standardization of deltaT multipliers across different animation files. While this is a significant increase, it aligns with the multipliers used in other animation files in the codebase.
Note: The PR title mentions switching to performance.now(), but this change isn't visible in the reviewed files. This timing-related change might be implemented elsewhere in the codebase, possibly in the animation loop implementation.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for other deltaT multipliers to understand the consistency across files
rg -A 1 "dt \*" --type ts
Length of output: 27
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search for deltaT or dt patterns in TypeScript files
rg -i "dt[\s]*\*[\s]*[0-9.]+|deltaT[\s]*\*[\s]*[0-9.]+" --type ts -A 1
Length of output: 72
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for the specific file content to understand the context
cat src/apps/feday.mts
Length of output: 2308
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for similar files mentioned in the AI summary
fd -e mts "ball-spin|bounce-trail"
Length of output: 85
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the content of the related files
cat src/apps/ball-spin.mts
cat src/apps/bounce-trail.mts
Length of output: 4310
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's also search for performance.now() usage since it was mentioned in the PR title
rg "performance\.now\(\)" --type ts
Length of output: 37
Line range hint 6-20: Investigate missing performance.now() implementation
The PR title suggests using performance.now() for more stable results, but there's no visible implementation of this change in the renderer setup. Consider:
- Using performance.now() instead of relying on the default time delta
- Implementing frame time interpolation for smoother animations
src/apps/orbit-spark.mts (1)
14-14: Verify the stability with increased deltaT
The change from dt * 0.04 to dt * 4 represents a 100x increase in the time step, which could significantly impact simulation stability and accuracy. While larger time steps can improve performance, they may lead to:
- Numerical instability in the physics calculations
- Less accurate particle trajectories
- Potential visual artifacts
Let's check if similar changes were made consistently across other attractor files:
✅ Verification successful
deltaT values are consistent with other attractors
The increased deltaT value of dt * 4 in orbit-spark.mts aligns with the range of deltaT values used across other attractor implementations:
- Most attractors use multipliers between 0.04 and 40
- Similar attractors like Sprott and Dequanli also use
dt * 4 - Each attractor's deltaT is carefully tuned with its corresponding scale factor
The change appears to be part of a deliberate pattern where each attractor type has its own optimized time step value, balancing between performance and stability.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for deltaT calculations in other attractor files
rg -A 1 "deltaT" "src/apps/attractor/"
Length of output: 1421
src/apps/lamps.mts (1)
14-14: Verify the significant deltaT increase and its relationship with performance.now()
The 50x increase in deltaT (from 0.004 to 0.2) is substantial. While this might be compensating for timing differences when using performance.now(), we should verify:
- The relationship with performance.now()
- Consistency with other attractor implementations
- Impact on simulation stability
✅ Verification successful
DeltaT value of 0.2 is consistent with other attractor implementations
Based on the verification results:
- The deltaT value of 0.2 in lamps.mts is within the range used by other attractors:
- dadras: 0.4
- den-tsucs: 0.1
- lorenz: 0.04
- The TimeTicker class from util.mts is used to provide accurate time deltas in seconds, which explains the need for consistent deltaT scaling across different attractors.
- The change from 0.004 to 0.2 aligns with the general scale of deltaT values used in other implementations.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for performance.now() usage that might be affecting deltaT calculations
rg -l "performance.now"
# Check deltaT multipliers in other attractor files
rg "deltaT.*\*.*" src/apps/
Length of output: 66
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the actual content of util.mts to understand performance.now() usage
cat src/util.mts
# Let's check the entire lamps.mts file to understand the deltaT context
cat src/apps/lamps.mts
# Let's find all attractor files to check for deltaT patterns
fd attractor -e mts -e ts
Length of output: 4829
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check other attractor files to compare deltaT values
fd -e mts -e ts -e js -d 2 src/apps/ -x cat {}
Length of output: 392
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check other files in apps directory with corrected fd command
fd -e mts -e ts -e js . src/apps
# Then read their contents to compare deltaT values
fd -e mts -e ts -e js . src/apps -x grep -l "deltaT" {} \; -exec cat {}
Length of output: 1768
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the deltaT values in attractor files specifically
rg "dt \*.*0\." src/apps/attractor/
rg "deltaT.*0\." src/apps/attractor/
# And check the TimeTicker usage in these files
rg "TimeTicker" src/apps/
Length of output: 430
src/apps/attractor/lorenz.wgsl (2)
73-73: Verify stability with increased time step
The time step scaling factor has been increased by 100x (from 0.0012 to 0.12). While this aligns with similar changes in other attractor files, such large time steps might affect the stability of the Lorenz system simulation, which is sensitive to initial conditions.
Consider:
- Testing with various initial conditions to ensure the attractor maintains its characteristic shape
- Verifying that the simulation doesn't diverge over longer time periods
- Documenting the rationale for this specific scaling factor
73-73: Clarify relationship with performance.now()
The PR title mentions using performance.now() for stabler results, but it's unclear how this large increase in the time step scaling factor relates to that change. Could you please clarify:
- How does this change complement the switch to performance.now()?
- Are we compensating for smaller delta_t values from performance.now()?
- Have you considered making the scaling factor configurable via a uniform if further tuning is needed?
Run the following to find related performance.now() changes:
src/render.mts (2)
301-303: Verify buffer synchronization in compute pass.
The compute pass uses particleBindGroups[loopTimes % 2] to alternate between buffers. Let's verify the buffer synchronization is maintained across the compute and render passes.
✅ Verification successful
Buffer synchronization pattern is correctly implemented
The verification shows a consistent double-buffering pattern where:
- Compute pass reads from
particleBindGroups[loopTimes % 2] - Render pass uses
particleBuffers[(loopTimes + 1) % 2]as vertex buffer - Bind groups are correctly initialized with alternating buffers using
fromBuffer = particleBuffers[i % 2]andtoBuffer = particleBuffers[(i + 1) % 2]
This ensures proper synchronization where compute writes to one buffer while render reads from the other, and they swap roles in the next frame.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Search for other buffer synchronization patterns in the codebase
# to ensure consistent usage of loopTimes % 2
# Look for similar buffer alternation patterns
rg -A 3 'particleBindGroups\[.*%.*2\]'
rg -A 3 'particleBuffers\[.*%.*2\]'
Length of output: 838
315-315: Verify buffer synchronization between compute and render passes.
The code uses different modulo expressions for compute and render passes:
- Compute pass:
particleBindGroups[loopTimes % 2] - Vertex buffer:
particleBuffers[(loopTimes + 1) % 2] - Mocked bind groups:
mockedBindGroups[loopTimes % 2]
This pattern ensures we're reading from the buffer that was just written to in the compute pass. However, let's verify this synchronization pattern is consistent throughout the codebase.
Also applies to: 326-326
✅ Verification successful
Buffer synchronization pattern is correctly implemented
The code analysis reveals a consistent double-buffering pattern:
- Compute pass writes to
particleBuffers[loopTimes % 2]and reads fromparticleBuffers[(loopTimes + 1) % 2] - Render pass reads from
particleBuffers[(loopTimes + 1) % 2], which is the buffer that was just written to by the compute pass - The pattern is consistently used in buffer initialization (lines 73-74) and throughout the render loop
The offset indexing ensures proper producer-consumer synchronization between compute and render passes, preventing race conditions.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Search for potential buffer synchronization issues
# Look for inconsistent buffer access patterns
rg -B 5 -A 5 '\(.*loopTimes.*\+.*1.*\).*%.*2'
rg -B 5 -A 5 'loopTimes.*%.*2'
# Look for potential race conditions in buffer access
ast-grep --pattern 'particleBuffers[$_]'
Length of output: 2702
| @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ export let loadRenderer = async (canvas: HTMLCanvasElement) => { | |||
| seedSize, | |||
| seedData: makeSeed(seedSize, 0), | |||
| getParams: (dt) => [ | |||
| dt * 0.04, // deltaT | |||
| dt * 2, // deltaT | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
The deltaT change is inconsistent with other attractors
Looking at the deltaT values across all attractor implementations:
- Most attractors use different deltaT multipliers based on their specific characteristics:
- Burke-Shaw:
dt * 2 - Lorenz:
dt * 0.04 - Fourwing:
dt * 40 - Den-Tsucs:
dt * 0.1 - Halvorsen:
dt * 12 - etc.
- Burke-Shaw:
The change from dt * 0.04 to dt * 2 in Burke-Shaw appears to be an outlier and could destabilize the simulation. Each attractor system has its own optimal time step based on its mathematical properties and stability requirements.
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify stability with the 50x larger time step
The change from dt * 0.04 to dt * 2 represents a 50x increase in the simulation time step. While this might improve timing stability, it could potentially:
- Affect the numerical stability of the Burke-Shaw attractor simulation
- Lead to different behavior on various hardware due to floating-point precision
Let's check if similar changes were made consistently across other attractors:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check deltaT modifications across all attractor files
# Expected: Similar deltaT changes in other attractor implementations
# Search for deltaT parameter changes in attractor files
rg -B2 -A2 "deltaT" "src/apps/attractor/*.mts"
Length of output: 111
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's first find all attractor files
fd ".*\.mts$" src/apps/attractor/
# Then search for deltaT in these files
rg -B2 -A2 "dt.*deltaT" src/apps/attractor/
Length of output: 4022
| @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ fn main(@builtin(global_invocation_id) GlobalInvocationID: vec3<u32>) { | |||
| return; | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| let ret = bouali(v_pos, params.delta_t * 0.01); | |||
| let ret = bouali(v_pos, params.delta_t * 1.); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Time step multiplier is significantly larger than other attractors
Looking at all attractor implementations, the Bouali attractor's time step multiplier of 1.0 is unusually large compared to other attractors:
- Aizawa: 0.001
- Chen: 0.004
- Dequan Li: 0.00004
- Fourwing: 0.0006
- Lorenz: 0.12
- Lorenz83: 0.0008
- Sprott: 0.0004
The large time step could lead to numerical instability. Consider using a smaller multiplier:
- let ret = bouali(v_pos, params.delta_t * 1.);
+ let ret = bouali(v_pos, params.delta_t * 0.01);🔗 Analysis chain
Consider the stability implications of increasing deltaT
The change increases the time step by 100x (from 0.01 to 1.0), which could lead to numerical instability in the Bouali attractor simulation. The Bouali system has small coefficients (0.1, 0.02, 0.01) in its equations, and using such a large time step might cause:
- Loss of accuracy in capturing the system's dynamics
- Potential divergence from the true attractor behavior
- Visual artifacts or unexpected patterns
Consider a more conservative approach:
- let ret = bouali(v_pos, params.delta_t * 1.);
+ let ret = bouali(v_pos, params.delta_t * 0.1);Let's verify if similar changes were made to other attractors:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check deltaT modifications in other attractor files
# Look for patterns of deltaT changes in other WGSL files
rg -A 1 "delta_t.*\*" "src/apps/attractor/*.wgsl"
Length of output: 117
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# First, let's find all WGSL files in the repository
fd -e wgsl
# Then, let's look for delta_t usage patterns in these files
rg -U "delta_t" --type wgsl
Length of output: 937
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine delta_t usage in all attractor files
for file in src/apps/attractor/*.wgsl; do
echo "=== $file ==="
rg "delta_t" "$file" -A 1
done
Length of output: 5827
No description provided.