3 ms·

Wouldn't it make more sense to model also the walls as vectors? Then you mostly need vector-to-vector intersection etc, fairly standard mathematical stuff. If

• javajosh 12y ago
  >Wouldn't it make more sense to model also the walls as vectors? Yes. That's why r,theta representation makes more sense computationally because reflection across a normal is just adding and subtracting two angles. Of course, you pay heavily for using only this representation on every tick() during merely linear motion, because in the end our displays are cartesian, and you'll have to convert r,theta to x,y. The solution, of course, is to maintain both representations and use whichever one is faster - a classic space-for-time trade-off.
  • sillysaurus3 12y ago
    Not really. That kind of code complexity is simply not worth the tradeoff. You'll waste a bunch of time fixing bugs in your dual representation codebase. It's always better to do the simplest thing first, and then optimize if and only if it turns out to be necessary. In this case, the simplest and most effective way is to use strictly vector representation, because it will result in the lowest complexity codebase. Modern computers are monstrously fast. So fast that it's hard to imagine just how fast they are. The more time you spend thinking about optimizations before they're necessary, the more time you're not spending on implementing features. If it's just for fun, though, go for it. A learning exercise is always nice.