Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:

> Have you looked at same charge repulsion ? Each point get a contribution
> / movement on the opposite direction from each other point, and the
> strength is proportionally inverse to the square of the distance between
> the points.
>
> For N points, you need to evaluate (N)*(N-1)/2 pairs.
>
> You can add complexity by using a different mass for each point, and
> dividing the strength by the mass to compute the movement of each step.
>
> Another extension would be "negative gravity", taking into account the
> mass of the other point when computing the strength.
>
> You can also explore the domain of replacing the inverse square of
> distance by other formulae (constant, linear, cube, log or exp,
> fractional power such as 1.6 or 2.4, ... )

Oooh - those are some good ideas!
While I'm familiar with people applying those principles, applying them here
hadn't 'clicked'.

Those are great ideas with regard to my original inquiry, yet Kenneth has added
an extra measure of complexity to it by really focusing on the literal meaning
of "evenly spaced".


Jerome, let me ask you - how does one go about computing the complexity O for
any given operation / algorithm?

It seems to me that a lot of us sort of just work out some way to go about doing
something, which is logical and/or very human-readable in SDL, but we have no
idea of how [in]efficient that code is (other than comparing empirical render
time data), and no way to know if there exists a theoretically more efficient
way to accomplish the same task[s].

Thanks for your valuable and interesting input as always  :)

Post a reply to this message