I'm new to Anylogic and created a simple traffic model. Only use 'carSource', 'CarMoveTo', 'Car Dispose' blocks to set the car routes. But After I ran the model, it worked for a while, then all the cars froze without any error occurring. ’Events‘ panel also stopped. How to solve it?
Most likely your model is running into an infinite loop somewhere in the logic. The first place to check would be all your loops that might become infinite,e.g Do loops, Do-while loops, iterator for loops where you perhaps change the counter variable manually...
If you have the professional version of AnyLogic the best option is to run the model in debug mode until you get this to the point where it freezes and then press pause. You will then see where in the code the model is getting stuck.
If this does not work you might need to start putting traceln in major functions and see ing you can spot the last traceln that gets printed and keep on adding more and more until you can find the point between two traceln where the model freezes
I had the same problem, that after a certain time, all cars froze and there wasn't a signle error.
The problem on my side was that the stop line was too close to the intersection, so I moved it a little bit farther.
I saw this article:
https://itnext.io/comparing-darts-loops-which-is-the-fastest-731a03ad42a2
It says that ".map" is slow with benchmark result
But I don't understand why slower than while/for loop
How does it work in low level?
I think it's because .map is called an unnamed method like this (_){ }
Can you explain that in detail?
Its because mapping an array will create a copy of each value than modify the original array.
Since a while/for loop does not copy the values but rather just accesses them using their index, it is a lot faster.
Can you explain that in detail?
It's like saying "I don't understand why hitchhiking on the back of a construction truck is so much slower than taking the high speed train to my destination".
The only detail that is important is that map is not a loop. map() internally probably uses a loop of some kind.
This person is misusing a method call that is meant for something else, just because a side-effect of that call when combining it with a call materializing the iterable, like toList(), is that it loops through the iterable given. It doesn't even have the side effect on it's own.
Stop reading "tutorials" or "tips" of people misusing language features. map() is not a loop. If you need a loop, use a loop. The same goes for the ternary operator. It's not an if, if you need an if, use it.
Use language features for what they are meant, stop misusing language features because their side-effect does what you want and then wondering why they don't work as well as the feature actually meant for it.
Sorry if this seems a bit ranty, but I have seen countless examples by now. I don't know where it comes from. My personal guess is "internet tutorials". Because everybody can write one. Please don't read them. Read a good book. It was written by professionals, proofread, edited, and checked. Internet tutorials are free, written by random people and about worth as much as they cost.
I am new to swift and I am currently trying to build a basic number
guessing game using Xcode's command line tool. I have been able to complete the game but I am not able to find out how to restart the game so that the user can play again after winning or losing. Any advice?
Given that no details or code were given, i'll say you may use a loop. You probably are storing the game state in variables. When the game reaches the end, the loop should restart, restoring all game data to the initial state. If you have any doubts, read this section of the Swift documentation about control flow (it has examples with games, yay):
https://docs.swift.org/swift-book/LanguageGuide/ControlFlow.html
Felipe Borges got started but I wanted to provide a concrete example on how one might design such a game:
var playAgain = true
repeat {
print("The game starts!")
// The user plays
// Response is a game-state variable
let response = readLine()
print("The game is over yay!")
print("ask the user whether to play again?")
playAgain = false // whatever the user does goes here
} while playAgain
The two most important things to keep in mind are the loop and the game state. The game state should be scoped inside a function or loop so that the next iteration of the game starts over with new values. In my example, there are no variables pertaining to specific game states outside of the repeat {} while loop, so each iteration starts fresh (the response variable being the example here).
I'm building a turn based game with SpriteKit. It's a human player versus 1+ CPU opponents.
During the CPUs' turns I'm using an SKAction.sequence in order to show what the CPU is doing. This usually consists of a wait action followed by a custom SKAction.run block.
Now part of the problem I have is that the CPU could perform multiple attack actions per turn, but after each attack task I recalculate if there should be anymore attacks done, as conquering a country might open up new avenues of attack. The trouble I've got here is that I then have no way of knowing how many attacks should take place upfront, and as the initial attack itself is in a block, it doesn't know if it will generate more attacks. Thus I don't know how to add additional attack steps to my sequence.
Does anyone have any ideas how I could go about this? One thought was that I actually perform all the attacks upfront without displaying them and subsequently then just replay them for the benefit of the player. But I'm worried it will seem like the game is hanging in this instance.
Is there anyway I could append more SKActions midway through a running sequence?
let sequence:[SKAction] = []
let attackTasks = actions.getAttackTasks()
if attackTasks.count > 0 {
sequence.append(SKAction.wait(forDuration:0.5))
sequence.append(SKAction.run {
//PerformAttackTask Here calls another recursive function which calculates and generates more attacks
self.performAttackTask(attackTask: attackTasks.first!)
self.combatFinished = false
})
}
let sequenceAction = SKAction.sequence(sequence)
node.run(sequenceAction)
For those that are interested I ended up changing my approach for this moving the animations down a level to the performAttackTask method and recursively calling itself.
I then make use of a callback that only fires when all combat is complete to exit this loop.
This also makes use of SKAction.run with a completion handler to then move onto the next set of actions
I am looking into how to write a paint program that supports undo and seeing that, most likely, a command pattern is what I want. Something still escapes me, though, and I'm hoping someone can provide a simple answer or confirmation.
Basically, if I am to embody the ability to undo a command, for instance stamping a solid circle on the screen, does this mean I need to essentially copy the frame buffer that the circle covers into memory, into this command object? I don't see any other way of being able to undo what might be, for instance, stamping over a bunch of random pixel colors.
I've heard that one approach is just to keep track of the forward actions and when an undo is performed, you simply start from step 1 and draw forwards to the step before the undo, but this seems unfeasible if you are to support a large undo stack.
Perhaps the solution is something in between where you keep a bitmap of every 15-20 actions and start from the last 'save' forwards.
Can someone provide any insight on what is the typical accepted approach in this case, either saving buffer rectangles in the commands, redo-ing every action forwards, or something I've altogether missed?
Update: Plenty of good responses. Thanks, everyone. I'm thinking from what I'm reading that I will approach this by saving out the buffer every N actions and when the user issues an undo command redo all commands from the most recent saved buffer. I can tweak N to as high a value as possible that doesn't noticeably bog down the user experience of needing responsive undo (in order to minimize memory usage), but I suspect without really knowing for sure at this point, that I should be able to get away with performing quite a few actions in one frame such that this isn't too bad. Hopefully this approach will let me quickly determine whether to turn the other direction and instead go with saving bitmap rects for the previous states for actions that require it.
First, beware overdesign: if your app isn't complex and your images small, you may find 'just store everything' to be quick, cheap and feasible. But assuming that's not so:
You are correct that it is not feasible to redraw the entire canvas from step 1 forward for each undo; unless your paint program is very simple some operations simply take too long. Also, an infinite undo buffer is probably not called for (and could be very space-consuming to store).
If your art program is complex, I'd actually start with a hybrid approach, to deal with the variety of operations. Save frame buffer every so often (the every 15-20 commands you suggest seems OK; I might start with 10 and adjust once I had it working) and go forward from last save. But don't make the 'every 15 operations' rigid, because it is likely that a few extra rules of thumb would make it seem much more fluid to the user.
For example, some time-consuming or tricky-to-reverse operations could always create a new save point:
- Any canvas resize (crop etc.)
- Any save. ("I just saved" is a very likely place for the user to undo back to.)
- Any operation which is extremely time-consuming should create a new save point after, not before, the operation; i.e. it should flag the next operation to save the buffer to undo. (Why? If the op takes 30 seconds, you don't want every undo in the stack afterwards to take an extra 30+ seconds.)
- Conversely, any operation which has an easily performed mathematical negative, or is self-inverting (like photonegative) need never bother to save frame buffer, and shouldn't count towards the next save.
All of this leaves out the question of layers; if your program has them it's obviously sufficient to save only those layers that change.
Definitely my highest-priority suggestion though: regardless of what method you use, you should always save frame buffer for the most recent operation performed. "Whoops, didn't mean that" is the most likely reason for undo, so you always want undo-one-step to be responsive. You can discard this buffer after the next command execution if it's not one you're keeping.
You'll also need to consider what constitutes one atomic undo operation. (For example, is a set of strokes with a single brush tool one operation or many? Both have advantages and drawbacks.)
Perhaps the solution is something in between where you keep a bitmap of every 15-20 actions and start from the last 'save' forwards.
I would go with something like this one. You have to bound your command stack at some point anyway, so you'll need a starting point if the user empties it.
You could get clever and save the buffer when you reach the bound and use that as your save point, since you have to drop a command from the stack anyway. Essentially, your save point buffer is the representation of the dropped actions, so as you're dropping actions from your undo stack, you just write them onto that buffer.
I've heard that one approach is just to keep track of the forward actions and when an undo is performed, you simply start from step 1 and draw forwards to the step before the undo
This isn't a very good idea. Users typically undo only a few recent actions and they expect it to be fast, so it's better to be able to revert immediately than redoing everything from the start.
Can someone provide any insight on what is the typical accepted approach in this case, either saving buffer rectangles in the commands, redo-ing every action forwards, or something I've altogether missed?
You don't have to store all commands in the same way. Depending on the type of operation, you can use one or more techniques, for example:
Drawing/painting operations generally can't be reverted directly, so you have no choice but to save the original image contents. You can however save space by storing only parts of the image that have changed instead of the entire image.
Some operations like inverting colours are inherently invertible, so in such cases, you only need to store the type of operation on the undo stack, and you can replay the operation in either direction.
If you probably won't draw gigantic bitmaps, your approach seems totally ok.
To simplify even more, write whole pictures to tmp directory onto disk, and see what it will be like for the users.
Don't overdesign at start-there are other issues that need to be adressed, no doubt.
From my understanding, the command pattern for implementing undo/redo sorts of systems just record the actions in a stack, not the actual results from those actions (since those will be recreated/removed in sequence). I think you alluded to this, but said you considered it unfeasible for a large undo stack. Can you be more specific? I believe it is possible.