Genetic algorithm, A* and rotated objects

I wanted for a while to extend the coding challenge done by . So I did it. Smart rockets Daniel Shiffman Goal To achieve that I created the following list of improvements: 1. Make the canvas larger so it can be more interesting, especially when dealing with performance improvements; 2. Change the way it calculates the fitness of an organism. Later, this would prove to be a good idea because after some improvements it was possible to add more obstacles and keep the genetic algorithm reliable in finding more challenging paths. 3. Improve code organization and componentization; 4. See how far the genetic algorithm would go to make the organisms reach the target (hit rate); 5. Add more fitness calculation algorithms to see how the simulation responds to it; 6. Add historical statistics to visualize the evolution of the genetic algorithm; 7. Add controls to manage the (population size, speed, number of organisms, fitness algorithm chooser, play/pause and reset); environment 8. Create a plugin system; 9. Correctly calculate collisions of rotated objects. This would prove to be harder than I thought; 10. Add more obstacles! 11. Add more gene characteristics! Genetic algorithm The genetic algorithm used in this project is very straight forward. A world containing a population, a population composed of organisms and each organism with its genes: movement, size and max force (max force in this case representing its agility). At the end of each generation, every organism fitness is calculated using one of the three available methods: 1. A*: A weighted calculation between life span and A* distance to target; 2. Weighted: A weighted calculation between life span and direct distance to target; 3. Direct distance: The direct distance between the organism and the target; A* weighted formula: where is the total A* path steps to target, is the highest world tick before death (or when it hits the target, the max possible lifespan). distance lifespan A Mating pool is created to give a proportional number of DNA variance between the lower and top organisms. Mating pool: With the pool created we need to randomly select organisms to mate and to crossover its DNAs. Selection: And at the end, cross its DNAs with a 0.1% mutation. The mutation is necessary to create outliers that can push and give more survivorship to these organisms. Crossover: Performance bottlenecks A* pathfinding The major performance issue I had was the A* algorithm. I’m using lib, which is a nice implementation of the algorithm, however, my initial idea was to create a grid of 600x600 (the canvas size) and determine the walkable paths from its colors (black for passable paths and white for walls). this I found myself waiting between 10 and 15 seconds for the calculation of all 100 organism paths in order to give a fitness score to all organisms. This calculation must be done at the end of every generation. To improve the total time needed I cached the created graph and every new path search I simply clean the graph. Unfortunately, that algorithm mixes the data with the function so it’s not possible to shallow copy the graph and because of that, I need to reset and clear every node in that graph (600*600 = 360,000 nodes). There is still row for improvement here. Even though the total time need was very large, between 7 and 11 seconds, I needed to improve it more. After a night or two wondering how it could be done I found two possible solutions: shrinking the canvas size or caching every possible combination of paths and their distances. I decided to start with the first one and that proved to be an acceptable solution. The idea I had came from JPEG compression, it’s not the same algorithm of course, but the idea is the same. Instead of calculating a path in a 600x600 canvas, I reduce that canvas size by X% and then calculate the distance between these two points in a smaller version of the canvas-map representation. The solution made the distance less accurate but it did in an even manner for all organisms, so no losses here. This time, reducing the canvas size by 50% made the timing go from 7–11 seconds to < 1 seconds. After more caching and profiles to find slow parts it decreased to < 400ms in my machine. Interesting results, I wonder how they do in games with paths larger than mine. Do they do the same? Functional programming At the beginning, because I love working with functional and libs like everything was planned to be made with it. programming ramda After a while, I understood that one of my goals was performance, and I need to tell you, 1600 ticks and 60 FPS rate doesn’t go together with functional programming. It seems that every bit of performance needs to be squeezed to make it fast enough. So it wasn’t easy to abandon that idea. You can see basic fors everywhere. An interesting thing I found is that using `var` in a `for` is better than the new `let`, because of reasons. Colissions The canvas object and the p5 library provides ways to rotate objects but it does the rotation internally and because of that it’s not possible to know the vectors of the rotated object (I didn’t find a way) and therefore to use it to calculate the collision by its vertices. To help me with that I found the formula to rotate vectors around an origin: Because of this, instead of leveraging the rotation to canvas/p5 I do it by myself, improving the performance (because I can do only one time and use that for rendering and colission calculation). The p5 doesn’t have a collision system so I took advantage of . p5.collide2D I’m happy with the results and because of that, I can check collision in angled rectangles. You can check the or the git repository at: demo _smart-organisms - A nano project aimed to learn more about the p5.js library and genetic algorithm._github.com conradoqg/smart-organisms That’s it.