Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Building a Procedural Hex Map with Wave Function Collapse

felixturner.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 92 posts

Re: Building a Procedural Hex Map with Wave Function Collapse

#61

Post by _bent »

iamjs wrote: post #47
hananova wrote: post #46

[flagged]

This sentiment is quickly becoming the most annoying low-effort comment on HN. If you don't want to read it, don't read it. If something about the writing offends you, then describe it, so we can talk about it.

It's extremely distracting to read heavily ai edited texts like these because every single aism throws me a curveball.

It doesn't help that the figures of speech ai loves to use are those that stress things and create tension and drama. And it uses one in every single paragraph, rendering the text into the literal equivalent of a deepfried faux HDR jpg (or a dialogue scene in a Michael Bay movie).

And beyond those practical concerns it's just hard to gauge how much the author truly understands of what he's writing about (and transitively if it's worth to continue reading)

Re: Building a Procedural Hex Map with Wave Function Collapse

#62

Post by _bent »

imadr wrote: post #18
moi2388 wrote: post #10

This entire article reads like it was fully written by AI unfortunately

Is it the em dashes? I didn't get the feeling it was AI generated at all

just a quick example from the backtracking section:

"Here's the dirty secret of WFC: it fails. A lot. You make a series of random choices, propagate constraints, and eventually back yourself into a corner where some cell has zero valid options left. Congratulations, the puzzle is unsolvable."

Re: Building a Procedural Hex Map with Wave Function Collapse

#65

Post by rafram »

djray wrote: post #45

The demo runs at 5 FPS on my laptop (11th gen Core i5 and Iris Xe graphics, Chrome Latest as the browser, with the GPU being the bottleneck). I was hoping for something rather more efficient given the write-up saying it ran at 60 fps on mobile. The maps are pretty, but the per-tile build constraints of the WFC build approach means that pretty unnatural generations end up happening because non-local influence is diffi…

It runs quite smoothly on my iPhone 15, so I think there’s something wrong with your graphics setup.

Re: Building a Procedural Hex Map with Wave Function Collapse

#67

Post by wmil »

djray wrote: post #45

The demo runs at 5 FPS on my laptop (11th gen Core i5 and Iris Xe graphics, Chrome Latest as the browser, with the GPU being the bottleneck). I was hoping for something rather more efficient given the write-up saying it ran at 60 fps on mobile. The maps are pretty, but the per-tile build constraints of the WFC build approach means that pretty unnatural generations end up happening because non-local influence is diffi…

You should be able to use chrome://gpu/ or about:gpu to tell if Chrome is doing software rendering.

Re: Building a Procedural Hex Map with Wave Function Collapse

#68

Post by nextaccountic »

linkdd wrote: post #57

This is not Wave Function Collapse. This is a constraint solver. The goal of the original algorithm ( https://github.com/mxgmn/WaveFunctionCollapse ) is to infer the constraints from a sample, and then run a constraint solver. Hard-coding the constraints skips the whole point of the algorithm (which is also badly named by the way).

Note that the original algorithm is model synthesis. WFC is just a minor tweak on it

Re: Building a Procedural Hex Map with Wave Function Collapse

#69

Post by BretonForearm »

imadr wrote: post #18
moi2388 wrote: post #10

This entire article reads like it was fully written by AI unfortunately

Is it the em dashes? I didn't get the feeling it was AI generated at all

Besides what others said. The "The Numbers" section is a dead giveaway. LLM likes to generate random summary stats in a metrics grid without any prompting.

Re: Building a Procedural Hex Map with Wave Function Collapse

#70

Post by mzl »

porphyra wrote: post #24

The post glosses over the "backtracking" and says they just limit it to 500 steps but actually constraint programming is an extremely interesting and complicated field with lots of cool algorithms and tricks. In this case we could solve it with Knuth's Algorithm X [1] with dancing links, which is a special kind of backtracking. Algorithm X should, in theory, be able to solve the border region described in the article…

I have a (very slight) beef with the name Algorithm X, as it is more of a data-structure to manage undo-information for the backtracking than an algorithm. It is a very fun, useful, and interesting data-structure, but it doesn't really change what steps are performed in the backtracking search.
Post reply on HN