You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Note the link distance is specified by 'peeking ahead' to the anticipated position of the node ⟨x + vx,y + vy⟩.
This has implications in energy-conservation, e.g. the two pendulum based blocks here (12) and in the examples in this notebook, despite all the examples explicitly specifying 0 alphaDecay and velocityDecay.
Perhaps the documentation should alert users to this?
Alternatively, and since a change away from iterative relaxation would render the iterations option nonsensical, the function could handle iterations(0) as a special case doing the following instead?
Initially posted as vasturiano/d3-force-registry#8, was prompted to also post this here for broader visibility.
The documentation suggests
d3.forceLink
does the following (emphasis added):Unfortunately, this might be misleading as
d3.forceLink
actually performs iterative relaxation.The responsible lines in the source code are:
Note the link distance is specified by 'peeking ahead' to the anticipated position of the node ⟨x + vx,y + vy⟩.
This has implications in energy-conservation, e.g. the two pendulum based blocks here (1 2) and in the examples in this notebook, despite all the examples explicitly specifying 0
alphaDecay
andvelocityDecay
.Perhaps the documentation should alert users to this?
Alternatively, and since a change away from iterative relaxation would render the iterations option nonsensical, the function could handle
iterations(0)
as a special case doing the following instead?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: