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
I think it would probably be a good way of handling it to force an offset between existing signals. Something like picking a random frequency within scope, checking distance to nearest, move in the opposite direction until offset away.
To help avoid spawning frequencies on top of each other when there is an otherwise clear frequency-spectrum. #56 describes why having signals on top of each other can lead to bad UX behaviour for user.
I had considered sorting all signals by frequency, and then going through them saving the "gaps" between them. Then taking the biggest gap, shorten it with a "minimum_seperation" in both ends and run a random function within it. Should give an almost ~O(n) performance, not counting the sorting.
But unsure that becomes too much of a pattern as new signals would always appear in the biggest gap.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I think it would probably be a good way of handling it to force an offset between existing signals. Something like picking a random frequency within scope, checking distance to nearest, move in the opposite direction until offset away.
To help avoid spawning frequencies on top of each other when there is an otherwise clear frequency-spectrum. #56 describes why having signals on top of each other can lead to bad UX behaviour for user.
I had considered sorting all signals by frequency, and then going through them saving the "gaps" between them. Then taking the biggest gap, shorten it with a "minimum_seperation" in both ends and run a random function within it. Should give an almost ~O(n) performance, not counting the sorting.
But unsure that becomes too much of a pattern as new signals would always appear in the biggest gap.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: