mmomtchev / igc-xc-score Goto Github PK

Hi,

With @vicb, we are working on the integration of igc-xc-score in flyxc. In some cases, the flights we are sending to the solver have less than 5 points. Under this limit, the solver returns an error.
Do you think that this limitation could be removed from igc-xc-score.
Would you accept a PR to solve this issue?

Hi, i enter a strange bug. your package works as expected in a parcel/vanilla JS environnement, but in a webpack/vuejs environnement I got this error Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'heapUsed') at solver (line 70)

const mem = process.memoryUsage();

mem is undefined ...

Hey Momtchil,

Do you have any idea on how this code perform vs a C implementation of the same algo ?

I'd like to integrate igc-xc-score with flyxc in the coming months.

As part of that I'm interested in how a node C-extension would perform and also how WASM would perform.

Would be great if you have some insights - if not I'll try to keep with issue updated with my findings.

Thanks

With

https://www.xcontest.org/2022/world/en/flights/detail:justACRO/14.8.2022/08:47

and scoring=FAI-OAR2

I get

Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'value')

for oar2.

Originally posted by @hyperknot in #94 (comment)

I think that the moving average could be implemented much more efficiently by only adding the new point and removing the old from a long running sum instead of recomputing the complete sum for every single point.

I think there is also a bug as the sums get divided by the number of samples instead of the time.

It would be great if the flight definitions are passed as an argument instead of using global variables.

Maybe it would be nice to move this code to a separate library ?

Hello, me again :)

I get that one:

/Users/lreenaers/Documents/code/IFly/node_modules/igc-xc-score/index.cjs.js:1
"use strict";Object.defineProperty(exports,"__esModule",{value:!0}),Function.noop=function(){},Function.identity=function(value){return value},Function.by=function(by,compare){compare=compare||Object.compare,by=by||Function.identity;var compareBy=function(a,b){return compare(by(a),by(b))};returnc
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

TypeError: Cannot read property 'r' of undefined
    at /Users/lreenaers/Documents/code/IFly/node_modules/igc-xc-score/index.cjs.js:1:136165
    at Object.isTriangleClosed (/Users/lreenaers/Documents/code/IFly/node_modules/igc-xc-score/index.cjs.js:1:136210)
    at Object.boundTriangle [as bound] (/Users/lreenaers/Documents/code/IFly/node_modules/igc-xc-score/index.cjs.js:1:140630)
    at Solution.do_bound (/Users/lreenaers/Documents/code/IFly/node_modules/igc-xc-score/index.cjs.js:1:101983)
    at solver_1 (/Users/lreenaers/Documents/code/IFly/node_modules/igc-xc-score/index.cjs.js:1:146651)
    at solver_1.next (<anonymous>)
    at /Users/lreenaers/Documents/code/IFly/index.js:139:60
    at Array.forEach (<anonymous>)
    at processFlights (/Users/lreenaers/Documents/code/IFly/index.js:111:8)
    at Statement.<anonymous> (/Users/lreenaers/Documents/code/IFly/index.js:434:5)

The file being processed is here : file.igc

I called the lib like so:

const IGCParser = require('igc-parser');
const {
  scoring,
  solver
} = require('igc-xc-score');

  var score_flight = IGCParser.parse(row.V_IGC, {
        lenient: true
      });
      var result_ffvl = solver(score_flight, scoring.FFVL).next().value; // <= This triggers the error

I have included my own copy of igc-parser, otherwise available here, which is less zealous over the quality of the IGC files. You can use the original one or import/require my version which silently ignores IGC errors

I think that it would be nice to (try to) upstream those changes.

Also it would probably be a good idea to add the base version and the differences in your own copy.

I guess you tried the lenient mode of IGC Parser ?

One question: what does the (400m) in the bracket mean? I guess it's the non-subtracted closing distance, but it's a bit confusing in those lines:

TP1 : TP2 : 103.73km (0.400km)
TP2 : TP1 : 103.73km (0.400km)

Originally posted by @hyperknot in #94 (comment)

Hello,

I've just updated to 1.6.0 and I got this error:

 var result_ffvl = solver(score_flight, scoring.FFVL).next().value;
                                                     ^

TypeError: Cannot read property 'FFVL' of undefined
    at /Users/lr/Documents/code/IFly/index.js:139:54
    at Array.forEach (<anonymous>)
    at processFlights (/Users/lr/Documents/code/IFly/index.js:112:8)
    at Statement.<anonymous> (/Users/lr/Documents/code/IFly/index.js:434:5)
    at Statement.replacement (/Users/lr/Documents/code/IFly/node_modules/sqlite3/lib/trace.js:25:27)

I tried this :

const {
  scoring,
  solver
} = require('igc-xc-score');
console.log(scoring);
console.log(solver);

... I got this result:

undefined
[GeneratorFunction (anonymous)]

Source code is here : https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Djang0/IFly/master/index.js

Am I missing something ?

Thanks in advance.

Using the demo at https://www.meteo.guru/xc-score/ I get the following errors when uploading any IGC file:

Windows Chrome Version 90.0.4430.85 (Official Build) (64-bit)
TypeError: Cannot read property 'parse' of undefined

Windows Firefox Version 88.0 (64-bit)
TypeError: igc_parser__WEBPACK_IMPORTED_MODULE_6__.IGCParser is undefined

Windows Microsoft Edge Version 90.0.818.42 (Official build) (64-bit)
TypeError: Cannot read property 'parse' of undefined

Integrating igc-xc-score in flyxc.app breaks the app.

The root cause is the collections package:

Design principles: extends core types (e.g extends Array.prototype with additional non-enumerable properties like .set)

I can create a PR to replace it with another package not polluting the global namespace.

Would that be ok?

Ref: vicb/flyxc#203

cc @flyingtof

Awesome library!

Checkout this track, the triangle does not get the most further points, we're using the FAI scoring rule
https://volandoo.com/tracks/d0FI2Jkb1nMItI9UQYlu

Is this expected? or is there any setting that can be adjusted?

It seems like ifs are missing brackets ?
(That's why most devs prefer to always use brackets)

Probably x1 and x2 should be initialized to this.x1. together with using else if it would simplify the code.

Here are my calculations using igc-xc-score

Here's the xcontest score

It would be nice to be able to strip (or tree shake) the debug/test geojson code especially to reduce the payload for websites.

For tree shaking the debug code should be moved out of the class.

Maybe also switch to Typescript ?

Hello,

I try to analyse multiple igc file in a loop, causing mac os terminal to become grey and the node process crashes.

this code is being looped for around 200 flights:

console.log('before');
      var score_flight = IGCParser.parse(row.V_IGC, {
        lenient: true
      });

console.log('parsed');

var result_ffvl = solver(score_flight, scoring.FFVL).next().value;

console.log('r1');

var result_xcontest = solver(score_flight, scoring.XContest).next().value;

console.log('r2');

It iterates over 3 flights and crashes at the fourth. console log :

before

parsed

r1

r2

before

parsed

r1

r2

before

parsed

r1

r2

before

parsed

r1

Is there something I'm not doing right?

Currently the rounding rules of all flight leagues are not 100% clear and igc-xc-score seems to deviate from what is the most common practice, that is, by order:

• Round each leg separately
• Sum the rounded legs
• Round the penalty
• Apply the penalty
• Apply the multiplier
• Round the score

I'd like to use this with FAI scoring rules, to evaluate record flights. With FAI rules triangle closing needs to be within 400 meter radius fixed. How can I modify it?

So far I find no solution other than copying cli.js and hard coding a different value in my version of cli.js

The algo currently optimize the score and the most expensive part is the computation of the distance.

Any win in the distance computation could result in a faster algo.

One thing to try would be to optimize score² instead.

This would remove one expensive Math.sqrt() from each distance computation and it could be applied only once one the outptut.

edit: I don't think it's possible to optimize score² but maybe there is still something to do with distance²