2024 06 07 efficiency of loop time check vs using settimeout for animations - bizkite-co/handterm GitHub Wiki

original file name: Codeium Chat - rrwCI0cIrOomX8iTcuddWcb1XtDGZOez.md summary: The user is questioning the efficiency of their current implementation of checking elapsed time in each loop of the main animation loop and considering using a setTimeout with a frameDelay instead. They are wondering if this change would be more efficient. The assistant explains that using requestAnimationFrame (rAF) with elapsed time checks is generally considered best practice for animation loops in JavaScript. The assistant outlines the benefits of rAF over setTimeout, such as frame rate control, visibility handling, and precision. The assistant recommends sticking with rAF and elapsed time checks for smooth animation in the user's specific case, as it seems like they are working on a game or application where smooth animation is a priority. date: 2024-06-07T19:28

Codeium Chat Conversation

Note: This is purely the output of the chat conversation and does not contain any raw data, codebase snippets, etc. used to generate the output.

User at 7:28 pm, Jun 7, 2024

We are calling this on every loop of the main animation loop.

We check if the elapsed time is greater than the frameDelay and we only increment the frameIndex if it is.

Would it be more efficient to simply put a setTimeout of frameDelay on the main animation loop and remove other elapsed time checks?

Codeium at 7:28 pm, Jun 7, 2024

The current implementation using requestAnimationFrame (rAF) combined with elapsed time checks is generally considered a best practice for animation loops in JavaScript, especially for games or interactive animations. This is because rAF is optimized for such tasks and allows the browser to control the frame rate, making it more efficient and smoother.

Using setTimeout can make the animation less smooth and less synchronized with the browser's painting process. Here's why:

  1. Frame Rate Control: rAF is synced with the browser's repaint cycle, which usually matches the refresh rate of the display (~60 FPS on most displays). This means the animation will be as smooth as possible and won't run faster than the screen can update.

  2. Visibility Handling: rAF is paused when the tab is not visible, saving processing power and battery life. setTimeout would still fire even when the tab is not in view.

  3. Timeout Drift: setTimeout is not as precise as rAF for animations. Delays can accumulate over time, causing a drift in the animation.

However, if frameDelay is significantly longer than the screen's refresh rate (e.g., if frameDelay is 500ms), using setTimeout could be more efficient because rAF could be overkill for such slow animations.

If you want to keep the frameDelay feature with rAF, you can continue to use the elapsed time check. This combination ensures you maintain the animation at the desired pace while still taking advantage of rAF's benefits.

In your particular case, from the code you provided, especially the animate function in BaseCharacter.tsx:updatePositionAndAnimate, it seems like you're implementing a game or an application where smooth animation is likely a priority. Therefore, I would recommend sticking with requestAnimationFrame and elapsed time checks rather than switching to setTimeout.

⚠️ **GitHub.com Fallback** ⚠️