Eval2D Available for Prototyping Procedural Textures

Eval2D runs C# scripts and displays results visually as you type; it’s a visual REPL for quick prototyping. Eval2D includes a small function-oriented library for procedural texture generation.

It’s worked well enough for me, and I’ve recently cleaned up the API and written some bits of documentation to the point where it might be useful to others. It’s intended for anyone with programming/scripting experience who needs to make some noise. The noise library could be included in a game using the same code written in the app, although it’s not really designed for high performance.

Download: Eval2D- (2.2 MB)

Screenshot of Eval2D showing code view and Voronoi noise.

.NET 4.5 is required, which is available here if you don’t have it yet.

I included a tutorial as the default script that covers much of the API. For additional reference, check the assembly .xml files and the readme. Note that this is an early release and much of the app is in an incomplete state. Feedback is welcome!

Eval2D F# Interop

Working toward releasing a version of Eval2D, I chose for some inexplicable reason to port core parts of it to an F# library (actually, it’s because I already had a dependency on F# code, and figured I’d roll more functionality into it). My C# library is written in a somewhat functional way already, so it should be easy, right?

Of course it wasn’t. Not because of changes in method bodies, but because I wanted to maintain the same fluent function chaining library design of the C# version, available to C# code. As a result, most difficulties came from trying to make F# work it ways it really wasn’t designed for:

  • Type extension limitations: In F#, extension methods (type extensions) cannot be defined on generic types with concrete type parameters specified. For example, I can extend IEnumerable<T>, but not IEnumerable<int>. In my case, I use extension methods to allow dot notation for chaining functions together in the same way that the F# operator |> operates. Without the ability to specify concrete type parameters, many of my extension methods are unavailable.
  • FSharpFunc: Functions defined in F# (of type FSharpFunc<>) are not implicitly convertible to C# delegates, so I had to define a cast function.
  • Less concise default parameter values: It’s an additional line per parameter. Not so bad, and I’m not sure that every feature like this needs to be part of the language.

Some good points:

  • Indentation-sensitive: No curly brackets needed to identify scope. In some cases, I haven’t been sure how to indent, but I can figure it out through Intellisense.
  • Type inference: This cuts down on a lot of type specifications, but it’s occasionally tricky to trace through the code to determine why the compiler inferred a certain type.
  • Type abbreviations: I’m working with Func<> a lot, and was able to abbreviate certain Func<> types that appear often.

In the end, the core code is F# and extension methods are in a separate C# assembly. I don’t like having two assemblies like this, but I don’t see alternatives at the moment. Overall, I’m happy with the results and hope to release a version soon.

Eval2D: Procedural Content Editor

I’m always trying to cut time off my feedback loop, especially when the work involves tweaking parameters without a clear idea of their impact. This has been especially true for procedural content, where much of my time is spent discovering how to compose functions to produce interesting effects.

For a cheap solution, I’ve used NUnit to define tests that output images, then tweaked parameters and re-run the tests. In some cases, I generate multiple images for ranges of parameters. This process works fairly well, especially with test running integrated into VS 2012 or through an addon like Resharper.

I finally decided it might be worth investing some time into a dedicated solution that allows me to write my code and get instant feedback. Building a small utility also makes for a fun distraction justified with the notion that I’ll be working more effectively with it.

So here’s Eval2D, a procedural texture tool where your C# script is evaluated as you type for instant visual feedback:

It’s a preview pane, a code editor, and a results/errors pane. Autocomplete works in simple cases. Evaluation of highlighted code sections is supported (as seen in many SQL editors). The layout changes when the window widens:


  • AvalonEdit: This is the same editor used for SharpDevelop, and gives me most of what I need in a code editor.
  • Roslyn CTP: Works well for executing the scripts, but I had a bit of trouble querying compilations for type information to support autocomplete.
  • MahApps.Metro: Window styling.
  • Noise library: This my own code, which has a fluent interface around noise/math functions that makes for easy function composition. It’s very flexible, but could be much faster with GPU support.

Planned Features

It works well enough for now, but I’d really like to have fully working autocompletion, popup sliders for numeric literals (as might be seen in shader/material editors or LightTable), and a color picker for hex-formatted uints. Access to a time variable within the script would help in visualizing the effect of changing parameters. For my own use, I’m not interested at all in any kind of modular GUI system like most 3D modeling apps have. I intend to keep a minimalist design and add features only as needed.

Serializing Ships

I’m a big fan of data in transparent formats that allow or encourage hand editing by humans. For Triverse, I’ve imposed the constraint that all ships and maps have a textual representation that captures all information about them through the arrangement of parts.

Other metadata might be useful, such as weapon group definitions or forward direction, but I’m hoping to generate reasonable defaults or possibly to cache user-customized weapon groups for layouts on the client. (Actually, since I first wrote this, I’ve been thinking more in the direction of disallowing arbitrary forward direction and forcing it to be a function of layout.)

A small ship:


This form is also acceptable (slash required):

   . p .
   i . i
 u . o . u
   u u u/

And the resulting ship in-game:

A larger ship:

  /i\./.\u/     \u/.\./i\
/.\./o\u/ \g/o\g/ \u/o\./.\
\./.\./u\ /u\./u\ /u\./.\./
    \./.\i/     \i/.\./

And the result:

Each letter represents a type of part. Only one slash must be present to define cell orientation, but I find it helpful in visualizing the ship to include them throughout. This format was not obvious; I went through several other variations before settling on it. I’ve also considered using images to store large maps, which are stored the same as ships internally but would be wasteful in a text format without compression. Margins are irrelevant; they can be trimmed and would have no significant performance impact.

Part types are read in and mapped to a part definitions using a table. This table defines character codes (‘i’, ‘u’, ‘.’, ‘o’, etc) and attributes of parts, including energy requirements, weapon behavior, and any other information related purely to gameplay logic. Other info, such as visuals and audio, are decoupled from these definitions and placed in a separate table. I can imagine modding scenarios where one or both tables could be easily swapped out or added to. However, this use of character codes does impose a convention on custom tables if a modder wants to support existing ships: if a thruster is suddenly mapped to a weapon, the ships wouldn’t work as intended.

Creating this visual serialization is one of the best things I’ve done for testing and development in general. I implemented it early in the project, and it makes defining test cases incredibly easy and allows for quick comparison of results. For example, code to rotate a grid (I’ll cover the math in another post):

let cg = grid @"
    /i\./u\         /u\./i\
      \i/.\./u\ /u\./.\i/
          \./p\./p\./ "

for i in 0 .. 6 do
    let rot = GridVector.Rotation i
    cg.RotateTriGrid rot |> formatTriGrid |> printf "%s\n\n"

And the output:

/i\./u\         /u\./i\
  \i/.\./u\ /u\./.\i/

      /i\u/ \u/.\./.\

      \i/u\ /u\./.\./

  /i\./.\u/ \u/.\./i\
\i/.\u/         \u/.\i/

\./.\./u\ /u\i/

/.\./.\u/ \u/i\

/i\./u\         /u\./i\
  \i/.\./u\ /u\./.\i/

I imagine copy+paste as a useful way to get ships in and out of the game in a sandbox mode, but Unity3D does not expose any cross-platform way to access the clipboard. Dragging + dropping files into a game window would also be convenient. For a browser deployment, I’ll probably have to use a text box outside the game and use Unity’s interop to access it.

Working with text this way, and especially getting rotation working, makes me ponder roguelike potential here. Making time and space discrete would avoid a lot of work, and there might be a better overall game along those lines. Might be fun to prototype, but for now I’m still going down the original path of a real-time continuous world.

2D Physics: Unity3D vs Farseer

The problem: colliding large, concave, moving 2D objects using small quads or circles as colliders to define the overall object boundaries. The small colliders are dynamic: they can be added, removed, or their shapes and positions changed. This doesn’t appear to be a typical physics scenario, so I wrote two implementations for Unity3D: one using its own 3D physics and another integrating Farseer physics.



  • Built-in: It’s already designed to work with the transform system, and has gizmos for colliders.
  • Decent API: Unity has plenty of API oddities and gotchas, but the physics fit in sensibly with the rest of the system.


  • Black box: Not always clear what’s happening as a result of changes or calls I make. This has led to one instance where I ended up with odd “popping” effects upon adding or removing colliders when rotation was enabled on objects and I wanted to use my own moment of inertia value. I did not pursue the problem further.
  • 3D: This adds a slight inconvenience in regard to constraining dynamics. It may also mean reduced performance because of greater complexity compared with 2D, although for my purposes I have yet to see problems.
  • Overhead: Each collider requires its own GameObject, which worries me when it comes to performance at scale. It comes back to the black box issue; it may be performant enough, but it’s an unknown that could change.


Farseer is a C# port of Box2D. It was originally developed for XNA, but written to work as a stand-alone library as well.


  • Open-source: It’s great that I can jump in and see exactly what the library is doing. This also makes it easier to test; I can run the simulation in a test environment, allowing me to build automated physics integration tests.
  • 2D: Potential for better performance compared with a 3D library.


  • Integration effort: This means synchronizing between Farseer bodies and Unity transforms. Gizmos needed to be implemented, but fortunately much of the work was done in Farseer’s debug view and in this port.
  • API: It felt like the functionality was all over the place and a lot of internal details exposed (possibly for good reasons). It’s probably difficult to make changes at a point where it’s so widely used, and I’m sure much of it is the result of performance tuning and its history.
  • Code changes needed: Dynamic fixtures did not work well out of the box: Farseer does not appear to be designed for rapid fixture/shape changes. I had to write my own methods to create/pool fixtures and update shapes which relied on internal details of the library. I also notice a number of places where fixtures are removed from array-based lists by shifting the following array elements, which could conceivably result in poor performance with a large number of objects.

For both, I’d like to have better control over when body properties are automatically recalculated. In my case, I don’t want them to ever be recalculated from the shapes composing them because I already maintain those calculations and because the shapes do not represent the entire object. I haven’t stress-tested them both for a performance comparison, but I’d have a hard time believing Farseer would fare worse.

Another option I’d like to consider is Chipmunk, a 2D C library which appears to have a fairly clean API. Unfortunately, I don’t see any C# ports maintained, and I’m not about to roll my own (and maintain it..) without a compelling reason.


At this point I’ve decided to go with Farseer. It appears to work, I’ve gotten past some of the messy details, and it allows me to test physics-dependent functionality independently from Unity. That last point is the most compelling, and probably won’t change even if Unity gets a 2D solution that otherwise fits my needs.

This comparison came with some side benefits to the codebase:

  • Isolating coordinate mapping: Unity has a left-handed coordinate system, and in the past I’ve had the camera looking in the -Y direction, with the X-Z plane containing the 2D world. I took this opportunity to instead map to X-Y with the camera looking in the +Z direction, defining a common set of methods to support either.
  • Decoupling physics: During the transition, I could swap back and forth between physics implementations to compare results. I’d like to maintain this ability to mock out or swap physics libraries in the future.