I've been trying to create a grid system that can use any grid size and start at any given anchor point rather than always at 0,0.

The problem however is imprecision makes it impossible, even the simplest imprecision and i can't get it to work, yet i've seen people manage to create local grid systems... so how are they doing it?

This is how i have it setup...

I define a bounds with a minimum point and a maximum point:

    public Span2D(Vector2 center, Vector2 size)
        MinX = center.x - size.x;
        MaxX = center.x + size.x;
        MinY = center.y - size.y;
        MaxY = center.y + size.y;

This has two properties that help me know the dimensions:

    public float Width => Mathf.Abs(MaxX - MinX);
    public float Length => Mathf.Abs(MaxY - MinY);

Now i want to draw grids of a grid size within this boundary starting at the Min point going to the Max point.

    //grid size is some float 
    for (int i = 0; i < _span2D.Width / _gridSize; i++)
        for (int j = 0; j < _span2D.Length / _gridSize; j++)
            Grid3D grid = new Grid3D(i, 0, j, _gridSize);
            // gets the mid point of the grid tile
            var center = _span2D.SnapPlaneCenter(grid); 
            Gizmos.DrawWireCube(center, new Vector3(_gridSize, 0, _gridSize));

Now when i move the center point to some arbitrary world point, i get this problem:

enter image description here

For this image the extra tiles appear when the center point is this value ( there are other numbers that cause it):

Bounds Span : 2f by 2f 
Grid Size : 1f by 1f
Center point : 3.97f , 2.7f  (the red dot)

Notice my for loop now runs one extra time some times, i have tried casting and flooring to int, both don't fix the problem, and thats because float imprecision is the cause, for example i've had 2.000000000f cast to int as 1.. so it still didn't work if i cast the result of the division because it would be off by 1 in my for loops, see here:

enter image description here

When casting to int i get one less tile:

enter image description here

But i've seen plenty of applications use grid positions based on some local reference point, there must be some trick to get this to work properly that i am not aware of with floats... does any one know?

  • 1
    Can you say what happens if you round-to-nearest-integer instead of using either floor or ceiling rounding? Dec 13, 2019 at 18:45
  • Much as the given answers point at an important technicality (namely the _span2D.Width / _gridSize and _span2D.Length / _gridSize operations, which are not safe to convert to an integer without considering "jump" points), I fail to see how this causes your problem, because you seem to suggest that _span2D and _gridSize are constant during your test, so the iteration should always run the same number of times. The problem seems to stem from variations in the center point. Could you share the code for _span2D.SnapPlaneCenter(grid); the Grid3D class and/or the DrawWireCube method? Dec 15, 2019 at 23:07

3 Answers 3


The approach I use with floats in general is not to assume they're ever an integer value, even if that's what they would be mathematically. And also to test with distinctly non-integer values.

Where this goes wrong in your particular example is comparing i to _span2D.Width / _gridSize. If the latter yields, say, 2.0001, the loop will run three times, producing the result you're seeing.

More generally, assume that width / gridSize yielded 2.5 - would it be correct to simply draw a 2x2 grid with the same origin, or should it be shifted to be centered within the given Span?

If the former, then something like this should work:

int columns = Mathf.FloorToInt(_span2D.Width / _gridSize + Mathf.Epsilon)

In the latter case, you'd want to also calculate the offset:

float xOffset = (_span2D.Width - (columns * _gridSize)) / 2f;
  • Hi see edit, your first assumption is correct, width/size of 2.5 should still round to 2 since i've not yet reached the 3rd tile. But your suggestion of floor to int does not work (as per edit) because it now casts 2 to 1 in some situations where the float is very close. Epsilon does not seem to fix it.
    – WDUK
    Dec 12, 2019 at 0:06
  • Epsilon can be as small as 1.401298E-45f, so it may be worth using a larger value. For most purposes, you could go up to 0.001f without issue.
    – Errorsatz
    Dec 12, 2019 at 0:30
  • @WDUK: I would just calculate the number of tiles once in each direction, by doing the division, then rounding to the nearest integer (or you can do floor). You can then construct the tiles with the origin at (0, 0), as sort of a local-space model of the grid; then and as a final step (or in each frame) multiply that (each vertex) with a any transform matrix you want (translation, rotation, scale, affine transforms of any kind) - or if it's only about translating the center point, just add the translation vector to everything. Dec 12, 2019 at 0:42
  • @FilipMilovanović am i not already doing it once with the for loops? Unless i misunderstand what you mean here? And if i apply floor (see second set of images using floor) it's also some times a bit off. For me i find its when i move the center, which causes the width/length to recalculate and theres where the imprecision is kicking off.
    – WDUK
    Dec 12, 2019 at 1:15
  • 1
    @WDUK: I probably didn't express myself in the best way. Currently, it looks like you are creating the grid anew whenever the centerpoint moves; what I meant by "once" is to ignore the centerpoint and just create the grid as if it were at (0, 0), and then apply a transform to that to get the final result (I used "once" because the creation part doesn't need to be done on every update, but only when the grid size changes, or just on load/init if it doesn't change). This will make it consistent and avoid the flickering when you move it around. 1/2 Dec 12, 2019 at 13:16

The "cheating" approach:
Store the result of this calculation somewhere and to avoid recomputing it during translation operations.

The re-framing approach:
Currently, you are storing two coordinates and then deriving a Length and Width vector. This causes the rounded size to vary due to rounding errors.

If you instead store one coordinate and separately store Length/Width, this problem is shifted: Moving the shape will cause edge coordinate to vary slightly due to rounding errors. However, the latter is not nearly as user-visible. Such errors don't cause the edges to shake/flash, but will cause the edges to be out of sync, causing the visual width of the component to vary by 1 pixel.

Finally, you can resolve the issue described above by rounding the coordinates and the width/length to integers (i.e., to pixel coordinates) before adding them together.

This approach does make questions like, "are these two rectangles touching, but not overlapping, along an edge?") difficult to answer.


The obvious one: Why are you using float instead of double? My rule is that you should use double unless you can give a good reason why you would do otherwise. For example, if MaxX = 12,007,539.21 and MinX = 12,007,537.21 then using float instead of double can create significant rounding errors.

The other problem, independent of the precision, is what happens when a value is roughly equal to an integer. In the example above, MaxX - MinX should be approximately 2.0, but it could be a little bit smaller, or a little bit larger. floor (MaxX - MinX) may produce 1 or 2. ceil (MaxX - MinX) may produce 2 or 3. round (MaxX - MinX) will produce 2, unless the rounding error is at least 0.5.

  • Engine doesn't support doubles as the graphics pipeline doesn't accept values that are doubles, ask the Unity devs on why as i do not know. Regarding your second point, i don't know the answer but many people have implemented grids that are not 1 by 1 and snapped precisely to the integer coordinates so it must be doable.
    – WDUK
    Dec 15, 2019 at 18:03
  • OMG. MacOS / iOS have used double for coordinates for ages, exactly because people use coordinates where float just isn't enough.
    – gnasher729
    Dec 16, 2019 at 1:03
  • Yes but in unity to display anything their transforms use floats. Also when you mention they might be a bit smaller or larger than 2, this would still happen for doubles, so how would you correct for it?
    – WDUK
    Dec 20, 2019 at 8:56
  • Most graphics pipelines are optimized for 32-bit floats. Besides, doubles do not fundamentally fix the precision problem OP has. Does adding more digits after the decimal point make it any easier to represent 1/3? Not a chance.
    – Beefster
    Oct 5, 2020 at 18:54

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.