Cool visualization but it focuses so much on the ``'-.,_,.-'`waves`'-.,_,.='`` and not on the actual coverage pattern of 6-12.5cm waves, so not as actually useful for showing coverage as other tools, but fun as an art project.

And of course, I can't mention that without shouting out projectM (open-source Milkdrop) that supports WebGL https://github.com/projectM-visualizer/projectm/blob/master/... and one of the OGs, Geisswerks https://www.geisswerks.com/

If you like that, you might also love NestDrop for music visualization tailored for VJs and with special features to support projecting inside domed surfaces https://nestimmersion.ca/nestdrop.php

Bugs:

#1 if you spam the "add a new source" button you eventually get a JavaScript exception logged to the screen due to an array with a fixed max size of 128 elements overflowing.

#2 this could be graphics card or driver specific (I have an AMD card), but scrolling just right can can break the simulation due the the text boxes; for example by quickly paging up and down, or scrolling all the way to the bottom and then wiggling the scroll position up and down. Once this happens the bad data propagates until the entire thing is filled with noise, solid black, or solid white. If you then scroll up to 3D mode the screen will be filled with a mess of polygons.

> For example, as you scroll you'll notice that the waves are refracting around these text boxes.

Now, that's useless AND badass.

I once wanted to make something similar, for sound. I wanted to create active noise cancelling "in the room", instead of via headphones. I pictured these devices combining a microphone and a speaker that you could set up in strategic location. After thinking about it for a bit, I realized that inference would cause areas with silence and others where the sound volume would be doubled. Less than ideal but still possibly interesting. But then I thought about it some more and realized that I needed to think in 3D, which makes the setup orders of magnitude more complex.

It seems like that would apply here as well, at least when looking at the effects of refraction?

Badass on the visualization side. The multiple emitter portion and the end of the scroll reminded me of https://apenwarr.ca/beamlab/ which demonstrates beamforming (adjusting the phase of adjacent transmitters to focus power towards a specific receiver). To play with this one the "easiest" way to see what's going on is go to the right hand menu, unclick 3 so you just have 2 transmitters, click the "r" button, and then click or click and drag to see how the beam gets optimized (you can see some stats about the received power gain in the righthand side).

While this has to be the most fun to watch demonstration I've seen, something like the free tier of Hamina will likely be many times more useful to those wanting to optimize home Wi-Fi layout https://www.hamina.com/planner. The downside being they force you to make an account whereas this one lets you use it locally with the power of your own browser. The upside being Hamina gives multiple distilled views of the simulation as focused on common Wi-Fi statistics + features and less focus on displaying the wave simulation itself.

I think I clicked the link at the bottom to add new sources to the simulation a few times too many:

Unexpected Application Error!

offset is out of bounds

RangeError: offset is out of bounds at Float32Array.set (<anonymous>) at Pi.makeUniformBuffer (https://wifi-solver.com/dist/bundle-UKQ5A5W6.js:32:118833) at Pi.updateUniforms (https://wifi-solver.com/dist/bundle-UKQ5A5W6.js:32:117585) at Pi.setState (https://wifi-solver.com/dist/bundle-UKQ5A5W6.js:32:114537) at https://wifi-solver.com/dist/bundle-UKQ5A5W6.js:70:2373 at Vc (https://wifi-solver.com/dist/bundle-UKQ5A5W6.js:8:24370) at la (https://wifi-solver.com/dist/bundle-UKQ5A5W6.js:8:42602) at aS (https://wifi-solver.com/dist/bundle-UKQ5A5W6.js:8:41415) at ro (https://wifi-solver.com/dist/bundle-UKQ5A5W6.js:8:40441) at im (https://wifi-solver.com/dist/bundle-UKQ5A5W6.js:8:37031)

Another interesting similar project: https://cemsim.com/ (I'm not the author)

I was expecting here SDR radio processing: noise read from GPIO's passed to a web browser with a pipe, showing activity on all channels at once.

When I run the Waveguide Simulator demo on my Alienware M15 Ryzen Ed. R5 (has a RTX 3070; Windows 11 Pro, Chrome v129), I hear a distinct high pitched flutter noise emanating from my laptop. I thought it was from the speakers, but no, with my volume down it was still present as long as the simulator was playing. Weird, but very cool demo (probably my hardware, never hear this during games or other WebGPU demos). The realistic house simulation yields a different signature in the sound.

I have a Wifi 6E router, so I wonder if 6GHz vs 5 vs 2.4 acts noticeabley differently here? Is the overall shape the same or does the frequency make a big difference?

See also the blog post here discussing this project:

https://jasmcole.com/2024/10/18/a-decade-of-wifi/

I need this, but for heatpump noise.

It's mostly broadband noise that can be simulated by simpler methods, but visualizing possible resonance patterns for the low-frequency emissions from the compressor (which typically runs at 20Hz, 40Hz, ..., 120 Hz) would be good to know.

Although I am not sure how the 2d simulation result carries over to the 3d world...

I wonder if there is something like this but open-source, so I could customize this. I'm looking for a tool to solve UWB positioning (for indoor navigation) - to be able to know where to optimally place various UWB anchor points.

"Sorry, WebGPU is not supported on your device" Firefox, Nvidia

A. Why?

B. What a bad error message

WeBGPU support is increasing but it isn’t yet above 70% of devices: https://web3dsurvey.com/webgpu

Similar concept in shadertoy:

https://www.shadertoy.com/view/st3XWX

Won't run for me on Firefox or Chromium on Debian 12.

This is exceptionally cool.

A while ago I was trying to find realistic examples of what WiFi "looks like", to try to get an intuitive sense of how it operated in a house or outside a building -- to what extent it spreads in the same way as a normal lightbulb, or to what extent its vastly larger wavelength complicated the picture.

At the time, literally the only visualization I was able to find was this artistic seemingly nonsense:

https://inspirationist.net/what-wifi-looks-like/

So I'm very happy to see this tool. I'd be even more curious to see a non-animated version that lets you drag your router around and see "illumination" of the overall signal to see how it changes, continuing to take into account how reflections confuse and degrade the usable signal, etc. Instead of the animation of slow wave propagation. Maybe that exists somewhere?

Seems Firefox on Linux isn't supported. I'll give this a look another time.

It's so frustrating that WebGPU support was released 1.5 years ago on Chrome, and yet is still unavailable on all other browsers.

This is a real killer feature that will dramatically slow adoption of non-Chromium browsers, even with Google defanging ad blockers.

What are the system requirements to run this? Fairly 'standard' Linux system running Chrome here.

"Sorry, there was an error starting the simulation

Sorry, WebGPU is not supported on our device

WiFi Solver may not be compatible with your device."

Especially frustrating in the case of Safari, which only needs to support one native API backend (Metal) on a pretty narrow set of hardware and drivers. Firefox has a much bigger task with needing to support everything, like Chrome, but with far less resources than Google or Apple can afford to throw at it.

For Safari that's par for the course, but Firefox is in surprisingly far behind in terms of anything GPU related in the browser.

I've recently been shocked trying out the WebGL aquarium demo [0] on Chrome and Firefox after running into some really odd performance issues on a project. You'd expect them to behave about the same with GPU acceleration, but FF barely gets half the framerate at the same load. Like, what?! On Linux FF is also several times slower at canvas rendering.

[0] https://webglsamples.org/aquarium/aquarium.html

Agreed! Though support should be coming soon it seems. As a complete WebGPU novice I was really impressed with how quick it was to get going.

WebGL 2 took almost 5 years to come to Safari after Chrome. It will not take as long for WebGPU; development is active now.

It is also a bit frustrating that Chrome has not enabled WebGPU on all platforms by default yet.

Even Chrome only supports it officially on Windows, macOS and Android, no GNU/Linux (as stable).

And when it becomes widespread, just like WebGL 2.0, it will be a decade behind of what native APIs are capable of.

And in both cases, good luck debugging, other than replicating the content on native APIs, as means to use proper GPU debuggers, because even Chrome has yet to offer any developer tooling for GPU debugging.

it's still not well supported on Linux unfortunately either

Why do you need webgpu? It's unfortunate that people use technology that is "state-of-the-art techniques to run simulations at interactive speeds" without fully understanding what it's for. General compute on GPU is what webgpu is for.. To simulate basic waves like in this demo you absolutely do not need that, in fact it's an indication the author implemented the solution in a non-optimal way. WebGL is fully supported by all browsers fully supported by well-maintained libs like 3js, yet here we are people writing a sin function with basic interference patterns, one of the most elementary 3D primitives, in webgpu and argue that's using the "state-of-the-art" techniques.