Very simple all-round camera controller. Weird jamming.

Tomcat Yes unless you cast your limit value to a 32 bit float beforehand, i.e. keep it as a Vector3 component.

Tomcat And this behavior is not considered an error?

This is a very good cautionary example of what can happen when you don't care about limitations of the floating point number representation. I always warn people that it will sneak and bite them in the ass sooner or later if they're not aware of how floating point works. But I mostly get waved off

Tomcat

var high_max = high_max_v3.y

^ This still may be risky as it again involves casting between float32 and float64. Best to use high_max_v3.y directly whenever you actually need to compare or assign to another float32. Do not assign it to an intermediary float64 at all.

Doing it with clamp() is actually the best way to handle this.

packrat Here's a little plaything that may help understanding how the stuff works:
https://www.h-schmidt.net/FloatConverter/IEEE754.html

Although the problem here was a little bit more nuanced than the most common issue of precision loss when converting between decimal and binary.

Tomcat It's closely related but it's not exactly the problem you've experienced here. People generally heard about the caveat of "never comparing two floats using the operator ==". But your "bug" is a bit more insidious because your code never actually uses operator == to compare floats.

The confusing thing about this is the fact that some rational numbers that have finite numbers of decimals in base 10 representation, may have infinite number of decimals in base 2 representation and thus cannot be stored in the binary form without some small error. And this error will differ depending on the number of bits used to store the number. It's similar to how e.g. 1/3 cannot be accurately stored in finite number of decimals in base 10 representation but in base 3 representation (trenary system) it can be fully stored with just one decimal (1/3 is exactly 0.1 when written in trenary system)

Tomcat It on depends what you do with it afterwards. If you continue to deal only with float32 numbers i.e. vector components, you should be fine. But in practice, it's really easy to make an oversight and assign a vector component to some plain float. So that's the situation you need to watch out for. It may not be a problem in most calculations, but as you've seen in your example, there are cases in which it can break your code.

Of course if you do equality checks using operator ==, you still may have problems even if all numbers are float32. So always use is_equal_approx() instead of == for equality checks.

But once you know this, all such gotchas can be easily detected and debugged by printing out your values every step of the way.

Tomcat Oh and just as a side node, if you redo your logic to eliminate this redundant check:

if tilt.position.y >= high_min and tilt.position.y <= high_max:

mixing 32 and 64 bit floats wouldn't matter.
So you can simply do:

tilt.position.y += event.relative.y * SENSITIVITY
if tilt.position.y < high_min:
	tilt.position.y = high_min
if tilt.position.y > high_max:
	tilt.position.y = high_max

Which is exactly the same thing the clamp() does.

Tomcat I don't think such computers exist in practice. Watch out not to confuse trinary logic with trinary numeral system. Those are two different concepts. I was talking about the latter. But this is a "problem" of the floating point representation in general, regardless of the base. Floating point representation doesn't necessarily need to be binary. Theoretically, it can have any base. We just commonly use base 2 in computers because computers internally store data in binary form.