I am back...

[Botsareus]

It's really unhealthy to make such a fuzz over a computer program. Sure, it'd be nice to see great results real fast, and real good. But this is no multi-million project, it is a program made by Volunteers, you know, people who do this for a hobby, for free.

So please stop mashing about, and start helping and giving constructive criticism...

Taking that into account; and what shvartz sayed about insolting people and then comming back. Sorry shvartz, I am too oppsest with this I cant help it.

Good news:
This forum's search engene finaly works! Thank you for your Input PY. IT FINALY WORKS YEAAA!!!

Bad news:

I still fail to understand why numsgil does not like the 'idea of circuler placment' (personaly I think it has nothing to do with my control, because the way I code is not much different from the way he codes... I did see that he insists upon using 'objects' for the control so I will leave it alone because I have a feeling there is a constructive reason behind it 'XD')

I am ready to provide a lot of constructive arguments to why we should have circuler placment. (atleast I cross my fingers XD)

I still fail to trust the new virsions saving all the .set and .sim files properly. Therefor, I would really like to try this method: "put it on low mutation rates and wait a very long time" but I simply cannot because A. or B. will happen id.e. the program will crash or I get fed up listining to my computer screach trough the night. Therefor, I need to save simulation, turn my computer off or Debug it in visual basic , load simulation. I really hope the 'autosave' is still part of the program.

Thank you for your coapiration.

[Botsareus]

Ok here is another XD far out XD idea:

Make seporate placment for each veg species stating position and repopulation possition.

/ :help:  What can you do with a guy trying to make a tronsition to a grid less dromatic? I know: the "egrid idea is pedentic, therefor its unaddable"

/now with the 3D...

First of before we go totaly 3D crazy, we should learn to model 'turadial' accuratly.

I propose 'far out' oval and round arena to go nicly with my OPTIONAL circuler placment control /far out...  No longer robots taking advantage of corners, a robot going out of bounds on one side does a direct 180 degree flip. XD never mind, If the above won't penatrade any firewalls of mind, this will never do it eather. But:

Thank you for your coapitation.

[Numsgil]

I have no issues whatsoever with circular fields and/or robot placement.  But it's really a brand new idea that needs to be suggested before it's implemented, not because some might not like it, but because some might have ways to make it better than any one single person could alone.

That is, new features should always always always be discussed first.  I'm probably not the best at this myself, but the ideal still holds.

So: let's discuss circular and ovular robot placement and fields.

I have no conceptual issues with it.

As far as implementation, I'd need the following:

1.  A way to find the coordinates to respawn a bot if it goes too far in one direction in a circular torroidal field.  (As a side note, I believe a rectangular field and a circular field that are torroidal are isomorphic).

2.  A way to find the distance of a bot to the nearest in bounds point, as well as what that point is.

3.  A cool, frosty Cream Soda.  XD

[Numsgil]

Oh, 2.4.A should have save files work 100%.  The only thing save files don't save is shots.  No reason why they don't, they just never have.

[Botsareus]

1. A way to find the coordinates to respawn a bot if it goes too far in one direction in a circular torroidal field. (As a side note, I believe a rectangular field and a circular field that are torroidal are isomorphic).

Simple, you need to measure the distance from the center of the feild to the robot, apply the esentrisity to that calculation and see if it is out of bounds.
I am sure you have to you sin or cos or tan to find the esentrisity so you will need to find the angle from the center to the robot as well.

Don't make me post code it can get ugly...

[Numsgil]

I can make my own code for it, It'd just be nice if you do the actual research for me.

Just post an equation.

You know, not code.  Math.

I'm a math major, I read and think in math, not code.  Don't post code.  Post an equation.  I'm being really really clear on this point because if you post code I won't be able to use it.  I don't read code, I read equations.  Am I being clear enough?  Forgive me if this seems overboard, I'm just trying to be sure there's no misunderstanding.

[Botsareus]

To post gunior high level math I first how to write code to make sure it works, (thats how I do research XD)

meanwhile:

2. A way to find the distance of a bot to the nearest in bounds point, as well as what that point is.

What do you mean?

[Numsgil]

For the second point: in non torroidal modes, bots are pushed towards the nearest in bounds point.

For instance:

Code: [Select]

  |
   |
   |
   |_________

A
Pretend the A above is a point.  The nearest in bounds point is that corner of the box.  In an ovoid field, I'll need a way to find the nearest in bounds point as well.
You know, instead of reinventing the wheel you could just do some research on wikipedia into ellipses and their equations.

[Botsareus]

1. too far in one direction = ((feildwith/2 - X) ^ 2 + ((feildHeight / 2 - Y) / feildHeight * feildWidth) ^ 2) ^ 0.5 > feildwith/2

might need simplification!? hope not...

and since 2. is practicaly the same problem based on the 'info...' problem solved.

[Numsgil]

1. too far in one direction = ((feildwith/2 - X) ^ 2 + ((feildHeight / 2 - Y) / feildHeight * feildWidth) ^ 2) ^ 0.5 > feildwith/2

might need simplification!? hope not...

Could use some explanation.

Remember what I asked for.  I need a way to determine if a point is out of bounds, and if it is, where to respawn it.

((feildwith/2 - X) ^ 2 + ((feildHeight / 2 - Y) / feildHeight * feildWidth) ^ 2) ^ 0.5 > feildwith/2

seems to be an inequality, and therefore may tell me if a point is out of bounds (haven't checked it yet) but can't tell me where to respawn it.

[Botsareus]

can't tell me where to respawn it

Think of it:

RespownX =   feildwith /2 - X
RespownY =   feildheight /2 - Y

[Numsgil]

I don't think that's right.

That looks somewhat similar to the respawn for a rectangular field.  Somewhat, because if you use just that you're going to get negative values for Respawn X and Y half the time.

Here's what I need:

• RespawnX = some function of the max length x ways of the ellipse and bot x position
• RespawnY = some function of the max length y ways of the ellipse and bot y position
  
• Domain for Bot's X and Y.  That is, what are valid values for X and what are valid values for Y?  In current rectangle, this looks like: x in [0, field width] y in [0, fieldheight].

[Griz]

I don't think that's right.

That looks somewhat similar to the respawn for a rectangular field.  Somewhat, because if you use just that you're going to get negative values for Respawn X and Y half the time.

thought you were talking of  the center of the field ...
be it retangular or circular ...
being (0,0).
doesn't it then work?

[Numsgil]

Maybe for rectangular, but circular should depend on X amd Y for X and Y.

That is, Respawn X = some function of current X and Y.

That's simple enough to see.  Where you respawn on the other side of a circle depends not only on your X position but also your Y position.

[Griz]

Maybe for rectangular, but circular should depend on X amd Y for X and Y.

That is, Respawn X = some function of current X and Y.

That's simple enough to see.  Where you respawn on the other side of a circle depends not only on your X position but also your Y position.

ok, I see what you are saying ...
in this case you have to tweak both x and y rather than one or the other.
but need it be complicated?
as soon as a bot reaches the 'border' or strays across it by some tiny amount
[the smaller interval the better] ...
ie ... (x^2)+y^2)>radius^2 by some small amount ...
do you not know it's exact position and can you not calculate the angle from the
center of the field at which this occurs?
having the angle, can you not add 180 degress, or whatever radians is used ...
and recalculate x and y ... ensuring the signs are correct for the new quadrant ...
 their unchanged delta.v placing them inside the field again on the next cycle?
 or something like that?