General > Off Topic

Behavior simulation

<< < (2/3) > >>

Jez:
Hmm, I suppose things like fish and ants don't have 'learned by watching others' behaviour. I'm guessing that they do have learnt behaviour though. I'd be quite happy just being able to ID other bots by more than species.
That bot is ID no.1436, seen it before, not grown much since, not many extra kills, yada yada blah de blah giving me a bot with another level of understanding about its surrounding.
Or perhaps better interpretation of eye's, I can only interpret the information from eye5, the other eye's only give me distance, I can't tell if what I see in eye4 is the same object I am seeing in eye5 for instance.

It's great if a bot is supposedly swimming around a slide under your microscope but then again I could moan about some of the higher functions that the bot has in that case.

I love the loosely defined boundaries of DB, they could be little spaceships, I can see it now;

Captain: "What idiot decided to install opaque windows everywhere except window 5?"

I guess I could mimic most behaviour with things as they stand, excepting some forms of learned behaviour. What I can't do is mimic behaviour of simple things like fish because they have two eyes and bots don't. I can't mimic shoal behaviour for instance only mass following behaviour.

Wow, that's an awful lot of evolution I'm missing because of the eyes. Just think of the instant improvements a pair of eyes could make!

Sorry if I went off topic!  

Elite:
You've actually raised quite a good point.

How about giving bots greater control over eyes, so that, for example, each refvar gets split into 1-9
So *.refeye9 would read back the eye reference of a bot in your eye9

I think that's quite a good idea actually, since, unlike ties, there's a fixed number of eyes

The tie ports were great, but not good for future development, IMO eye ports are much better

Might be a lot of work though

Jez:
What I was thinking when I wrote that was more sort of two eyes and being able to choose the location that they are at. The difference between having eyes at side of head or on front of head style.
Then again I suppose you could choose how many eyes you wanted and pay for the privilige.

I just have this idea that more eyes would give more possible variation in behaviour so anything extra in the eye department would be great.

Numsgil:

--- Quote from: Jez ---Probably the slowest part will probably be identifying another bot as a new bot or a bot that has been observed before.
--- End quote ---

I think this is a weakness too.  What I'd like to see is each bot get a "serial number" that identifies it as a unique individual to other bots.  It should just be the current serial number that the engine uses internally, as you want a number that is totally independant of how many bots have been born before you.

There should also be a way to fool this same as any other identification system, albeit temporarily (you don't recognize me, I have a mustache on now cartoon cliche )

Numsgil:

--- Quote from: Elite ---You've actually raised quite a good point.

How about giving bots greater control over eyes, so that, for example, each refvar gets split into 1-9
So *.refeye9 would read back the eye reference of a bot in your eye9

I think that's quite a good idea actually, since, unlike ties, there's a fixed number of eyes

The tie ports were great, but not good for future development, IMO eye ports are much better

Might be a lot of work though
--- End quote ---

Maybe something similar to what I'm doing with ties.  Have a command (switcheye or something) that changes which eye has the "focus", and as such changes the info read from the refvars during DNA execution.  Would be a little tricky to program, but not all that much.  You could change your "focus" from eye5 to eye3 and back again in a single cycle.

The only possible issue is while this increases potential complexity (which is good) it decreases reaction time that bots have.  Already bots can accomplish alot in a single cycle.  The few cycles it takes to turn and "lock" onto an opponent are very important to the fitness landscape, and we should be careful before we change it.

I'm in favor of this "switcheye" (or whatever we want to call it), but only moderately so.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page