Code center > Darwinbots3
New bot shape
bacillus:
Sounds a bit like framsticks.
The problem with this format is getting all this down in one string of DNA. Each cell should ideally start out the same shape and function, then be able to change its function according to where it is located (probably through a tie variable.) The way you suggest it now, however, seems to be similar to the way most MBs I know of work:
def structure 989
def head 1
def tail 2
cond
*.structure .tail =
start
...
peterb:
--- Quote from: bacillus ---Sounds a bit like framsticks.
The problem with this format is getting all this down in one string of DNA. Each cell should ideally start out the same shape and function, then be able to change its function according to where it is located (probably through a tie variable.) The way you suggest it now, however, seems to be similar to the way most MBs I know of work:
def structure 989
def head 1
def tail 2
cond
*.structure .tail =
start
...
--- End quote ---
.yes
if most MB work like that, then creature shape can allready be defined (based on multiple bots)
What might be improved is perhaps the .language
something to communicate troughout the creature
So for example head had a special channel even if it wasnt a neighbor bot it could be adressed in communciation in both directions.
Then be able to store energy or control a part by directly adressing a number
So if the head would see something the tail could wag to propell ahead.
5 *.structure 30 *.nrg store
(adressing the fifth structure and storing 30 energy points in it).
5 *.structure *.eye5 30 floor .DX
It would be nice if somehow shape and function would be a result of the physics in the darwinbots world. (like nature).
So a good tail part's shape is better to provide power, while a (fat)body part is better in storing energy and a head is better for eyes.
dough octopus can use jet propulsion,
Thats hard to get from shape? >> or is that like I let go a balloon free on a children party pfffffrrfrfrfrfrfrfrrrrrrfffrfrrrrrrt till its empy hahaha
If that would be simple, then perhaps fins are more complex, if you would like to make them use of the physics world?.
If the new tube shapes can be used for fins.. then thats great (I dont think a circle can do that)
Maybe a group of circles could do it, but that requires more resources on a comoputer.
If you wouldnt let it make use of the physics, then you might give it only a bonus in specialism for certain cells.
But then the location of those cells wouldnt be important either. (so neither would advanced shapes be important then).
To get it in correct in physics.. hmm that would be verry hard to code, if your able to write such an evo sim.. great!
Well that would be perhaps a bit of a holy grail. If the new tubes get closes to it, then thats great coding
Or perhaps take a little bit of both worlds physics and specialism bonus.
bacillus:
I think that the problem is that DB takes the environment as one big vacuum with friction, which prevents more complex interactions, such as tie drag, currents and fluid dynamics such as squirting out water for propulsion (although this would be the same as ties displacing fluid). The main reason for this IMO is that the advantages in doing so (more realistic movement etc. ) are so rarely used that it will most likely never outweigh the drawbacks (mayor memory guzzling).
Things such as fins shouldn't be too difficult in comparison to a whole dynamic environment, as it's just a matter of friction on a tie. It's more a matter of velocity restrictions making complex movement structures unnecessary at this point. A maximum acceleration may be more realistic that a maximum speed (although that doesn't stop fast single-celled organisms, perhaps a non-linear movement cost sytem would solve that. It's really a matter of balancing the costs so cumulative forces are favored to one big force.)
Evolving properties such as eyesight and storage capabilities in relation to certain resources, such as fat and muscle, has already been discussed much. Each of these should ideally have its own pros and cons, so that one cell can't just save up a whole lot of nrg to make an uber-cell with enough resources to wipe everything else, such as speed restrictions, vulnerability ec.
jknilinux:
I for one would prefer tie drag etc... to increased speed.
Besides, with the 64-bit craze these days we can access more RAM than you can shake a stick at, and you can be sure there will be big enough memory sticks to fill the void. So, by the time DB3 comes out in a year or two any worries about RAM size should be moot. Unless there are other drawbacks...
peterb:
Memory isnt the problem I think rather CPU speed (as some creatures tend to do a repro bloom ).
Anyway I was thinking these perposed new shapes Half circle tube other half.
I was thinking if one circle would became real small, it would become a point..
And what if a point could penetrate deeper in other shapes to for example deliver poison or mutated DNA ?
Some link between shape and effect on its surounding would make it great.
Also toughts about surounding, are importend as presurre factors on evolution, besides its other friends..
Sunny / humid /dry / cold /warm / acid /posion / bad vision environment / camofl.... etc etc
So like the places we see bacteria the bacteria (bots) these days (everywhere they specialize).
(Maybe get a carbon cycle..) (or nitro... or..)
Oh and I dont think its nice to shoot only at heads, it would be nice to shoot at other functional parts too.
Specificiation, of cells would be a nice thing the get (if there was some force on it, maybe a benefit).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version