Code center > Suggestions
.sexrepro
Botsareus:
--- Quote ---First, if the bot maker sets up his selection genes correctly he won't allow his "rat" species to select a "camel" to mate with. But even if he so chose to set up his simulation in this way, what business is it of the program to interfere? Why should you give a *&^$?
If species control needs to be a program function for the "game" side of DB then I request an option to turn off this control. It is, infact, the DNA that controls all sexual selection in nature. In evo sims, speciation will occur with time (I hope) and "time" is simulated by mutation rate/type.
The DB program should not interfere. I will determine and control the definition and interactions of "species" within my sim. You can make the programming effort a lot easier IMO by staying out of the way.
--- End quote ---
I agree with AZPaul on this 100% , I dont think its up to the program to deside how related the species should be in order for .sexrepro to work.
--- Quote ---Again, for evo sim purposes close proximity would be good enough. The program shouldn't care how "close" close is. That should be left to the bot maker.
--- End quote ---
I also agree that close procimity is a must. My formula: (Proximity allowed for repro) must be less then (avrage Diameter of the two robors.)
Paul, you have to understand that we must keep things like this standardized in order to play a fair game in stuff like the legue tabels. But if we are going to add Nums, idea of fully custom Environments , then if we add another slider for .sexrepro distance , I don’t care.
Ok here is a solution:
We have option boxes:
[*] Use proximity formula for sexrepro.
[_] Set custom range for sexrepro. [............|......] slider of custom range
PurpleYouko:
--- Quote ---If species control needs to be a program function for the "game" side of DB then I request an option to turn off this control. It is, infact, the DNA that controls all sexual selection in nature. In evo sims, speciation will occur with time (I hope) and "time" is simulated by mutation rate/type.
--- End quote ---
No problem there. Remember the slider I suggested earlier that can determine compatability criteria?
I wouldn'd dream of taking control away from the DNA in a restrictive kind of way. What I propose is the ability to restrict sexrepro compatability for a robot.
Set the slider to zero and you have no restrictions at all. Set it to 100 and you can only mate with another robot having a 100% DNA match.
For the most part this extreme would be completely useless unless two robots shared the same mutation.
Likewise we can have a distance limit imposed by a control in the options window, a bit like Bots proposed. Set it long or short as you see fit. Even allow it to evolve if you like. Do the same for selection criteria too.
All this gives is more control and more potential variability for your sims.
--- Quote ---So put the birth tie somewhere else. Why does it have to be .eye5?
--- End quote ---
Changing this would completely screw up almost every robot ever made (at least in the last year or two anyway). Almost all combat bots rely on the fact that mother and baby face each other at birth.
Without this, you can't fire a tie at age zero to sever the birth tie.
Without this you can't create a Multi-bot.
The exact angle of birth has to be the way it is or a whole load of programming options become useless.
The only option here would be to add a new control a little like .backshot to control birth angle. I am not opposed to that if you like. Say something like .reproangle in a gene like..
--- Code: ---cond
*.nrg 8000 >
*.eye5 60 >
start
628 .reproangle store
50.sexrepro store
stop
--- End code ---
This gene would cause the baby to appear at the back of the mother instead of in front. The default angle will be zero (straight in front) but you could set it at whatever you like.
--- Quote ---Quite true, but for most evo sims "close proximity" (*.eye5 80 >) would simulate the required "contact." And that is up to me to determine and simulate, not you.
--- End quote ---
FYI When eye5 is equal to exactly 77 and the robots are normal size, they are touching. If eye5 is 80 then your robots are overlapping. That sure meats my definition of physical contact! :D
:D PY :D
PS it is refreshing to hear your personal views on stuff here. You look at things in a slightly different way than us old-school guys I think.
Old Henk:
I agree with PY and Endy that ties would be a good option for .sexrepro.
It'd be quite simple:
If a bot activates .sexrepro, it automatically reproduces with the bot tied to the tie specified in .tienum
cond
*.numties 1 =
*.tiepres 33 = 'pre-determined number (by botmaker)
start
33 .tienum store
50 .sexrepro store
stop
BTW: I made a Sexrepro bot a while ago. If anyone's intrested: It is located here
Botsareus:
PY, its all good what you say but:
My formula: (Proximity allowed for repro) must be less then (avrage Diameter of the two robors.) After that the closest robot determines it.
Should be also an option. I.e. I don't want to gess what the avrage size of the robots going to be, this formula does it for me.
If you still want to leave me gessing at least make the slider in pixels so I dont have to worry about conversion.
P.S.
Whats the point of letting this slider mutate, Obviously the robots will choose the longest possible range. It's just a waste of time in my opinion.
Numsgil:
I agree with your philosophy 100% Paul. The gaming platform is a subset of the program, and always will be.
The sperm shot, or sharing of genetic material through ties, is macroscopic sexual reproduction. It would be used for simulations of large animals.
The fusion of two cells, including their genetic material, is microscopic, and would be used for modeling unicellular or small colony animals.
Both would need to be working with the idea of chromosomes. My idea for chromosomes, Paul, is that you have multiple strands of DNA that all execute at the same time.
Here's what I said on the subject.
The most simple organism that could sexaully reproduce would be an organism with two identical copies of the same chromosome and that's it.
Sexual reproduction only really makes sense from the framework of diploid organisms.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version