Code center > Suggestions
Hyperspeed Mode
Numsgil:
--- Quote from: Houshalter --- I heard/read somewhere that it was possible to convert a program (like DB) into a hardwired computer chip or something. I know theres sites out that let you order computer chips, they'll make it, you just have to design it. So can you get db hardwired. That would increase speed wouldn't it. My knowledge on electronics is kind of small though, but if you hardwired it you could set the stuff like max bot population to something really high and it should run just as fast. You could have all the bots' dna execute simultaniously. Im guessing the cost to do something like that would be kind of high. And if you discovered a bug youd have to live with it.
--- End quote ---
Any software can be converted in to hardware. It's just really expensive. And you always have to ask: if I spent this same amount of money on general purpose CPUs or programmable GPUs, would I get more for my money?
jknilinux:
--- Quote from: Numsgil ---
--- Quote from: jknilinux ---Is it possible to use a cellular automata as a basis for DB physics? See here and here .
Digital physics seems to bear a close resemblance to cellular automata, and as such should be easy to use the hashlife algorithm on...
I have always wanted to find a way to combine DB with cellular automata...
--- End quote ---
Yes, it's possible to simulate DB on a CA grid, and yes, it would probably make the physics (which is a significant CPU load) much faster. But I think Darwinbots' physically simulated environment is one of its strengths. CA don't quite inspire the imagination since they don't actually resemble anything real. With Darwinbots it's like you're looking through a microscope or at a fish tank.
--- End quote ---
How would that work? You obviously can't create the DBs themselves out of the CA grid, can you?
Also, how much easier/harder would it be to use CA physics instead of the one you're working on?
Numsgil:
--- Quote from: jknilinux ---
--- Quote from: Numsgil ---
--- Quote from: jknilinux ---Is it possible to use a cellular automata as a basis for DB physics? See here and here .
Digital physics seems to bear a close resemblance to cellular automata, and as such should be easy to use the hashlife algorithm on...
I have always wanted to find a way to combine DB with cellular automata...
--- End quote ---
Yes, it's possible to simulate DB on a CA grid, and yes, it would probably make the physics (which is a significant CPU load) much faster. But I think Darwinbots' physically simulated environment is one of its strengths. CA don't quite inspire the imagination since they don't actually resemble anything real. With Darwinbots it's like you're looking through a microscope or at a fish tank.
--- End quote ---
How would that work? You obviously can't create the DBs themselves out of the CA grid, can you?
Also, how much easier/harder would it be to use CA physics instead of the one you're working on?
--- End quote ---
Bots would occupy either a single cell or maybe a fat cross or something like that. Shots would be single cells. Not sure how ties would work. Maybe they just stick two bots' cells together. The physics would then just be updating cells based on "velocity" of each cell. Sort of like the falling sand game. The physics could be hyper accelerated on graphics cards so we could have hundreds of thousands of cells simulated in real time (not counting DNA execution speed, game logic, etc. But physics is a significant chunk of sim speed so it would be faster).
But what it gains in speed I think it loses in complexity. You can't really simulate things like accelerating (eg: falling), or spinning about your center of mass (for tied bots), and your range of velocity values is strictly limited to either moving to an adjacent cell or not.
Assuming DB3 were all set up, you could probably jury rig a version that used CA physics. The hard part would be figuring out what physical values to feed in to DNA and the game logic.
Houshalter:
The falling sand game is awesome. I always wanted to see a alife sim int the style of the Powder Game. DB comes close with its physics, but theres no air pressure, and there arnen't any materials to interact with.
jknilinux:
--- Quote from: Numsgil ---Bots would occupy either a single cell or maybe a fat cross or something like that. Shots would be single cells. Not sure how ties would work. Maybe they just stick two bots' cells together. The physics would then just be updating cells based on "velocity" of each cell. Sort of like the falling sand game. The physics could be hyper accelerated on graphics cards so we could have hundreds of thousands of cells simulated in real time (not counting DNA execution speed, game logic, etc. But physics is a significant chunk of sim speed so it would be faster).
But what it gains in speed I think it loses in complexity. You can't really simulate things like accelerating (eg: falling), or spinning about your center of mass (for tied bots), and your range of velocity values is strictly limited to either moving to an adjacent cell or not.
Assuming DB3 were all set up, you could probably jury rig a version that used CA physics. The hard part would be figuring out what physical values to feed in to DNA and the game logic.
--- End quote ---
That isn't a cellular automata... I quote wikipedia:
" A new generation is created (advancing t by 1), according to some fixed rule (generally, a mathematical function) that determines the new state of each cell in terms of the current state of the cell and the states of the cells in its neighborhood."
Just because the universe is broken up into boxes doesn't make it a cellular automaton. The state of each cell depends solely on the states of the surrounding cells. See conway's game of life.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version