shootval and distance for -1 shots

[peterb]

...hmmm for some reason its not ok,
did i make an error here above ?, i do believe the math retrieved from eureqa was ok 25.0438 / (0.217382 -e5)

hmm the same program reminds me to  

-32 / *.eye5 .shootval store  

Since it sugested -30 / eye5.. i have to say this was one of the simplest forms of the formula and might not be correct.
There are more precize versions like  -22.0415/(*.eye5 - 0.285701) - 1.14216 .shootval store

The point is my data set contains errors..  its not based on the exact values but the nearest values i could get..
it results in the longshots.. but not the short powerful ones, but i neither could retrieve those values for shot shots in my data collection earlier..



bot added again it has no repro, (and sadly it spins again around targets... sometimes)

[ashton15]

I have discoverd a fatal flaw in my code, when I implemeted it into goggle goo v0.4b (unpublished) with F1 default costs and tested it when goggle goo chose to use the narowest eyesight possible -34 with the furthest range when he shot at maximum distance I noticed he would lose a significant ammount of energy. The reason was because a higher (or if shootval is negative, lower) value in shootval costs more enrgy so at the extremities of vision goggle goo was firing shots of -144 costing a huge ammount of enrgy per shot, to rectify this before every instance of dup *.shootval insert - *.range ceil - and like power store the maximum ammount of energy you are prepared to spend on each shot and prefreably for more effciency substitue every value, I suggest that if anything requires a higher shootval you move closer as shots will fall short of the target otherwise. Another thing to implement is only to store a value in shootval if you actually need to fire using *.shoot sgn abs mult -3 sub sgn abs mult *.shoot -4 sub sgn abs mult before every instance of store... no point calculating how much power you need to put into a shot if your not actually going to shoot whatever your looking at.

[Houshalter]

Well it does have an awful lot of stores in it. You do know that those use up energy? Anyway to eliminate them?

[ashton15]

Well it does have an awful lot of stores in it. You do know that those use up energy? Anyway to eliminate them?

Only one activates at any one time, I used conditionless logic which multiplies the location to be stored by 0, that resulsts in trying to store something into location 0 which is impossible and thus costs no energy. Alos they only activate when they see something and stuff like that, I used conditionless loggic because each normak condition costs about a tenth of a store command whilst conditionless logic is free. Therefore in theory minimal energy should be used... at least it worked when I tested it, when unactivated has a smaller energy consumption rate than alga_minimalis. Most of the gene is repetitive, one store for each eyewidth (negative, 0 and positive) multiplied by the ammount of eyes, so ultimately the 27 stores are in place for examining a range of possibilities in various eyes.

[peterb]

Well it does have an awful lot of stores in it. You do know that those use up energy? Anyway to eliminate them?

Only one activates at any one time, I used conditionless logic which multiplies the location to be stored by 0, that resulsts in trying to store something into location 0 which is impossible and thus costs no energy. Alos they only activate when they see something and stuff like that, I used conditionless loggic because each normak condition costs about a tenth of a store command whilst conditionless logic is free. Therefore in theory minimal energy should be used... at least it worked when I tested it, when unactivated has a smaller energy consumption rate than alga_minimalis. Most of the gene is repetitive, one store for each eyewidth (negative, 0 and positive) multiplied by the ammount of eyes, so ultimately the 27 stores are in place for examining a range of possibilities in various eyes.

ehm i've written them too in the past, i think all bots could be written like it, see the beasteary 1G bots, some of mine must be there as well

[abyaly]

peterb-
You should test shot lifetimes with various shootvals.
Then with various body sizes, because that's also a factor. Once you know shot lifetime, multiply by 40 to get distance.

I remember I did this at some point and the results were not what the formula in the wiki predicted. I'm not sure if I posted a chart of my results somewhere, but you can easily do the experiments in half an hour or so.

[ashton15]

peterb-
You should test shot lifetimes with various shootvals.
Then with various body sizes, because that's also a factor. Once you know shot lifetime, multiply by 40 to get distance.

I remember I did this at some point and the results were not what the formula in the wiki predicted. I'm not sure if I posted a chart of my results somewhere, but you can easily do the experiments in half an hour or so.

I worked out the increase in shot distance is lineraly proportional to eye distnce and so the overall change is nil and no change was needed when I tested it earlier, hasn't shot distnace been worked out already?

EDIT: Opps, I thought you meant the size of the bot using the gene not the bot it was colecting information from... hmm now that's a whole new story

I think I agree with you peter all robots could be coded with conditionless logic, I believe it actually increases the possible options as it adds aditional complexity and breaks conditions up into smaller peices.

[peterb]

peterb-
You should test shot lifetimes with various shootvals.
Then with various body sizes, because that's also a factor. Once you know shot lifetime, multiply by 40 to get distance.

I remember I did this at some point and the results were not what the formula in the wiki predicted. I'm not sure if I posted a chart of my results somewhere, but you can easily do the experiments in half an hour or so.

I think for the moment -32 *.eye5 div .valshoot store    (works for starting robots)..
i got to admit not tested it against all sizes

Getting good data is the biggest problem here and it does take a long time to get it, not a half hour i'm afraid

if you still have the data i would be happy to synthesize a math formula on it