Non-Determinstic Bot DNA flow

[Griz]

The sim doesn't need to know the physics. They just work. (the physics we do have in them is quite complex enough thanks)

thought I'd go ahead and heartily agree with you on something PY :D
this is a big part of what grates on me ...
we don't need  to construct structures that 'look like' the physical world.
nor do the bots need to know physics ...
that is taken care of by the environment we provide ... those laws we impose.
we can control the environment ... and I also agree we need a way to have
some specialization in it ... a diversity of specialization, if that makes any sense. ;) ...
but to let the bots then develope the behaviors that allow them to function ...
or not ... ie ... survive ... 'within' the rules of the 'test tube' we place them in.
so I am not advocating anything goes and not having rules ... not at all ...
only that too many rules actually results in the same problem ...
too many choices.  it is about achieving the right balance.
and it seems to me ... that if we start simple enough ...
the program itself will show us what is required in the way of balance.
iow ... the sims/environments that work ... we keep ... and take a look at
why they did. same with a sim/environment that doesn't support or reach
some sort of equilibrium in population.  

again ... I think there is more than enough complexity in DB already ...
if not too much ... at least until we ensure the basic workings are in place.
THEN ... we can go more complex.

but perhaps I am repeating myself. ;)
ok.
'nuff.

[Ulciscor]

Ties I'm thinking are a special hollow tube mesh constructed from nrg arranged in a crystaline matrix.

I suppose all of the tie physics etc could have been avoided by saying that ties were in fact EM forces holding two bots together. It would also fit with what you were saying about the way ties should be able to deform, [Num].

Although... this would introduce a whole new nightmare of artificial-ness and ambiguity.

[PurpleYouko]

I suppose all of the tie physics etc could have been avoided by saying that ties were in fact EM forces holding two bots together. It would also fit with what you were saying about the way ties should be able to deform, [Num].

Trouble is, that is exactly how they work.
The tie that we actually see is just drawn on after. It has no relationship to anything and no solidity in the program.
Ties are defined precisely as an interaction between two specified bots, their positions, angles etc. It's actually a really cool idea once you figure it out.

[Numsgil]

we don't need  to construct structures that 'look like' the physical world.
nor do the bots need to know physics ...
that is taken care of by the environment we provide ... those laws we impose.

The only thing is that everyone who ever runs the sim does so expecting familiar behaviors.  Wether we think so or not alot of how we interpret the simulation is based on what we think is "realistic".

The new physics engine, (which is what I think you're alluding to) is imperitive precicesly because the old one was woefully inadequate.  Specifically in the area of ties.  Run some bots that tie to each other and drag them around in pre 2.4, then do the same with the newer version.

Night and day difference in how "realistic" it feels.  The bots don't care much one way or another, since they do not directly get to see how or what the physics engine is doing.  But the people watchinig (the ones that can pull the plug and find somethign else to do) are most particular about things they view as "stupid" or "unrealistic".

Now if bots are doing stuid things on purpose, that's called experimentation.

If the sim is doing stupid things, it's called "lazy programmer" :lol:

we can control the environment ... and I also agree we need a way to have
some specialization in it ... a diversity of specialization, if that makes any sense. ;) ...
but to let the bots then develope the behaviors that allow them to function ...
or not ... ie ... survive ... 'within' the rules of the 'test tube' we place them in.

That is precisely what I feel I've done, and what other programmers before me have done.  More or less anyway, there are some abstractions used for the benefit of the coders ;)

But we don't tell bots how or what to do with the abstractions.

again ... I think there is more than enough complexity in DB already ...
if not too much ... at least until we ensure the basic workings are in place.
THEN ... we can go more complex.

You may be a little soured by bugs ;)  I most certainly disagree that DB is complex enough already.  I can't even imagine a complex system with "too many" choices.  Each voice just adds to the harmony if the conductor is any good at all.