Code center > Darwinbots Program Source Code
Bots' code
Numsgil:
I'm not sure why we're doing this in this old thread, but:
1. It's maybe not critical to keep the backwards compatibility of the settings file, but it's a definite plus. Anything that reduces the pain of upgrading for an end user is worth it. There's no point in inconveniencing multiple end users to make development easier.
2. DB3 and DB2 are going to be so different in how they fundamentally work that trying to make the settings apply from one to another isn't practical. Maybe 1 in 10 settings from DB2 will apply to DB3. Still, we can try and make them compatible and figure out some sort of upgrader down the road, but let's cross that bridge when we come to it.
3. If you really hate the current DB2 scheme (why?), you could replace it with a new one, and just have an upgrade path for any settings files incoming from an old version that will put it in to a format compatible with the new version. But that's a large change with lots of possibility to completely screw everything up unless you're very aggressive at testing it. Is it worth it? What's the gain of changing it? And does it outweigh the risk of breaking things?
Botsareus:
Well first, I did lose trust in the sustainability of the forum to begin with a long time ago, I just hoped for the best and expected the worst.
Second, I am seriously getting sick of the constant attack patterns. An interface is important to anything.
Third, the only thing I really (hate proposed as a question) about your current DB3 scheme mods is the lack of sound, the complete braking of sexual reproduction, and the need to distance yourself from somewhat controlled velocity. Be it fully acceleration based or completely static. Your choice.
spike43884:
DB2 works well on a lot of bot functions, and interface layout, but on actuall functionality (E.g. IM and changing arena) its fatally flawed. It also suffers on the problem that its very 1 dimensional to identifying stuff outside of you, you have eyes, you can see nothing, a shape (of which you can do nothing to react to) or see an edible thing, and its eyes. Mhm, this is the major limiting factor, no nutrient fluxs, no smell, no sound (Though sound is less nessisary than smell/nutrition) and food then in turn, along with anything else is forced down that thin corridor of options.
Botsareus:
--- Quote from: spike43884 on December 04, 2014, 11:15:40 AM ---you can see nothing, a shape (of which you can do nothing to react to)
--- End quote ---
... Actually you can react to shapes just fine if you have "Robots can see shapes" option enabled in the shape options under "Add shape."
spike43884:
--- Quote from: Botsareus on July 16, 2015, 12:35:51 PM ---
--- Quote from: spike43884 on December 04, 2014, 11:15:40 AM ---you can see nothing, a shape (of which you can do nothing to react to)
--- End quote ---
... Actually you can react to shapes just fine if you have "Robots can see shapes" option enabled in the shape options under "Add shape."
--- End quote ---
I sounded very poetic in there, and im not to sure what I mean, but I believe I meant being able to interact with shapes more indepth?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version