Code center > Specialization, Metabolism, Digestions and Env Grid

Numsgil's Super Cool Specialization System

<< < (4/7) > >>

PurpleYouko:
Actually I would argue that we don't have 1 either except in a very limited sense.

A robot cannot evolve to eat only veggies or to metabolise waste or any of those kind of specializations.

The universe in which they live doesn't have the physical laws to allow this.

 :D  PY  :D

Numsgil:
You would specialize in turning left, even if you haven't done it yet, in the hope that one day you will need to turn left, and you'll want to do it very well.

Like a fetus's lungs.  They haven't breathed when they come out of the womb, but the lung cells are already specialized to exchange gases between the air and the blood.

The form and shape of a bot can be said to be the sum of all the mechanics that it can do and all the mechanics it can't do.  This is what I'd like specialization to affect.  What a bot chooses to do or not do should be independant (except, of course, it can't choose to do something it can't do).

Wow, that didn't make any sense at all, did it?  Oh well.

Botsareus:

--- Quote ---I'd really like to seperate the DNA and the specializations as much as possible. Real life forms define everything about themselves through their DNA. In DB, only behavior is determined in the DNA.
--- End quote ---

Finaly I catched you Num  :P ,

Thats by far the stupedst thing Num sayed for the lest ±2 weeks.

Let me explain:


--- Quote ---"In DB" , only behavior is determined in the DNA.
--- End quote ---

DB is not something god maid up right? DB is somthing we maid up (actualy Carlo maid it up and we changed it) There is no sutch a thing as "but in DB" because we can make DB do what ever we want. You sayed yourself that "anything" is possible with programing.

Now as far as I know: Everything about a creature is stored in its DNA exsept the actual movie its going to play out in real life.

I consider "specializations" as a type of behaviur too.

One day I can see DB going 3D and then having the shape of the bot define its "specializations". But for a bot to grow a shape it needs to have it in the DNA first.

One further day I can see us making a factory that builds this bots into real life.

Numsgil:
Here's what I'm thinking:

DNA code:

cond
blah
blah
blah
end

MECHANICS:
5B 9E 64 1
etc.

ENZYMES:
97 12 5A 0
etc.

dnaend

The last 0, 1 define if a mechanic is on or off.
If an enzyme is on, it will start to produce enzymes as soon as the substances it can metabolize come into the stomach (or it's prompted to by the bot).

If a mechanic is on, then any commands that use that mechanic will work.  Else they won't.

In schvarz's system, specializations are based more on genes than what the genes do.  I'd much rather have specialization in movement than in gene 4.

PurpleYouko:
This I like too.

Up to now I have been keeping out of this discussion (mostly anyway) but I can see reasons for both sides.

Here are my opinions for what they are worth.

Firstly, specialization in feeding needs to be defined at birth and only by evolutions. To coin a method used in many RPGs, you get a certain number of specialization points to spread between all the possible "enzymes"

Let's say 20 points to split between half a dozen or so different possible metabolism methods.

One robot becomes a veggie and spends 10 points on metabolizing Oxygen and the other 10 on metabolizing waste (Nitrates probably).
These enzyme settings are fixed throughout the robot's life. he doesn't necessarily have to use them but they are available at any time that he comes into contact with the necessary metabolites.

The ONLY way this species can ever become a carnivore is by evolution through successive generations. As each new generation is born the 20 specialization points are slightly mutated. Num's bit activation system will do this very well.


As to physical specialization, that is really 2 different issues.

On the one hand you have practice specialization (muscles becoming stronger with use or atrophying without use) This can be worked by either Num's method or by Shvarz's method. Either one or a combination of both work for me.
Possibly genes placed into groups so that they are all made better if only one of the set is regularly used. Maybe using .up should also increase the efficiency of .dn, .sx and .dx. By grouping types rather than individual genes or functions, the system might become viable. Each type can then be made stronger or weaker via a counter as Shvarz suggested.

On the other you have cell specialization in a Multi-Bot. A cell might become an arm with muscle and dexterity while another is the brain and has to control the Multi-Bot somehow. This is a lot trickier and will require a much better inter-cellular communication system than we have now. The whole MB needs to act as one instead of a whole bunch of self willed bits.
I don't really have an answer for this yet.

Right now I am going to shut up again because this isn't really my favorite area of improvement anyway.

 :D  PY  :D

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page