Hey Bots

[Griz]

Thread moved since it really wasn't anything to do with Bot Tavern topics

just started this page on the wiki
http://www.darwinbots.com/WikiManual/index...reus%27s_Vision
a place to take a look at the changes you have made to 2.37.4 ...
and sus them out.
here's an opportunity to put your stuff out here where we can all
take a look and give you feedback ...
all work together to see what we can do to make DB work ...
as a 'team effort'.
for you and anyone who is interested in such things.
and if not ...
well ...
that's ok too.
all I can do is offer the opportunity.
here it is ...
let's use it ...
or lose it.

if you are up to it ...
then let me know which moduals and routines that you altered ...
that you would like to have people take a look at ...
and I will work at putting them on this wiki page.

ok?

this could be the start of a good thing.
no excuses now ...
let's take a for real look at what you've been doing ...
and see if we can make it work for everyone.

what say ye?

[Botsareus]

A.) I already discused everything I implemented on the fourm in quickly forgot posts all over the place since 4 to 5 month ago.

B.) Thanks griz, but thats not what seems to trouble me so much...

C.) I have not proven any of it in practice so there is really nothing to discuss.

For now I can only tell you this is how it works, the rest you can figure by comparing my virsion to windiff.

A.) It uses femily based periodicaly changing mutation rates to awoid mullers rachet.

B.) Saving 'best robot' at the end of a simulation or after n time, will result in saving a 'nuke problem' robot or 'geek loophole' robot, therefor the following must be done.
 
  1.) Each robot must have its skill factor calculated to know its 'true' best value. This is done using ".good" in each robots substructure.

  2.) Troughout the simulation the higest peaking point of a robots skill is determind. Lets call it J

  3.) J is checked agenst the J of the three previos 'runs' (each run lests 8000 cycles (although I have "/end" display something else, I am talking about my current work right now)  this is done by using an external "saecheck.txt" file.
     
         a.) If J is higher then the lest three 'runs', then 'save robots dna' is called. Wait for this 'run' to complete just incase J goes even higher.

C.) The true 'best robot' is now set as the robot to restart/resume the simulation with.

Now here is what I am working on right now:

Some robots may not aquire enough mutations in 8000 cycles because of there skill, therefor the mutations must be increased depending on the data in the saecheck.txt file.

note: the saecheck.txt file actualy keeps 4 numbers, the 4th one being data from the current graph.

note: BAUGRAPH.frm activaly displays J

note: J is not updated if the overall population is below 15.

note: the 'geek loophole' seems to exsist even in the J system, but it is only a sideeffect witch gets filter out after a while by 'real' evolve.

[Griz]

well ... it's there.
make of it what you will.
or not.

[Botsareus]

Now with the placement control:

* 8 point resize allows for accurate resizing of the placement on the x-axis without accidentally changing the why-axis and vice versa.

* The round placement allows to accurately model robots that you place in the center of a food supply and they eat there way out equally on all sides.

* The Draw-a-placement allows for faster construction of a whole new placement instantaneously.

* The prevention of placement beyond the field limits allows the user to accurately size the placement to the boarders.

* Finally, I also included the 'keep placement' option to allow the user to select if he wants the respawning of vegs to be kept in one place.


(Under Numsgils new placement control all above is impossible)

[Numsgil]

(Under Numsgils new placement control all above is impossible)

Not quite:

* The Draw-a-placement allows for faster construction of a whole new placement instantaneously.

* The prevention of placement beyond the field limits allows the user to accurately size the placement to the boarders.

* Finally, I also included the 'keep placement' option to allow the user to select if he wants the respawning of vegs to be kept in one place.

I disagree on these points.  Mine does all these.

[Griz]

I find Bot's controls more intuitive and easier to use ...
and see no reason to have placement go beyond the borders ...
as his seem to go right up to it and use the border as a limit.
I guess it's just a matter of style  ...
but I like Bot's on this feature.

what's good is ...
if I can ever find out where the code is for these lives ...
I can compare and finger out how it works ...
then customize it using the best ideas from both ...
to make it be exactly what I want.

now if Bots would put that code at the wiki ...
then people could check it out ...
and adapt that modual or routine if they like it better.  
another option.
I likes having options. ;)

[Botsareus]

<_<

Mine does all these.

No it does NOT:

* The prevention of placement beyond the field limits allows the user to accurately size the placement to the boarders. EVEN GRIZ AGREES THAT YOUR CODE dOES nOT dO tHaT...

* Finally, I also included the 'keep placement' [you]option[/you] to allow the user to select if he wants the respawning of vegs to be kept in one place.
How about you add sliders to select how much of each type of veg to respawn instead of only respawing the one type.

* The Draw-a-placement allows for faster construction of a whole new placement instantaneously.

Please tell me then, how does your code do that?

[Numsgil]

* The prevention of placement beyond the field limits allows the user to accurately size the placement to the boarders. EVEN GRIZ AGREES THAT YOUR CODE dOES nOT dO tHaT...

Ah, yes it does ;)  You can drag the box out of bounds, but it gets auto clipped before you can start the sim.

* The Draw-a-placement allows for faster construction of a whole new placement instantaneously.

You can hit the reset button.  And, guess what, it resets!  Amazing.

* Finally, I also included the 'keep placement' <you>option</you> to allow the user to select if he wants the respawning of vegs to be kept in one place.
How about you add sliders to select how much of each type of veg to respawn instead of only respawing the one type.

I fixed this in that version, veggies respawn in their little boxes like they're supposed to.

[Botsareus]

NO NO NO , I just explained:

* Finally, I also included the 'keep placement' option to allow the user to select if he wants the respawning of vegs to be kept in one place.

MAKING IT ONLY AN OPTION is impunity CAME TO LIFE , CAME TO LIFE.

* The Draw-a-placement allows for faster construction of a <me><you><he><she><it>whole new placement</me></you></he></she></it> instantaneously.
 
You can hit the reset button. And, guess what, it resets! Amazing.

What does my argument have to do with 'it resets! Amazing.' ?

* The prevention of placement beyond the field limits allows the user to accurately size the placement to the boarders. EVEN GRIZ AGREES THAT YOUR CODE dOES nOT dO tHaT...
 
Ah, yes it does  You can drag the box out of bounds, but it gets auto clipped before you can start the sim.

Well atleast griz thinks my method will be better.

[Numsgil]

Damnit Bots, the code's going to be entirely rewritten soon anyway.  What does it even matter?

[Griz]

Damnit Bots, the code's going to be entirely rewritten soon anyway.  What does it even matter?

it matters if someone's ideas are rejected out of hand ...
I happen to think Bots, along with others here ...
has some pretty interesting ideas ...
but it also seems to me that unless others start their own version ...
their ideas aren't likely to be considered to be part of DB.

now I understand Bots is difficult to work with ...
I say so right here in the open ...
as I don't think that's any kind of secret.
people can see for themselves.
(sorry Bots ... just telling it like it is.)
but I also feel his frustration that comes from
doing his best to lend a hand ...
only to be dismissed as not being worthy.
that sorta, kinda sucks, imho.

I know this is now your project Nums ...
that's obvious ...
and you're going to do it how every you want to do it.
and that's fine ...
you have been willing to put in the time and work.

but then it loses a bit of appeal to me ...
as it's not really an open project that is taking input from
a number of people or allowing them to become an integral
part in it ... to feel it belongs to them as well as you.

imo ... that's too bad.
I like to see diverse ideas at least being heard and examined ...
and incorporating  them if/when they prove worthy.
I don't see a lot of that here.
seems pretty much like a one man show.

oh well ...
so it goes.
there's still a lot of good info here for me ...
from many sources that I'm sure will come in handy somewhere
along the way ...
so I'll suck up whatever I can for future reference ...
from wherever/whomever I can.
everyone has something to offer.

[Numsgil]

The problem is Bots' ideas aren't grounded in reality.

He just makes up crap (I'm talking more his ideas in general and not placement controls specifically) without doing any research at all.

Like the thing he has with radiation in his version.  Entirely not grounded in reality.  Might be brilliant, the best thing since sliced bread, or it might be solid crap.  We don't know, because it has no parallel.  You can't just introduce random crap you feel like into the simulation.  Well, you can I guess, I just don't think it's a good idea.

It's not like I just add things randomly myself.  There is a peer review process for all new features.  They get posted and discussed in the suggestions forum.  Most of his ideas are soundly rejected by everyone involved for exactly the reason I stated above: no basis in reality.

No one's ideas are rejected out of hand (or anyway that's the goal, we're all Human (or you're all Human anyway,  :evil: )), but many, many ideas are rejected their first time out.

That's when you go back, take the conflicting goals of all people involved, perform some brain twitching synthesis on them, and form a new idea.  Then again and again till the idea's been pounded and smoothed into a coherent shape.  It's a magical process that leaves many egos bruised.

People who aren't used to this process (specifically non-scientist types) get frustrated and give up early.  PY and shvarz are both scientists (more or less ;)), I tend to be very grounded in science (though still an Undergrad, so technically not a "scientist"), etc.  We're all familiar with the process of peer review and constructive criticism, so our ideas tend to make it farther than, say, Bots'.
I don't like to give the impresion this is my project.  It's not, it's not anyone's project, it belongs to the community.  I firmly know and believe that.  When I say I don't like an idea, I don't want you to take it as an edict from God.  I'm just stating my opinion.  If I get out voted (it's happened before) I'll grumble a bit and program whatever the opposing viewpoint is.

I don't make unilateral/hand of God type decisions.  Or try not to anyway.  If an issue is fairly evenly split, I'll tend to push it in favor of the direction I want it to go.  But I won't force an issue that doesn't have any other support.

Thing is, till about a month or two or three ago the community was pretty much on the same page.   I knew how everyone thought and they knew how I thought.  With very little exception, most things I thought of were well accepted and most things others thought of I liked.

Now we have new users with dramatically different ideas.  Not that new users' ideas aren't good, just that they're very much from left field compared to anything we've dealt with before.  I suppose I'm a bot Conservative.  Didn't really think of myself that way, but that seems to be the case now ;)

It just seems I'm the lone man on the hill because most of the older users aren't power users.  They don't post umpteen hundred posts a day like I do (or Bots does, or Greven or Griz, et al.)  So if you're just browsing topics...

Anyway, forgive the old vanguard if they're slow to change.

uh, end rant. ;)

[Botsareus]

He just makes up crap (I'm talking more his ideas in general and not placement controls specifically) without doing any research at all.

I admit I aquire my research not from the Internet, or say phyisics books. But I aquire it from experiance -what works for me. Somthing aquired from experiance or what works for me is not crap. AND I ALWAYS PROVIDE CLEAR EXPLONATION WHY IT WORKS AND HOW IT WORKS.

and num, I always talk to you and others just to prove that the arguments you provide suck. If thats not good peer review I have no idea what is then...

And Num, I am NOT a new user.

Num you wont beleave how much worse it would of been, If I promoted say:
things generated from a random code generator without doing any peer review.
I am  not that crazy num, to sit there all day posting things from a random code generator on the intenet, so please , please dont put me to that level. And F*&^% you , do what ever you want with db, peer review what ever you want from any "good scientific research" you want, I am not comming back unless I have want to post FirstBotEvolved or somthing.

[Botsareus]

The problem is Bots' ideas aren't grounded in reality.

Your c%#$# is not grounded in reality.

difficult to work with

more like impossible to work with.

specifically non-scientist types)

Yes, from now on I will be a non-scientest type as well, turns out the best way to get trough life is to isolate yourself completly from it in all aspects.

FUCKING-A  THE ONLY THING LEFT THAT I WAS EVER GOOD AT WAS BEING AN EMATURE FUCKING-A SCIENTEST

[Botsareus]

random crap generator:  generation based oxilirating mutations, No research? You got to be kidding me big shwag, The only way keeping the Goodfactor charts from constantly declining was this method... enough sayed , time to prosue new aspects, like say evolving first bot just because it does not involve dealing with people.