Re: Pixel Bot Wars -Reply
- Posted by C & K L <candk at TICNET.COM> Nov 06, 1998
- 518 views
Jay Turley wrote: > > Some points for all interested parties to consider. We have two different > ideas competing for realization here. First of all, Irv's original problem > simply asked, who can use the least "real" processing time getting their > pixel from start to finish. Now, with the additional suggestions and I don't quite completely comprehend the idea of using the "least real processing time." (see below for more) > hoopla, the current problem is that of creating a complete maze-racing > environment where "real" processing time is no longer a consideration. I Are you talking about getting there faster, or getting there more efficiently? > the "virtual" processors of the robots, in order to achieve equity. My > original problem (and it still stands) is that my super-light no-weapons > wall-following bot that takes X "real" processing time to calculate each > new move could conceivably be beaten to the finish line by a hulking > behemoth that takes 100X "real" processing time to calculate each move, Okay, so a slower algoritm on a faster computer would beat your fast algoritm on a slow computer? Is that what you're saying? I did a wall-following bot as well, and I doubt a faster routine could be configured... There are optimizations I'm making, but I don't know really how much faster it can be... That's why we need more complex mazes than originally provided. > Now, creating the robot would be a matter of balancing sensors, > weapons, and armor against the resulting movement/turning ability, and > then coding the actual robotic logic. That it has become. I guess the bot.exe's could spit out something like this: For the next cycle (consisting of, say, ten clicks), my bot will: { MOVE_FORWARD, --taking up one click (of ten) MOVE_FORWARD, --taking up one click (of ten) MOVE_FORWARD, --taking up one click (of ten) TURN_RIGHT, --taking up half or one click (of ten) READY_WEAPON, --Now this is getting too complicated FIRE_WHEN_READY, --etc... } Excellent stuff. Keep it comin'.