Talk:Anti-Gravity Tutorial - Revision history

RednaxelaBot: Using .

2010-07-01T08:32:58Z

Using <syntaxhighlight>.

CrazyBassoonist: Thanks!

2010-01-21T22:05:14Z

Thanks!

Rednaxela: About enemy point tracking

2010-01-21T21:06:12Z

About enemy point tracking

Nat: aye

2010-01-21T16:31:11Z

aye

Rednaxela: quick reply

2010-01-21T16:17:06Z

quick reply

Voidious: agreed on checking angles; and thanks =)

2010-01-21T15:57:19Z

agreed on checking angles; and thanks =)

Nat: explanation for the situation

2010-01-21T15:46:39Z

explanation for the situation

Voidious: pseudocode vs bot building

2010-01-21T15:22:49Z

pseudocode vs bot building

Nat: Tutorial should involve create a robot

2010-01-21T14:14:08Z

Tutorial should involve create a robot

Rednaxela: A quick note

2010-01-21T02:48:20Z

A quick note

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 : Yeah, it's actually a little simpler than what you have here. For each enemy, something like:
-<pre>
+<syntaxhighlight>
 xForce += Math.sin(absBearing + Math.PI) / (distance * distance);
 yForce += Math.cos(absBearing + Math.PI) / (distance * distance);
-</pre>
+</syntaxhighlight>
 : Then just move in the direction of the resulting force. Not to say that checking angles is wrong (or even likely to give a different result), but it's veering into [[Minimum Risk Movement|min risk]] territory, and not traditional AG. --[[User:Voidious|Voidious]] 15:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 :: Indeed, like that. In this case, checking angles gives a... similar result, except 1) less precise, and 2) rotates to a sane angle if the forces are *perfectly* blanced, but that's unlikely and normally non-issue anyway. If there are no objections soon I'll modify it to use the vector summing approach. As a side note, I'd also say that using a try/catch instead of an explicit null check is... disagreeable code style. --[[User:Rednaxela|Rednaxela]] 16:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 :: Aye. It should be either like that or
-<pre>
+<syntaxhighlight>
 xForce -= Math.sin(absBearing) / (distance * distance);
 yForce -= Math.cos(absBearing) / (distance * distance);
-</pre>
+</syntaxhighlight>
 :: And use <code>Math.atan2(xForce, yForce)</code> to get the direction of the result vector. --[[User:Nat|<span style="color:#099;">Nat</span>]] [[User talk:Nat|<span style="color:#0a5;">Pavasant</span>]] 16:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:05, 21 January 2010
Line 27:		Line 27:

	One note about the enemy tracking this tutorial suggests: The approach it uses only really works when one is very certain that enemies will be scanned in the same order each time around. It can have significant anomalies with a non-spinning radar, and even with a spinning radar the order changing could cause the bot to move oddly every so often. I'd only consider using that type of approach in a highly codesize-restricted bot. Do others approve of changing it to a slightly more advanced system for tracking the enemy points without such issues? :) --[[User:Rednaxela\|Rednaxela]] 21:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)		One note about the enemy tracking this tutorial suggests: The approach it uses only really works when one is very certain that enemies will be scanned in the same order each time around. It can have significant anomalies with a non-spinning radar, and even with a spinning radar the order changing could cause the bot to move oddly every so often. I'd only consider using that type of approach in a highly codesize-restricted bot. Do others approve of changing it to a slightly more advanced system for tracking the enemy points without such issues? :) --[[User:Rednaxela\|Rednaxela]] 21:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
		+
		+	Well, thanks for correcting the page! About the enemy tracking, I did point out that it would only work with spinning radar, and would occasionally cause problems. I just used it because it's extremely simple, and making a decent enemy tracking system in melee can get awfully complex. But yes, I would support changing it if anyone else feels like it--[[User:CrazyBassoonist\|CrazyBassoonist]] 22:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:06, 21 January 2010
Line 25:		Line 25:

	Also: thanks for posting, that was pretty quick. =) --[[User:Voidious\|Voidious]] 15:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)		Also: thanks for posting, that was pretty quick. =) --[[User:Voidious\|Voidious]] 15:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
		+
		+	One note about the enemy tracking this tutorial suggests: The approach it uses only really works when one is very certain that enemies will be scanned in the same order each time around. It can have significant anomalies with a non-spinning radar, and even with a spinning radar the order changing could cause the bot to move oddly every so often. I'd only consider using that type of approach in a highly codesize-restricted bot. Do others approve of changing it to a slightly more advanced system for tracking the enemy points without such issues? :) --[[User:Rednaxela\|Rednaxela]] 21:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 : Then just move in the direction of the resulting force. Not to say that checking angles is wrong (or even likely to give a different result), but it's veering into [[Minimum Risk Movement|min risk]] territory, and not traditional AG. --[[User:Voidious|Voidious]] 15:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 :: Indeed, like that. In this case, checking angles gives a... similar result, except 1) less precise, and 2) rotates to a sane angle if the forces are *perfectly* blanced, but that's unlikely and normally non-issue anyway. If there are no objections soon I'll modify it to use the vector summing approach. As a side note, I'd also say that using a try/catch instead of an explicit null check is... disagreeable code style. --[[User:Rednaxela|Rednaxela]] 16:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 In my thought a 'Tutorial' should involve creating a robot. I'll change it later when I have more time. --[[User:Nat|<span style="color:#099;">Nat</span>]] [[User talk:Nat|<span style="color:#0a5;">Pavasant</span>]] 14:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 </pre>
 : Then just move in the direction of the resulting force. Not to say that checking angles is wrong (or even likely to give a different result), but it's veering into [[Minimum Risk Movement|min risk]] territory, and not traditional AG. --[[User:Voidious|Voidious]] 15:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 In my thought a 'Tutorial' should involve creating a robot. I'll change it later when I have more time. --[[User:Nat|<span style="color:#099;">Nat</span>]] [[User talk:Nat|<span style="color:#0a5;">Pavasant</span>]] 14:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 One quick note, is I'm pretty sure the "check various angles" approach is very much not the traditional anti-grav approach, and is closer to min-risk movements actually. The 'traditional' anti-grav approach is simply summing up a 2d total force vector rather than checking angles. --[[User:Rednaxela|Rednaxela]] 02:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 In my thought a 'Tutorial' should involve creating a robot. I'll change it later when I have more time. --[[User:Nat|<span style="color:#099;">Nat</span>]] [[User talk:Nat|<span style="color:#0a5;">Pavasant</span>]] 14:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
@@ Line 8: / Line 15: @@
 :: I am not really sure, but I for one only think of advanced tutorial at that time of discussion. I myself prefer pseudocode for advanced tutorial, and bot building for basic tutorial. I don't believe pseudocode is suitable in such situation -- it won't make more sense than just literal explanation. But for advanced techniques, sometimes you can't explain it with literal explanation, and giving the code is just spoil, so I prefer pseudocode. Any one agree with me on this? And since this article cover from data gathering, I consider this a 'basic' tutorial. --[[User:Nat|<span style="color:#099;">Nat</span>]] [[User talk:Nat|<span style="color:#0a5;">Pavasant</span>]] 15:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:46, 21 January 2010
Line 6:		Line 6:

	: I'm not sure everyone agrees (though I think that is a good style). When we discussed tutorial style on [[Category talk:Tutorials]], it seemed most people preferred to have pseudocode tutorials, not the explicit bot building style I use in the [[Wave Surfing Tutorial]]. --[[User:Voidious\|Voidious]] 15:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)		: I'm not sure everyone agrees (though I think that is a good style). When we discussed tutorial style on [[Category talk:Tutorials]], it seemed most people preferred to have pseudocode tutorials, not the explicit bot building style I use in the [[Wave Surfing Tutorial]]. --[[User:Voidious\|Voidious]] 15:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
		+
		+	:: I am not really sure, but I for one only think of advanced tutorial at that time of discussion. I myself prefer pseudocode for advanced tutorial, and bot building for basic tutorial. I don't believe pseudocode is suitable in such situation -- it won't make more sense than just literal explanation. But for advanced techniques, sometimes you can't explain it with literal explanation, and giving the code is just spoil, so I prefer pseudocode. Any one agree with me on this? And since this article cover from data gathering, I consider this a 'basic' tutorial. --[[User:Nat\|<span style="color:#099;">Nat</span>]] [[User talk:Nat\|<span style="color:#0a5;">Pavasant</span>]] 15:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:22, 21 January 2010
Line 4:		Line 4:

	In my thought a 'Tutorial' should involve creating a robot. I'll change it later when I have more time. --[[User:Nat\|<span style="color:#099;">Nat</span>]] [[User talk:Nat\|<span style="color:#0a5;">Pavasant</span>]] 14:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)		In my thought a 'Tutorial' should involve creating a robot. I'll change it later when I have more time. --[[User:Nat\|<span style="color:#099;">Nat</span>]] [[User talk:Nat\|<span style="color:#0a5;">Pavasant</span>]] 14:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
		+
		+	: I'm not sure everyone agrees (though I think that is a good style). When we discussed tutorial style on [[Category talk:Tutorials]], it seemed most people preferred to have pseudocode tutorials, not the explicit bot building style I use in the [[Wave Surfing Tutorial]]. --[[User:Voidious\|Voidious]] 15:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:14, 21 January 2010
Line 2:		Line 2:

	One quick note, is I'm pretty sure the "check various angles" approach is very much not the traditional anti-grav approach, and is closer to min-risk movements actually. The 'traditional' anti-grav approach is simply summing up a 2d total force vector rather than checking angles. --[[User:Rednaxela\|Rednaxela]] 02:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)		One quick note, is I'm pretty sure the "check various angles" approach is very much not the traditional anti-grav approach, and is closer to min-risk movements actually. The 'traditional' anti-grav approach is simply summing up a 2d total force vector rather than checking angles. --[[User:Rednaxela\|Rednaxela]] 02:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
		+
		+	In my thought a 'Tutorial' should involve creating a robot. I'll change it later when I have more time. --[[User:Nat\|<span style="color:#099;">Nat</span>]] [[User talk:Nat\|<span style="color:#0a5;">Pavasant</span>]] 14:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:48, 21 January 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I'm posting this in it's current form because it took me a lot longer to write than I thought it would, and I don't want to lose all of my work. I would appreciate any ways people could improve it; please go ahead and change anything you can! I'm not exactly a Robocode guru, and there's still stuff that needs to be added to this--[[User:CrazyBassoonist\|CrazyBassoonist]] 02:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)		I'm posting this in it's current form because it took me a lot longer to write than I thought it would, and I don't want to lose all of my work. I would appreciate any ways people could improve it; please go ahead and change anything you can! I'm not exactly a Robocode guru, and there's still stuff that needs to be added to this--[[User:CrazyBassoonist\|CrazyBassoonist]] 02:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
		+
		+	One quick note, is I'm pretty sure the "check various angles" approach is very much not the traditional anti-grav approach, and is closer to min-risk movements actually. The 'traditional' anti-grav approach is simply summing up a 2d total force vector rather than checking angles. --[[User:Rednaxela\|Rednaxela]] 02:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)