Talk:Bullet Shielding - Revision history

Ncj: /* No practical need to adjust the bullet power */

2011-02-04T05:58:40Z

No practical need to adjust the bullet power

Ncj at 05:56, 4 February 2011

2011-02-04T05:56:33Z

Urgood2 at 11:21, 26 April 2010

2010-04-26T11:21:19Z

Urgood2 at 11:20, 26 April 2010

2010-04-26T11:20:21Z

Urgood2 at 11:18, 26 April 2010

2010-04-26T11:18:34Z

Nat: /* Multiple bullets? */ yes and no

2010-04-24T05:24:28Z

Multiple bullets?: yes and no

Voidious: /* Multiple bullets? */ no idea =)

2010-04-23T20:52:17Z

Multiple bullets?: no idea =)

Starrynte: multiple bullets?

2010-04-23T04:29:25Z

multiple bullets?

Nat: credit on talk page please

2009-09-08T02:46:24Z

credit on talk page please

Synapse: Interesting bit of old discussion migrated too

2009-09-08T00:30:35Z

Interesting bit of old discussion migrated too

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:58, 4 February 2011
Line 29:		Line 29:
	== No practical need to adjust the bullet power ==		== No practical need to adjust the bullet power ==
	In [[MoxieBot]], I found that the bullet shadows are usually smaller than the width of my bot, and that the increased shadow size given by 'centering' the collision didn't make up for the additional energy loss from firing a bullet of power greater than ".1".		In [[MoxieBot]], I found that the bullet shadows are usually smaller than the width of my bot, and that the increased shadow size given by 'centering' the collision didn't make up for the additional energy loss from firing a bullet of power greater than ".1".
		+	[[User:Ncj\|Ncj]] 05:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 ==Parametric equations?==
 How do I use "parametric equations"? Could someone explain this to me? For example, what kind of equations would I use the "center" the intersection point?
 --[[User:Urgood2|-- Josh S]] 11:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 ==Parametric equations?==
-How do I use "parametric equations"? Could someone explain this to me? For example, what kind of equations would I use the "center" the intersection point? Quote:
+How do I use "parametric equations"? Could someone explain this to me? For example, what kind of equations would I use the "center" the intersection point?
 --[[User:Urgood2|-- Josh S]] 11:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 ==Parametric equations?==
-How do I use "parametric equations"? Could someone explain this to me? For example, what kind of equations would I use the "center" the intersection point?
+How do I use "parametric equations"? Could someone explain this to me? For example, what kind of equations would I use the "center" the intersection point? Quote:
 --[[User:Urgood2|-- Josh S]] 11:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:18, 26 April 2010
Line 21:		Line 21:

	Voidious is correct and incorrect. Each bullet can only hit once, either other bullets, robots or wall. So if more than two bullets collide, each bullet will be paired with other bullets and the odd one is left. This happen randomly, so it is completely unpredictable which pair will collide. No, it can be easily tell from Robocode source. It is quite complicated and very modular. =) --[[User:Nat\|<span style="color:#099;">Nat</span>]] [[User talk:Nat\|<span style="color:#0a5;">Pavasant</span>]] 05:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)		Voidious is correct and incorrect. Each bullet can only hit once, either other bullets, robots or wall. So if more than two bullets collide, each bullet will be paired with other bullets and the odd one is left. This happen randomly, so it is completely unpredictable which pair will collide. No, it can be easily tell from Robocode source. It is quite complicated and very modular. =) --[[User:Nat\|<span style="color:#099;">Nat</span>]] [[User talk:Nat\|<span style="color:#0a5;">Pavasant</span>]] 05:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
		+
		+	==Parametric equations?==
		+	How do I use "parametric equations"? Could someone explain this to me? For example, what kind of equations would I use the "center" the intersection point?
		+	--[[User:Urgood2\|-- Josh S]] 11:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:24, 24 April 2010
Line 19:		Line 19:

	I actually have no idea. Both may be removed from consideration as soon as the collision is detected, but I dunno. I imagine you could easily tell from looking at the Robocode source. Or of course you could code up some bots that fire intersecting bullets and see what happens. =) --[[User:Voidious\|Voidious]] 20:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)		I actually have no idea. Both may be removed from consideration as soon as the collision is detected, but I dunno. I imagine you could easily tell from looking at the Robocode source. Or of course you could code up some bots that fire intersecting bullets and see what happens. =) --[[User:Voidious\|Voidious]] 20:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
		+
		+	Voidious is correct and incorrect. Each bullet can only hit once, either other bullets, robots or wall. So if more than two bullets collide, each bullet will be paired with other bullets and the odd one is left. This happen randomly, so it is completely unpredictable which pair will collide. No, it can be easily tell from Robocode source. It is quite complicated and very modular. =) --[[User:Nat\|<span style="color:#099;">Nat</span>]] [[User talk:Nat\|<span style="color:#0a5;">Pavasant</span>]] 05:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:52, 23 April 2010
Line 17:		Line 17:
	== Multiple bullets? ==		== Multiple bullets? ==
	Is it possible for more than 2 bullets to collide? And if so, how do the mechanics of that work? --[[User:Starrynte\|Starrynte]] 04:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)		Is it possible for more than 2 bullets to collide? And if so, how do the mechanics of that work? --[[User:Starrynte\|Starrynte]] 04:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
		+
		+	I actually have no idea. Both may be removed from consideration as soon as the collision is detected, but I dunno. I imagine you could easily tell from looking at the Robocode source. Or of course you could code up some bots that fire intersecting bullets and see what happens. =) --[[User:Voidious\|Voidious]] 20:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{CreditForOldWikiArticle
 | oldpage=BulletShielding
@@ Line 15: / Line 14: @@
 :::Interesting. Well, despite the past failures people have had with this, I'll probably give it a try some day just for fun. I think that somebody will manage to get this to add a tiny tiny fraction of score. Maybe 0.01 extra score in the RoboRumble will be achievable some day with this? :) -- [[User:Rednaxela|Rednalexa]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:46, 8 September 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+
		+	{{CreditForOldWikiArticle
		+	\| oldpage=BulletShielding
		+	\| author=[[User:Vuen\|Vuen]]
		+	}}
		+
	== Discussion from Old Wiki ==		== Discussion from Old Wiki ==
	I was just reading this, and thought of an idea: Instead of theming Firing/Movement? on bullet collisions like this, why not use this technique to enhance the existing methods of WaveSurfing? Basically, track movement of your own bullets, and check what "umbrellas" exist, and set the danger factor to 0 where it is covered by an "umbrella". A robot using this would be able to take advantage of these zero-danger locations while still using good movement when it can't get to these zero danger locations. You don't even to make the firing algorithm optimized for creating as much BulletShielding as possible, just just look at what lucky BulletShielding happens to exist. Perhaps this could be combined with firing that is designed to create more BulletShielding, but even without that you could use this to make WaveSurfing just a little bit smarter. -- [[User:Rednaxela\|Rednalexa]]		I was just reading this, and thought of an idea: Instead of theming Firing/Movement? on bullet collisions like this, why not use this technique to enhance the existing methods of WaveSurfing? Basically, track movement of your own bullets, and check what "umbrellas" exist, and set the danger factor to 0 where it is covered by an "umbrella". A robot using this would be able to take advantage of these zero-danger locations while still using good movement when it can't get to these zero danger locations. You don't even to make the firing algorithm optimized for creating as much BulletShielding as possible, just just look at what lucky BulletShielding happens to exist. Perhaps this could be combined with firing that is designed to create more BulletShielding, but even without that you could use this to make WaveSurfing just a little bit smarter. -- [[User:Rednaxela\|Rednalexa]]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 ::Well, even if the umbrellas are very narrow, it could still reduce the overall danger (both actual and calculated) across the width of the robot. Even if it wouldn't change the lowest danger location for the robot very often, every avoided bullet counts. Best of luck tring to implement this type of thing. I might give it a try once my WaveSurfing is working well enough to be worth looking for these smaller optimizations. -- [[User:Rednaxela|Rednalexa]]
-:I've tried this too, no success. I thought this could be a nice secret weapon, but it hat no impact on the score ;( But the idea of BulletShielding is fascinating, I tried it every once in a while :) --[[User:Krabb|Krabb]]
+::I've tried this too, no success. I thought this could be a nice secret weapon, but it hat no impact on the score ;( But the idea of BulletShielding is fascinating, I tried it every once in a while :) --[[User:Krabb|Krabb]]
-::Interesting. Well, despite the past failures people have had with this, I'll probably give it a try some day just for fun. I think that somebody will manage to get this to add a tiny tiny fraction of score. Maybe 0.01 extra score in the RoboRumble will be achievable some day with this? :) -- [[User:Rednaxela|Rednalexa]]
+:::Interesting. Well, despite the past failures people have had with this, I'll probably give it a try some day just for fun. I think that somebody will manage to get this to add a tiny tiny fraction of score. Maybe 0.01 extra score in the RoboRumble will be achievable some day with this? :) -- [[User:Rednaxela|Rednalexa]]