Difference between revisions of "Talk:Anti-Gravity Tutorial"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(explanation for the situation) |
(agreed on checking angles; and thanks =)) |
||
| 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) | ||
| + | |||
| + | : Yeah, it's actually a little simpler than what you have here. For each enemy, something like: | ||
| + | <pre> | ||
| + | xForce += Math.sin(absBearing + Math.PI) / (distance * distance); | ||
| + | yForce += Math.cos(absBearing + Math.PI) / (distance * distance); | ||
| + | </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) | 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) | :: 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) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Also: thanks for posting, that was pretty quick. =) --[[User:Voidious|Voidious]] 15:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 16:57, 21 January 2010
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--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. --Rednaxela 02:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's actually a little simpler than what you have here. For each enemy, something like:
xForce += Math.sin(absBearing + Math.PI) / (distance * distance); yForce += Math.cos(absBearing + Math.PI) / (distance * distance);
- 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 min risk territory, and not traditional AG. --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. --Nat Pavasant 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. --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. --Nat Pavasant 15:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Also: thanks for posting, that was pretty quick. =) --Voidious 15:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
