User talk:AaronR

Wow, does that page layout actually work in your browser without overlaps? That requires a 1100 px (Safari) or 1180 px (FireFox) wide browser for me, which I wouldn't be using no matter what resolution I'm in. :-P I think 800 px is a normal min width to design for. --Voidious 02:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My resolution is 1440x900, so I can get my browser down to 4/5 of my screen width without any overlap whatsoever (plus, I always keep my browser window maximized and just use tabs). Still, I suppose it is kind of ridiculous... --AaronR 02:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanx AaronR for pointing out what I should have done with those Oscillator pages in the first place. It is just that the 'old' wiki is the only one I know and I am not used to all the possibilities of the new one yet. -- GrubbmGait

You're welcome. =) --AaronR 01:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I added a template page for userboxes, so you can use the syntax you're used to from Wikipedia. See it at Template:Userbox. I haven't added documentation to the template page yet, that would require another template. -- Synapse 04:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Credits for the CacheCleaner for Robocode

I am currently integrating your CacheCleaner for cleaning the robots folder for RoboRumble into Robocode. I should like to add your real name instead of your username (AaronR) to the credits and source header. Do you want me to put your full name into the credits or "just" your username? If you want to use your full name, what is your name then? =) --Fnl 20:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, since I contribute to the Wikipedia page on Robocode under my full name, I don't imagine it would take much trouble to figure it out, would it? =) --AaronR 00:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Rotenberg! That was one of the places I hadn't looked yet. =) Thank you for all of your contributions, especially with this new Wiki and also the Robocode Wikipedia page =) --Fnl 14:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Much thanks from me, too! Your help has been invaluable in getting the new wiki going, both with your contributions and your knowledge of MediaWiki / wiki practice. --Voidious 15:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Anytime. =) The new wiki is going to be "ready" soon, so let's keep at it! --AaronR 16:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Nice to see you are back! Hope you didn't just visit-and-gone-again like ABC =) » Nat | Talk » 09:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast! =D « AaronR « Talk « 09:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You are faster on this (but you have orange bar to tell you). But by the way, I stole your signature =) » Nat | Talk » 09:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That's OK, your arrows point the other way! <insert yet another smiley here> « AaronR « Talk « 09:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back! I've been thinking of you recently while I migrate content. =) Btw, you might be curious to know that Horizon barely missed the cut when selecting bots for the new Anti-Surfer Challenge. --Voidious 15:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The new version certainly wouldn't cut it for that challenge, it's way too slow. I think I'll be asking around for ideas on how to speed it up without losing battle performance. « AaronR « Talk « 19:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you already use this trick, but it can help a lot. You say you precise predict two waves, and I assume you sum the dangers for each one. Well, after you predict the first wave for a movement option, you could check if the danger from that alone is already greater than the lowest danger you've found so far in your other movement options; if it is, no need to predict the second wave at all. If you weight the waves by distance or bullet time, this will happen a lot. Going further, you can always first calculate the danger of the movement option that was safest the previous time. (Props to Krabb for originally showing me this.) --Voidious 20:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah! That will probably help a lot. I'll implement that now and see how much faster it is. (By the way, currently I'm just weighting the waves by a fixed factor--i.e. the wave that will hit second counts half as much as the wave that will hit first. I haven't tweaked that constant at all since it was introduced.) « AaronR « Talk « 20:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that got 10 rounds of Horizon 1.1 ditto down from 65 seconds to 43 seconds. It's still way slower than I'd like though. Making it surf only one wave brings it down to 32, which is still slow, so I get the feeling that I need to optimize elsewhere, too. « AaronR « Talk « 21:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

For comparison, the previous version, 1.03, does a 10 round mirror match in 10-12 seconds. The only thing I changed that would make any speed difference is the surfing danger function. « AaronR « Talk « 21:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The other big speed optimization for DC surfing is to cache the nearest neighbors (aka scan cluster, aka similar situations). Do you do that already? You certainly don't need to recalculate them each tick. I calculate and cache the neighbors for each wave if they are not cached, then clear the caches when I'm hit, I detect an onBulletHitBullet, or the first wave I'm surfing changes. --Voidious 21:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that would speed things up... but that's not the problem. Like I said, the only difference between 1.03 and 1.1 is the WS danger function. By the time I start precise prediction, I've already calculated a GF array and I'm just passing that around. Thanks for the suggestion, though--I'll implement that, too. « AaronR « Talk « 21:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Leave of absence

While everyone's talking about resurrected Robocoders, don't forget that I'm still around! I just haven't had any time lately because of school. I have this great^{[citation needed]} idea for a new^{[citation needed]} strategy for melee movement, but I refuse to work on any new bots until I figure out what I broke in the last version of Horizon! And since I can't find anything obvious in the diffs, you probably won't hear much from me for a while... « AaronR « Talk « 18:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I sure haven't forgotten... Horizon 1.1.1b is currently one of Dookious' 5 losses. :-P --Voidious 18:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)