Archived talk:User:Nat 20090620
| Archived discussion: 2009/04/06 |
Old discussion archived, page is a lot smaller. » Nat | Talk » 11:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Why I can't download robot from repository with my Firefox? I can download with IE, but my download manager is linked with Firefox. » Nat | Talk » 06:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
It works fine in Firefox here, to me it sounds like your download manager might be the issue. --Rednaxela 14:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
It's FlashGet via FlashGot. Just look at raw HTTP request sending, it actually work, but Firefox deesn't open its download windows :-( Saw some interesting header:
HTTP/1.1 302 Moved Temporarily
... which should be ...
HTTP/1.1 302 Found
... instead. This may course error I think. (also misspelling) » Nat | Talk » 15:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
(Is there any general discussion page?)
Just want to know, are there any female robocoder? (Don't count Martin's Family here) » Nat | Talk » 08:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
For a time Chase-san's sister was robocoding, also I mentioned robocode to one female friend and recently she started toying with it a little, but I'm unsure if it'll hold her interest for long or if she'll become involved with the robowiki comunity --Rednaxela 14:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
This mean none of you are female, right? In fact, I mentioned robocode to a lot of people in Thailand. Guys seem interest, but girls never ever interested :-( Anyway, I still can't bring any Thai to robocode community, or even start programming AdvancedRobot (they stuck with Robot) (until I finish translate Thai RoboWiki I think) » Nat | Talk » 15:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The Wisdom of Crowds
Do anyone have a copy of this book? If anyone has, please explain breifly about it? Actually, I want a soft copy of it, but it has 366 pages. I've search through Google Books but no preview avaliable, and search though my country book store but same result too. » Nat | Talk » 06:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Do anyone have a copy of this book?
Short distance?
Distancing is one of important part of robot. Almost every robot will keep its distance about 400-550 depend on author. Some may have dynamic distancing, too. But, I think, do short distance have advantage? I try to move closer to enemy. If he try to controlled his distance too, he will step backward, and I will step forward, and he will step again backward. This can result in getting cornered (for enemy). Anyone has ideas? » Nat | Talk » 10:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
There are a variety of reasons for long distances being used, but perhaps the most significant, is that long distances like that tend to be rather advantageous when your bot has better targeting/movement than the opponant, and short distances better when your bot is known to have inferior targeting/movement. This is due to short distancces resulting in more 'lucky' hits. Since people usually try to make bots with targeting/movement better than the vast majority of bots, they'll tend to use long distances because that helps against the majority of bots on the field. --Rednaxela 14:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The reason I think this because of Shadow (!!!) He get Phoenix stuck in corner (but not enough to trigger his corner escape mode) for a long time by distance at about 300, Phoenix usually stay at 475. Perhaps my new robot will take 325 a try. OK, I understand about long distance, but too long distance is not very good, huh? » Nat | Talk » 15:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe The main disadvantage of too long distance when your targeting/movevment is better than the enemy's, is that it forces you to have too much wall-interaction/smoothing, which makes one more predictable. --Rednaxela 18:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Melee GuessFactor
| |
|
Just a question, how can you do a Play-It Forward with missed scan? Or you just interpolated? And does this work for GF, too? --Nat Yes, you can interpolate. If you use a 'fast' play it forward method that uses uses absolute locations you can just linearly interpolate because any error will be completely corrected the next time a real scan is read. I wouldn't suggest using GF for melee, although it definitely works... Kev's bot for example. -- Skilgannon I'm trying some DC-GF in melee. I know it definitely works because of Conriantumr?, which do interpolate, too. About the "And does this work for GF, too", I don't mean interpolate, I mean to project each GF and do same thing as ABS mentioned. Another thing, if I put 100 Shadows into one 1000x1000 battle, will it skip a ton of turns? --Nat Yes, this method would work with GFs instead, the trouble is it won't hit bots like Walls Spinbot etc as well as PIF. You just need to turn it into an absolute angle, stick them all in an array or some other equivalent, and weight them by distance. -- Skilgannon | |
|
Some tough on this. If we use enemy heading, enemy relative heading as input for DC (or as a segment), will it hit Walls or SpinBot better? You just think as same as mine (OK, I'ven't read your comment on angle before), trying to implements this on TheRiver :-) » Nat | Talk » 09:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Getting DC with GF to hit SpinBot is very difficult, you need to segment on relative heading (or lateral+advancing velocity) and distance and only fire at the 1 closest previous scan. Hitting Walls with GF is easy, I think corner-distance and lateral-velocity are the most important. If you are using Play-It-Forward SpinBot should get hit always no matter what you segment on, but Walls would probably be the same as GF, although perhaps more accurate if you do bounds checking to eliminate possible angles. I don't think enemy heading (not relative) is ever really useful. --Skilgannon 20:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, since usual melee bots won't move perpendicular to us, is it a good ideas to segment on a thing that relative to me? Such as Lateral Velocity, Advancing Velocity? I have tough of some kind of melee wave, if I always fire a wave at center of the battle, collect the GF. When fire, projected enemy location from center of field and get firing angle. Will this way hit wall/spinbot/corner movement better? » Nat | Talk » 07:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
