Revisit

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Saw Roboflight for the first time now. Interesting concept.

I would like if robots mimic some kind of air/space vehicle people are familiar with. Like Robocode robots mimic tanks.

MN (talk)03:17, 2 October 2013

It is kind of shocking how many programming games stick with tanks. I can appreciate keeping it simple - manually controlling a real aircraft in 3D would be pretty challenging, before even getting to any strategy or learning. But I'm sure controlling a real tank would be challenging too.

Voidious (talk)16:20, 2 October 2013
 

Maybe helicopters? But I don't know where thrust would fit.

MN (talk)23:27, 2 October 2013

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

  • The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.
  • You must confirm your email address before editing pages. Please set and validate your email address through your user preferences.

You can view and copy the source of this page.

Return to Thread:User talk:Chase-san/Roboflight/Revisit/reply (7).

 

Something I realized in hindsight with BerryBots is that a simpler API doesn't necessarily mean that it's simpler for the client of the API. In many cases, even the opposite. Consider that the "API" (instruction set) of a CPU is a hell of a lot simpler than the Java API, but for any real application I'd much rather be working with the latter. I kept the movement API in BerryBots to a single method to fire a thruster that alters your trajectory, but as a consequence you have to kind of understand vectors to make full use of it.

I'm not saying that you should make a user deal with complex 3-D physics or anything, just that there's a sweet spot.

Voidious (talk)04:05, 3 October 2013

Well I think vectors is the simplest way to approach 3D movement unfortunately. Though I could make it more like Robocodes movement, where you only move the distance you specify (in a vector).

Chase05:42, 3 October 2013