Return to “General”

Post

Re: Proof

#151
Philip Coutts wrote:Holy walls of text batman!

All I have to say is this: For the believer, no proof is required. For the non-believer proof will never be enough
The second part of that is nonsense. If it isn't enough, it's not proof.
Post

Re: Proof

#152
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Hyperion wrote: First question, I assume that debris fields, while created upon the destruction of ships and stations, their "Wallet" would never replenish, correct? The Field manager may allocate different proportions of the field value to different artificial objects, (whose total value is some % of the objects before their destruction), and that how that value is divided up between salvage ore, artificial objects, data logs, etc. would just be shuffled around for each visit, no?
and how would this behave for mixed-faction debris fields?
Say a battlefield between two factions.
Both have their own tech and thus equipment.

With random shuffling ships of one faction could end up with equipment of the other one.
giving immersion and suspension of disbelief quite a hit.
Obviously combat-generated debris fields in general need some rules for generating. Off the cuff, something like
  • Debris shall contain only stuff that was present in an item that was destroyed.
  • The amount of stuff in the debris shall be the amount of stuff in the item, minus some percentage of (permanently lost) wreckage.
  • Some stuff may be converted to lesser stuff when blown up, such as ship's hull => wreck (can only be recycled).
I think a few such rules are a good start to limit the composition of the debris to something believable. RNGesus can do the rest :angel: .
Post

Re: Proof

#153
insta wrote:So, once a BP has gone out of use, the next BP down the chain should have its properties fixed and saved and can then be set as the new root BP.
Some kind of blueprint garbage collection/compaction is probably a good idea. (But KISS.)

Always keep the pathological case in mind. Imagine an AI with a root blueprint that decides it should be moved, so they copy it and ship off the original only for it to be destroyed in transit. So they make copy #2 and ship off copy #1 which gets destroyed in transit. So they make copy #3 ... etc etc. Repeat x10,000 and now you have to traverse a len(x) == 10000 linked list of blueprints every time any data in any future copy of the blueprint is needed. Simply 'rolling up' data from a parent blueprint into a child when parent doesn't exist anymore and refcount == 1 would help keep the tree from getting too deep. Don't underestimate an AI's ability to get itself stuck in a loop. :lol:
Post

Re: Proof

#154
infogulch wrote:
insta wrote:So, once a BP has gone out of use, the next BP down the chain should have its properties fixed and saved and can then be set as the new root BP.
Some kind of blueprint garbage collection/compaction is probably a good idea. (But KISS.)
But sometimes, complex is just cooler. :ghost:
Image The results of logic, of natural progression? Boring! An expected result? Dull! An obvious next step? Pfui! Where is the fun in that? A dream may soothe, but our nightmares make us run!
Post

Re: Proof

#156
Cornflakes_91 wrote:erm... if a straight up unmodified copy creates an extra link that needs to be traversed you are doing it wrong
Sorry if I used the wrong terminology, but I'm talking about pathological cases here and you're dodging the point. To mimic terminology from Josh's post, just substitute every instance of "copy" in my post with "derive".

Edit: Anyways, my overall point was a light reminder for Josh to not ignore algorithmic complexity, even if he's got the data storage problem solved with tiny derived blueprints. :)
Post

Re: Proof

#157
Philip Coutts wrote:Holy walls of text batman!
These aren't the walls of text you're looking for.

These are:
:lol:

Actually... hey, mods! What is the longest serious (i.e., not copy-pasted or embedded-image) post that anyone has written here in the LT forums?
Victor Tombs wrote:So how come I can't get a simple one line answer to a question about the presence or absence of of immersive speech in Limit Theory? Do we get a Bitching Betty, chatter or anything at all related to this immersive element which can be found in practically every space game now? :angel:
Victor, I hope you won't mind that I took the liberty of creating a poll on this subject.

It's absolutely not intended as a (not very) subtle way of criticizing what you want. I really am just curious to learn what the fans of LT think.
Post

Re: Proof

#158
Pretty sure my longest post ever was 5200 words, thankfully divided into spoilered sections for easy digestion :shock:
Image
Challenging your assumptions is good for your health, good for your business, and good for your future. Stay skeptical but never undervalue the importance of a new and unfamiliar perspective.
Imagination Fertilizer
Beauty may not save the world, but it's the only thing that can
Post

Re: Proof

#160
Flatfingers wrote:
Victor Tombs wrote:So how come I can't get a simple one line answer to a question about the presence or absence of of immersive speech in Limit Theory? Do we get a Bitching Betty, chatter or anything at all related to this immersive element which can be found in practically every space game now? :angel:
Victor, I hope you won't mind that I took the liberty of creating a poll on this subject.

It's absolutely not intended as a (not very) subtle way of criticizing what you want. I really am just curious to learn what the fans of LT think.
The only reply I would make to this, Flat would be along the lines of:

If you want to see a game out of the box that only appeals to hardcore nerdy types then produce it without speech. The only recommendation for it will be that it lacks what every other modern Freelancer type game has.

And, the game itself will be even further from the game I want to play. Luckily for me, Limit Theory isn't the only contender for my attention nowadays. I don't come here primarily for Limit Theory updates but to mix with a small group of like minded and rather special members.

The other problem with polls here is that not enough members/backers turn up to vote on such things. In fact we still see vastly more guests than we ever see registered members. I believe the forums would probably be dead and buried if it wasn't for the efforts of a few. I'm looking at you primarily, Nathan. :angel:
Post

Re: Proof

#161
Victor Tombs wrote:I'm glad Thymine got a mention. :thumbup: :)
:thumbup:
+1
Thymine had some wonderful thoughts (including diagrams) of numerous theorycraftings, that should not be lost with time.
Is there any way to group all of Thymine's relevant posts and sticky it to a Theory Crafting thread? I've no idea if one exists already. :shifty:
We can then add Josh's responses as a separate sticky thread for ease of access.
Philip Coutts wrote:Holy walls of text batman!

All I have to say is this: For the believer, no proof is required. For the non-believer proof will never be enough
However, proof can be shown in action by a text field generator that shows the "brains" working of a specific AI, much like how Josh wanted to show us how the AI was "thinking" in one of his month updates (edit incoming when I find the vid :ugeek:

Josh, we love when you chat about these topics with your wonderful insight.
It proves that you are progressing towards your normal self and should help limit your worries and fears when you read the comments from your loyal fans ( :D )

<3

EDIT:
Flat, you're a star, exactly what I was thinking above :D
YAY PYTHON \o/

In Josh We Trust
-=326.3827=-
Post

Re: Proof

#162
I will also add that my opinions here have no more validity than the opinions of any other member. I don't have the ear of the king on anything related to Limit Theory content.

But the majority of you have probably worked that one out for yourselves. :angel:
Post

Re: Proof

#163
Flatfingers wrote:
Actually... hey, mods! What is the longest serious (i.e., not copy-pasted or embedded-image) post that anyone has written here in the LT forums?.
Pretty sure that would be one of my REKT posts. I frequently have to split them into multiple parts. Longest set was 10k+ words - not counting the spoilered, quoted portions.
Have a question? Send me a PM! || I have a Patreon page up for REKT now! || People talking in IRC over the past two hours: Image
Image
Image
Post

Re: Proof

#164
JoshParnell wrote:
I think you've got most of the general idea, but I'll explain the actual implementation anyway (and why it is efficient). A blueprint is a pointer to another blueprint (its 'parent' or parent directory in your model), plus a list of attribute operations (you can think of that as a very, very limited script, but really it's better thought of as a 'diff' between the parent blueprint and itself -- an object-attribute-space differential, so-to-speak).
For those interested in the concept, it's more or less the Flyweight pattern (Josh implementation might be different, of course) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyweight_pattern
Post

Re: Proof

#165
Mordakai wrote:
Philip Coutts wrote:Holy walls of text batman!

All I have to say is this: For the believer, no proof is required. For the non-believer proof will never be enough
The second part of that is nonsense. If it isn't enough, it's not proof.
Erm this was tongue in cheek but for arguments sake there are still people who think the world is flat or that the moon is a projection in the sky. Like I say for some people no matter what you tell them or what proof you provide them with it's never enough.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

cron