Jump to content
IGNORED

genetic algorithm car physics (update: version 2!)


chaosmachine

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

it's interesting, the cars actually become more aesthetically pleasing over time.

it's not that surprising really. cars are car-shaped because there's not really that many practical shapes to be made for a four (or in this case, two) wheeled vehicle with a low centre of gravity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dirty Protest

Ever get the feeling youve been cheated. Ive had this running through The Smell of Reeves and Mortimer and a cup of tea, so all in all about 45 mins. So at generation 67 its still spunking out monoliths with spinning tops. Every now and again it flukes a car shape and judging from the graph at about gen 30 its went about 230, but apart from the one freak its constantly been a bit shat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, i'm on gen 13 and have yet to get past it.

also i know what you mean about emotional investment... every time some improbably shaped fuckup actually gets anywhere, i find myself rooting for the underdog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the evolution seems to show a sharp tail-off over generations (in other words the really important stuff happens in the first 5 or 6 gens). this makes perfect sense with regards to random evolution if you think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest analogue wings

the evolution seems to show a sharp tail-off over generations (in other words the really important stuff happens in the first 5 or 6 gens). this makes perfect sense with regards to random evolution if you think about it.

 

:facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the evolution seems to show a sharp tail-off over generations (in other words the really important stuff happens in the first 5 or 6 gens). this makes perfect sense with regards to random evolution if you think about it.

 

:facepalm:

 

if you take a random poly with a set number of vertices and distort it by a certain percentage with each mutation within a single generation - choosing the one that performs best as the progenitor of the next iteration - and with a limit on the amount of deformation allowed (5% the default here), then what i said above makes perfect sense. diminishing returns on each mutation.

 

maybe i wasn't clear enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.