As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
Back when I was at school, I remember tinkering with a Mac game where you programmed little robots in a sort of pseudo-assembler language which could then battle each other. They could move themselves around the arena, look for opponents in different directions, and fire some sort of weapon. Pretty basic stuff, but I remember it quite fondly, even if I can't remember the name.
Are there any good modern day equivalents?
I used to have a lot of fun coding my own robot with Robocode in college.
It is Java based, the API is detailled and it's pretty easy to get a challenging robot up and running.
Here is an example :
public class MyFirstRobot extends Robot {
public void run() {
while (true) {
ahead(100);
turnGunRight(360);
back(100);
turnGunRight(360);
}
}
public void onScannedRobot(ScannedRobotEvent e) {
fire(1);
}
}
Just found Light Bot. Program your robot to move around and perform tasks to complete a puzzle. Even includes subroutines. Program the bot by dragging tiles into slots. The game is very polished.
Update Lightbot is now the most recent version of the game, and has versions specifically designed for kids ages 4-8 or ages 9+ (with no upper limit) and also features kind of an if
screen of lightbot 1 http://www.lostateminor.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/light-bot.jpg
I think the original game was called Core Wars (this Wikipedia article contains a lot of interesting links); there still seem to be programs and competitions around, for example at corewars.org. I never had the time to look into these games, but they seem like great fun.
In the flash game Manufactoria you "program" a factory by laying out the conveyor belts and switches in a way that's very similar to a FSM, but more powerful. This game is really great. Give it a try, especially if you're into formal languages and automata!
Manufactoria screen shot http://www.tomdalling.com/wp-content/uploads/manufactoria-bubble-sort.png
A game in which you have to graphically construct and train artificial neural networks in order to control a bug is Bug Brain.
Bug Brain screen shot http://www.infionline.net/~wtnewton/oldcomp/bugbrain.jpg
The game in question was definitely Robowar for the Mac. My son had a lot of fun with it and went on to program real robots.
As mentioned earlier by Proud, there is a wiki page for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoboWar
Although there has not been a lot of activity surrounding the game over the last few years, there was a tournament held recently, and there is a yahoo email group.
If you want to step away from your keyboard, Wizards of the Coast relased a game called RoboRally that is a combative programming board game.
http://www.wizards.com/roborally/
http://www.pythonchallenge.com/
highly addictive, and a great way to learn python
I'm surprised that Space Chem isn't mentioned yet. Programming with symbols, but programming nevertheless.
http://spacechemthegame.com/
Another good one is CEEBot. It teaches C / Java style programming in a fun, robot-programming kind of game. It is aimed at 10-15 year olds, but it is a good one.
Colobot
It's usually easy for new programmers to pick up on languages like C++ when you have a strong understanding of Java basics. Colobot allows you to program automated craft using a language almost identical to Java and to move, sense, and manipulate their environment in order to accomplish missions on a dangerous planet.
I was also keen on these kind of games. One modern example which I have used is http://www.robotbattle.com/. There are various others - for example the ones listed at http://www.google.com/Top/Games/Video_Games/Simulation/Programming_Games/Robotics/
Core Wars is the classic, of course. But Rocky's Boots is another one. Imagine! There was a time (1982) when you could sell a commercial game based on logic gates!
If you are willing to look at single player games like Light Bot and Manufactoria then I highly recommend RoboZZle. It has conditional commands which include function calls. This allows for complex stack manipulation. There are thousands of user created puzzles from pathetically obvious to mind blowing enigmas. They have recently added support for smartphones.
I also think The Codex of Alchemical Engineering is worth a look.
I think .NET Terrarium is one of the best 'learn-to-program' games for the .NET platform.
I like Ruby Warrior. It is still somewhat under development, but it is a great game with a clever interface.
Core Wars
There's also mySQLgame, I found it pretty amusing (shortly after finding out I suck).
Here's what Casual Gameplay has to say about it.
Kara is about programming a bug(!) coming up in various versions, e.g. Finite State Machine, Java, Turing Machine, Multithreading
Kara http://www.swisseduc.ch/compscience/karatojava/kara/icons/kara-worldeditor.gif
Planetwars is a game specifically written for Google Ai Contest, bots are controlling fleets for conquering planets, they support many languages
I'd say the most famous programming game there has been is the core wars. I don't know if you can still find active "rings" although there was a lot when I tried it some time ago (4 or 5 years).
I've never heard or Core Wars before, but it looks interesting. I do have to vouch for RoboCode, though. That's fun and challenging, especially if you have a group of people competing against either other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_(computer_game)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_2
There is also a great hacking game the name of which I simply cannot remember. Hrm.
Matt, I think the game you're referring to is CRobots (or one of its clones, perhaps -- my first contact was with PRobots, in Pascal, if I remember correctly). It was a lot of fun.
While it was more logic than programming per se, one I really enjoyed back in elementary school was Rocky's Boots. It had sensors, AND gates, OR gates, NOT gates, wires, timers, and all sorts of other stuff. Fantastic program for teaching a kid logic.
Go to the link and you can still play it!
Carnage Heart for PlayStation was fun. It would let you program little mechs to do battle using a flow diagram.
I have to give a shout out to RobotWar which was the first programming "game" that I played way back in the Apple II days. It was written by Silas Warner of Castle Wolfenstein fame.
I got myself addicted to uplink a few months ago. It's not really coding based, more hacking. It's still fun and super geeky.
Although not strictly programming-based, I enjoyed a lot Robot Odyssey, a game where you wired logic gates to sensors and motors in a robot, to make it move and react to environment, to get out of a city, escaping obstacles. I played in on Apple //e, it was one of the best games on this computer (with Lode Runner! :-)).
You must be thinking of RoboWar. Oh how lovely it is.
Still exists, though the community is slowly dying.
http://robowar.sourceforge.net/RoboWar5/index.html
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/robowar/
Related
I want to implement a conversation system into my RPG (trying to get advanced AI as possible). Conversation as in, the player types:
"Hi, I would like a beer"
and the bartender would respond with
"Coming right up"
and then hand the player a beer.
I've got some ideas and some things I'd like to try, but first I would like to look at what's already been done. But extensive Googling does not turn up anything, so I'm wondering: has this been done or is there research being done in it? (I know this is very complicated, but I'm willing to give it a shot.)
Sure it has. Have a look at the "Eliza" program and its descendants. There's also a Wiki article on chatterbots that might interest you. Have a look at AIML as a way to represent the rules you might use.
For an advanced design, look up the game "Façade". The game's site describes the technologies used and gives links to relevant papers. There was also recently an extensive article in Gamasutra about this, called Beyond Façade: Pattern Matching for Natural Language Applications.
You may also want to look into the Turing Test and it's relevant scientific following/conferences/publications to see what has been done in the humanizing of AI speech.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
[Objective-C]
Do you still use Styrofoam balls to model your systems, where each ball
represents a class?
Tom Love: We do, actually. We've also done a 3D animation version of
it, which we found to be nowhere near
as useful as the Styrofoam balls.
There's something about a physical,
conspicuous structure hanging from the
ceiling right in the middle of a
development project that's regularly
updated to provide not only the
structure of the system that you're
building, but also the current status
of each one of the classes.
We've done it on 19 projects the last time I've counted. One of them was 1,856 classes, which is big - actually, probably bigger than it should be. It was a big commercial project, so it needed to be somewhat big.
Masterminds of Programming
It is the first time I've read or heard about using styrofoam balls to model classes.
Is that a commonly used technique? And, how does that sort of modeling help us to design better the system?
If you have any photos to share which can show us how the classes are represented it'd be great!
Update: So, it seems that the material most people use is the paper. Styrofoam balls are actually oddballs, not a commonly used technique.
Noticeable techniques:
"paper plates and string" modeling, NealB
Post-it Notes on a whiteboard, Jason
Class-Responsibility-Collaboration cards, duffymo
Sheets of ruled paper taped to the wall, AMissico
Thank you all for the very good answers.
I found a couple of styrofoam models for:
Windows 95
and
Lotus Notes
(if that helps)
Actually, here's a Tom Love case study that shows a couple of his models.
This model may represent the least
expensive CASE tool on the market --
materials cost $20.35. It was more
useful than any CASE tools I have ever
used.
We used it in three important ways.
It fixed the number of classes that we would deliver in the finished
application and we did not allow new
ones to be added, unless existing ones
could be removed.
It was a very useful way to publicly document which classes had
been code reviewed (blue ribbons) and
tested (green ribbons).
It helped everyone understand what was being built and how much time and
effort it takes to do testing,
documentation and code reviews.
Edit: photo of object model
alt text http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/82/stryrofoamobjectmodel.jpg
The styrofoam ball model appears to date back to the mid 1990's - a time when CASE (Computer Aided Systems Analysis)
systems were all the rage.
At that time CASE systems promised significant benefits but were dismally slow,
buggy, unstable, overextended and downright awkward to use. Basically, long on potential but short on delivery.
I remember having a conversation with an analyst working on a different project from mine. Her team had
become so frustrated with their CASE system that they trashed it and resorted to "paper plates and string"
modeling. They reserved a meeting room, removed all the furniture, and laid out their process model using labeled
paper plates with strings (representing data flows) connecting them. She claimed it was much more
useful than the CASE system it replaced.
I suspect that the styrofoam ball model had similar roots.
Using styrofoam balls or paper plates fostered design "buy-in". If a team
finds something to rally around it naturally creates a common design focus. It is simple, concrete and
minimal - using it requires a lot
of face to face interaction and discussion. And that is where the value comes from. I suspect
if you brought a new person into the project and told them to bring themselves up-to-speed by
reviewing the "model" they would be "dead in the water". However, walk them through the
"model" and a real conversation would occur where all the required information need to
perform on the project would be imparted very quickly and efficiently.
Do I think styrofoam balls could become a sustainable modeling tool? No, I don't. They would be a real
pain to keep up to date in a changing environment. They convey little information. There are better tools available
today. And most importantly, if the team you are working with don't "buy" it, and they
probably won't, it will look really stupid - kind of like a sports team mascot, a rallying point
only if the team "buys it".
No, we don't do this. And in my 30-odd year history in the IT industry, I've never heard of anyone doing this.
The only way this could help you design better systems is by:
keeping the class count down since it's hard to build the styrofoam model; and
minimising changes, since updating it would be a serious pain in the rear end.
Other than those two dubious features, I can't see this as being very useful. I'd almost conclude it was some sort of prank. Far better to do some real work, I think.
Seriously, if we tried to model our application with styro coffee cups and straws, our bosses would be calling the men in white coats.
Post-it Notes on a whiteboard seem to be popular in the circles I travel in. Objects go on the Post-Its, and you rearrange them until you get your relationships the way you want em.
And then there are the Color Modeling people who use a 4-pack of colored Post-Its and assign an archetype to each color. It doesn't sound like this is much of an improvement, but standing across a room looking at it, you can tell where there are missing features or unidentified objects in the system.
There is one application to this that I think we tend to forget-- using tools to articulate an architecture comes naturally to us after years in the industry, but there are valuable, albeit less technically-minded, stakeholders who may not grasp vital concepts as readily. It would sometimes be a lifesaver to point to a cluster of balls and say, "This is the Language Processing Model, and if I implement the feature you want, it will have consequences here, here, and here. You can see that there are a lot of balls connected there".
Architects, be they designing buildings or systems, might rely on those tangible models to indoctrinate the check writers into the process.
And I thought that UML was useless. The styrofoam ball model makes UML look positively elegant by comparison.
Ward Cunningham's CRC card idea is more useful, even cheaper, and still retains that tactile quality that Dr. Love was after.
I had never heard of the idea until I read this question. It deserves an up vote for originality. And the "Windows" and "Lotus Notes" pictures are priceless.
Sheets of ruled paper taped to the wall, where each sheet is a component, class, entity, or whatever is needed. Everyone has a pencil.
Everyone can write on them "flushing" out the model during the design meetings. Such as, meeting notes, implemetation notes, new classes, removed classes, reasons why you do not have a particular class, and so on. After the design meeting, the principal designer takes them down and rewrite them, again "flushing" them out with pen in "rough-draft" versions. The designer can then make decisions based on the notes of each sheet, create new sheets for any additional components. Generate topics for next meeting, note any descrepancies, note any design / implementation details needed for coding, or whatever else they need to do.
Repeat the meetings until everyone is satisfied. Pencil is new stuff, pen is previous items. Once everyone is happy, the designer creates the working-draft, and posts where everyone can see and initial, in pen, their acceptance of the "working-draft".
Nothing is final. Pen versions are "latest" versions. Pencil versions are "work-in-progress" or "draft" versions.
Simple, fast, flexible, no wasting time on the computer, with high visiblity. Working man's Wiki.
No. My team does not do this.
And I am badly tempted to mock with image macros. But I'm contemplating that the idea is silly enough that it is self-mocking.
Anyone have good book / article recommendation for procedural generation of background music? (No vocals, just instruments).
I'm not interested in:
How do I generate the sound of a particular note on a particular instrument
I'm interested in:
How do I generate the melody / score for the music.
Thanks!
EDIT:
Thanks for the reference to Brian Eno. I'm definitely looking into the ambient/user can ignore type of music. I.e. think the background music of a game. It's there to provide some basic mood, but the focus is the game.
Sometime ago I ran into ChucK, which is a programming-language to generate music/sound/audio:
ChucK presents a new time-based, concurrent programming model that's highly precise and expressive (we call this strongly-timed), as well as dynamic control rates, and the ability to add and modify code on-the-fly. In addition, ChucK supports MIDI, OSC, HID device, and multi-channel audio. It's fun and easy to learn, and offers composers, researchers, and performers a powerful programming tool for building and experimenting with complex audio synthesis/analysis programs, and real-time interactive control.
I believe the end result can be converted into MIDI, which can then be converted into a score or sheet notation.
I don't know if this is what you're looking for. Hope this helps!
EDIT
After thinking about this a little longer, I think what you can possibly do (and this sounds a bit crazy) is write code that generates ChucK code. So define a set of rules for your music/score generation and then use that to create valid ChucK code. After you run the ChucK code, you can get a MIDI file which you can then convert into score/sheet-music.
The book "Computer Models of Musical Creativity" by David Cope should help you along with the theoretical side of computer-assisted composition, though you might want some music theory under your belt before you dive in.
If you are interested in procedural music check out the Condition30 site -- condition30.com
This music is all procedural.
If you're interested in an implementation of procedural music based on cellular automata in C#, you could grab the source code from http://proceduralmidi.codeplex.com/. A binary is also available.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I know that it's still an open problem so I don't expect to see complete answers here. I just want to find some approaches to solve the next problem:
I have a model (assume that is's bot's memory), and different words are associated with different objects in the model. Speaking with the bot is like executing sql-queries with a DB. Language is a very hard formalizable protocol. And we can't just write a million lines of code to implement some real language. But I believe that it's absolutely possible to implement some self-learning mechanism. How can it be implemented? Is it possible to implement learning "from scratch" or "from few basic words"? Just want to hear your ideas.
Actually, English is a very strict language and it's one of the easiest languages for experimenting with AI. Many other languages allow you to change the order of words (for example). And in some cases changed order can change the whole meaning or just add some intonation. I really don't have any ideas how to teach a bot for these things.
The first step, in taking this game to the next level, is ...
...to have a very clear view of prior art!
(and pardon me to say, the question doesn't suggest that you have such an extensive insight into the matter [and you're not alone, count me in ;-)])
Even, and maybe in particular, if your intention is to apply completely novel techniques and models, it seems important to review the literature on current and past practices. Aside from possibly identifying elements that may be adapted or reused in a new implementation, a survey of the domain will provide an keen understanding of the nature of the problem[s].
I've personally tried -on various and multiple occasions!- either the naive approach or the sophomoric approach to tackling broadly-defined problems. With the naive approach, one has but a very slight idea of the true nature and scope of the problem. The sophomoric sees us better equipped with domain knowledge and also with related tools, but this can also be misleading because without a deeper understanding, we tend to mis-read/mis-understand new material offered to us and also misuse some of the tools (a bit like the the fellow who's "good with a hammer" for whom many things look like a nail...)
It is particularly easy to make these mistakes in the field of NLP. That's because
Common sense seems to be all is required: after all a child, who's native tongue is English understands subtleties like
"He's not really an expert"
"He's really not an expert" (small wink at the OP's reference to the ordering of word in the English language)
We live in such exciting times, technology and knowledge wise: Processing power, programming language and tools, mathematical techniques, availability of affordable corpora... to name a few of these things that make this moment in time so special.
Far from me the idea of discouraging you in your chat-bot endeavor, I just hope that this long and generic exposé will encourage to look-before-you-leap, as this will truly save you time in the long run, I think in two ways:
provide you some frames of references (again, even if your intention is to "think outside these boxes")
maybe entice you to redefine the problem, for example by limiting it to particular domains of conversation (sports, or health, or life at a particular university campus...) or by focusing on a particular aspect of the problem (semantic awareness, smooth, natural sounding grammar, use of colloquial forms...)
Good luck ;-)
Check out MegaHAL's implementation for some ideas. We've used a variant of this bot for ages in an IRC channel of ours, and he does on occasion appear to be the intelligent mixture of many of our dominant personalities.
You "train" the bot -
each time the bot answer, you rank (or the tester) the answer - if the answer is good/logical - give high rank, if the answer is bad... low/negative rank.
use the ranking in the future to choose the answer, and this is how the bot learns...
There's a great description of Eliza in Paradigms of AI Programming. You should be able to implement a simple Eliza bot in a few days of work.
This isn't a learning algorithm, but it's surprising how realistic answers can be from something so simple.
You can create your own chat bot on BOT libre, http://www.botlibre.com.
The bots learns, can be trained, can be scripted, and your can program them, or let them program themselves.
Thew site supports embedding your bot on your own site, has REST API access, Android, IRC, Twitter. Free hosting, even for commercial bots.
AIML from the AliceBot project may help you out. It's a whole XML schema (if that doesn't put you off) for the branch of AI its concerned with.
An example from Wikipedia:
<category>
<pattern>WHAT IS YOUR NAME</pattern>
<template>My name is <bot name="name"/>.</template>
</category>
RebbeccaAIML is one quite well documented implementation.
Thinking in regards to Sliverlight, I would like to know where would be good places to go to get a refresher on 3d space, transforms, matrix manipulation, and all that good stuff.
There's always The Bible
It is expensive and very heavy on the theory, so there's also the cheaper Bible Lite
As pointed out in some comments and additional answers, it is definitely worth noting that this book is now quite dated. However, in the context of the original question, there's not really been any change in the low-level principles of linear algebra in a seriously long time.
If you are looking to learn about high-level graphics programming this may well not be the first book for you. But if you like to know about "the guts-of-the-machine" and the underlying maths -- perhaps you are the kind of person that thinks folk should learn C :-) -- then go nuts.
It's not a place, but I've found 3D Programming for Windows by Charles Petzold excellent. It covers everything you ask about and is focused specifically on WPF/silverlight.
Of course Petzold (as usual) is able to communicate the important concepts beautifully.
Think I may have found it myself. Was looking at:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc189037(VS.95).aspx
and
http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/UploadFile/mgold/TransformswithGDIplus09142005064919AM/TransformswithGDIplus.aspx
Free graphics algorithms can be found in the
comp.graphics.algorithms faq
As previously mentioned you should really learn linear algebra, here are some great video lectures about it, MIT Linear Alebgra Video Lectures.
Any linear algebra textbook should provide the math refresher; there's a fairly good one available online at Linear Algebra textbook home page.
Personally I think that although the bible (by Foley & Van Damn that is) was the greatest book for its time, but it is somewhat outdated.
I would suggest 'Advanced animation & Rendering techniques' by Alan and Mark Watt.
The only problem with this book is that it gives you a good understanding almost about every broad aspect in CG but it assumes you have some familiarity with it, and does not explain it all the way.
You can always have a look in the Bib and find enhanced articles and books about each subject you are interested in depth.
If you want further on once you have more understanding, or if you want to dive into the world of computer graphics and the use of GPU I suggest to have a look at the three 'GPU Gems'.