Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #02034
To: beam beam@corp.sgi.com
From: Richard Piotter richfile@rconnect.com
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 00:17:17 -0500
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: Socer bots/ Hive behaviour
Some time ago, I found a reference to a program that emulated a
particular species of snail using only 3 behaviors. More complex
creatures, such as ants. I think the best thing is to keep it simple.
Get something working, and then once it works, add to it. I started MECI
IV M as a basic 4 Nv 4 motor walker. I then Upgraded the motors, and
then discovered, totaly by accident, that the robot is PHYSICALY capable
of picking itself up if it fell over. The problem is actualy creating a
circuit to do the job. Some thought, and I had a viable sequence,a dn I
should be getting around to finishing the design. Later, I decided It'd
be possible to use a motor to level the bot (keep it upright while
walking, even on a side ways slope). I have a passive and active
ballance system. The passive one uses the motor as a generator to create
physical resistance in one direction but not the other. The active one
would actualy power the motor to level it. Not Sure which I'll use. I'll
try passive, and if it's not strong enough to balance the bot, I'll make
it active. Obviouly, this bot is becoming FAR more advanced than the
cheap old directiveless walker it used to be (at least this one can
sustain being knocked over without relying on a cheap upside down
walking ability). What's next? Who knows. Maybe an arm, modeled after my
Turbot that'd give it even more flexibility and capability in rough
conditions. After that? Sensors maybe? Turning ability? Who knows what!
By the way, anyone know how to make a 3 or 4 motor walker turn? I have
some ideas, but I might as well take suggestions as well.
Justin wrote:
>
> > Very interesting. I would like to see (even the beginnings of your
> > Biocore Idea) and try to experiment with your circuit Ideas.
>
>
> > Now as far as the ants go (I am not an entomologist) are there not
> > specific ants that have specific functions?
>
> Yep, but ants of the same caste can do things like build a bridge out of
> themselves. Maybe I should just get an ant-farm rather than ponder the
> impossibility of building anything that even remotely compares... :-)
>
> > Also the Pheromone thing
> > (at least I think) is a substitute for memory. The scent is left to for
> > example say warning and the ants know this not because they remember it
> > but because they are programmed to.
>
> Yes, that's an interesting point. And an interesting question - could
> leaving a trail be considered a memory system, or an alternative system
> that performs the same function?
>
> > I do believe that your ideas will
> > result in some very interesting dynamic behaviour but I am really
> > interested in "moving to the next level" so that we can hard wire some
> > stuff program some stuff and let the robot program some stuff on its
> > own. I'm not looking to create a DATA but if one bot could communicate
> > to another bot like BEES do this would be a very interesting and magical
> > leap forward in robotics. I do not want you to think I'm slaging BEAM,
> > I'm not but I believe it is just the beginning and not the ending.
>
> Actually, I was more concerned that you seemed to have overlooked what
> to me, is the really cool part: that two or three extremely simple rules
> can create extremely ordered high-level behaviour (the boids example is
> a good one).
> Actually _building_ BEAM soccer bots would be take a year, and within a
> few hours of completion they would probably be boring to watch, being of
> fixed nature.
>
> What would be _really_ cool (and very difficult), would be to build some
> bots that are basically just motorised sensor platforms, with a
> reprogramable CPU.
> Build an environment for them. These things have to be build to
> incredibly high standards of precision (to virtually eliminate chaotic
> anomalies such as sensor reflection, bounce, etc).
> Then set up the same system inside a computer to simulate as closely as
> possible sensor results, speed, etc. Stick a simple program in the
> simulated CPU's, and run a breed&select program on it. For simplicity,
> the game is tag. Run the software to evolve the robots for thousands and
> thousands of generations (ie, until they're actually quite good and
> surprisingly clever for 100 lines of code or whatever the limit is), and
> then stick the program in the physical bots and see how well it
> translates.
>
> Then you can do all sorts of experiements: as well as the bots giving a
> cool tactical display, and as well as the creepy feeling of "Erm... I
> have _no_ idea how this thing thought of doing that!", you can also test
> earlier breeds against newer ones to find out whether the difference in
> tactics nullifies the evolutionary difference (ie they've become too
> specialised), try to breed for versitility, etc etc.
>
> Then the extra cool thing: you build another identical bot, and replace
> the CPU with a radio control unit, and discover whether 100 lines of
> utterly bizzare evolved code can beat the crap out of you - the
> super-intelligent creator with no code limits.
>
> It would also make an awesome interactive display for one of those
> science museums. Extremely difficult to do, but probably well worth it.
>
> With regards to human vs robot, a speed adjustment makes a nice skill
> setting - ramp it up a bit if you do tend to outhink the bot, as its
> brain-to-wheels reaction will be faster, or turn it down if you have
> difficulty with the controls, or a young child is playing. (Hmmm, make
> that "a young child before video games were invented" perhaps :-)
--
Richard Piotter
richfile@rconnect.com
The Richfiles Robotics & TI web page:
http://richfiles.calc.org
For the BEAM Robotics list:
BEAM Robotics Tek FAQ
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/bushbo/beam/FAQ.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home