@Zolden: Go I thought you might want to make it "original", that's why I suggested additional changes. One good example would be using it in a map that also uses carriers while still making they look unrelated. As I said the model is already a nice idea, so if my example isn't the case just ignore it.
Currently all the computing power in the world has less processing power than a single puny human brain. Also current electronics are starting to hit physical limitations.
If we create a model of neuron which would include all its molecules, it will indeed consume world's computational power.
But if we exclude biological stuff, and only create a model of its informational beheving, namely how it reacts on signals and how it generates signals to other neurons, it won't be a complex model - a network of 1000 of which could work in real time on an average desktop computer. So, we would need only about 90 millons desktop computers or a good supercomputer to imitate human brain. After all, it depends on the model of neuron we use.
Also, brain's way of thinking may be not the only one, and not optimal way of thinking. He had not much choice, due to notorious cellular heritage.
Was referring more to the practical side of most people have only one computer and if it dies due to a "lethal" mutation they will be pissed while nature can have multiple progeny and the weak will die and not procreate so it is an issue of available sample sizes. Actually a lot of learning programs do take weeks to months to evolve as it is purely an iterative process and rate of progress is limited by generation time as seen in organisms.
Well, for artificial evolution we curtainly wouldn't destroy computers. And yes, evolving may take months. For example, author of and vids said it took a month to evolve, even with only a few seconds required to figure out organism's quality. But in this case it's obviously too much. Depends on how well evolving model optimized. So, a person that good with both, biology and programming, can find interesting areas where artificial evolution of something is more effective than the traditional brain-driven engineering.
Anyway, this conversation looks a bit out of topic, I just stated that natural-science knowledge can be a source of programming ideas.
For example, I have saw a map somwere on this forum, where a guy used "genetic algorighms" approach to find the best counter to a group of units within a limited resources amount to spend.
Not only biological related models can help, just simple physics based models are useful.
For example, if we want to evenly seed something on a map and using random generator, objects will be spread too chaotically, but if we let them act like a set of same charges and magnetically repulse each other for some time, they will spread more even. Or if we give them larger scale repulsion and lower scale attraction, they will be gathered in a groups, for example, single trees will be organised into a set of a few forests.
In other words, self organisation and imitating modelling ftw.
Well so far they are struggling to do a rats brain on a simple scale. Also synaptic remodelling (the flexability of connections based on use and other factors) is a pain to simulate.
True totally off topic and good to think about but I do not see it being easily implemented in SC2. Main issue would be identifying and segregating player type groups.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Contribute to the wiki (Wiki button at top of page) Considered easy altering of the unit textures?
Actually I have a little hope. If we link (in max) attachment point to the physics object, and it will work, then UnitGetAttachmentPoint() would return its coordinates in game, and it would be used for gameplay. But I will only be able to test it if anyone tell me hoe that UnitGetAttachmentPoint() function work (it didn't work for me).
Hey, normally I love your work, but this time, the last one really looks... plastic :/
T.
The first 3 are ok, the 2nd one looks the best.
But for the love of god what is wrong with Lord Marrowgar? He looks like T2000 from Terminator. Why didn't you just get rid of the 3 other heads if you're not going to give them eyes too? Him and his weapon look like lumpy gold and silver turds. Stick with the original textures. Unless you were going for the T2000 look then which case I would say gj.
For the last creature I didn't use its natural texture, just applied heat wave normal and white specular. To save space and time. Tried to convince myself that it looks good, but looks like it doesn't. Thanks for clarifying it, dudes.
@Zolden: Go I thought you might want to make it "original", that's why I suggested additional changes. One good example would be using it in a map that also uses carriers while still making they look unrelated. As I said the model is already a nice idea, so if my example isn't the case just ignore it.
If we create a model of neuron which would include all its molecules, it will indeed consume world's computational power.
But if we exclude biological stuff, and only create a model of its informational beheving, namely how it reacts on signals and how it generates signals to other neurons, it won't be a complex model - a network of 1000 of which could work in real time on an average desktop computer. So, we would need only about 90 millons desktop computers or a good supercomputer to imitate human brain. After all, it depends on the model of neuron we use.
Also, brain's way of thinking may be not the only one, and not optimal way of thinking. He had not much choice, due to notorious cellular heritage.
Well, for artificial evolution we curtainly wouldn't destroy computers. And yes, evolving may take months. For example, author of and vids said it took a month to evolve, even with only a few seconds required to figure out organism's quality. But in this case it's obviously too much. Depends on how well evolving model optimized. So, a person that good with both, biology and programming, can find interesting areas where artificial evolution of something is more effective than the traditional brain-driven engineering.
Anyway, this conversation looks a bit out of topic, I just stated that natural-science knowledge can be a source of programming ideas.
For example, I have saw a map somwere on this forum, where a guy used "genetic algorighms" approach to find the best counter to a group of units within a limited resources amount to spend.
Not only biological related models can help, just simple physics based models are useful.
For example, if we want to evenly seed something on a map and using random generator, objects will be spread too chaotically, but if we let them act like a set of same charges and magnetically repulse each other for some time, they will spread more even. Or if we give them larger scale repulsion and lower scale attraction, they will be gathered in a groups, for example, single trees will be organised into a set of a few forests.
In other words, self organisation and imitating modelling ftw.
@Zolden: Go
Well so far they are struggling to do a rats brain on a simple scale. Also synaptic remodelling (the flexability of connections based on use and other factors) is a pain to simulate.
True totally off topic and good to think about but I do not see it being easily implemented in SC2. Main issue would be identifying and segregating player type groups.
Contribute to the wiki (Wiki button at top of page) Considered easy altering of the unit textures?
https://www.sc2mapster.com/forums/resources/tutorials/179654-data-actor-events-message-texture-select-by-id
https://media.forgecdn.net/attachments/187/40/Screenshot2011-04-17_09_16_21.jpg
btw, the game i've been making models for these months is released on EU server under Mines and Magic name
Might be fun.
Contribute to the wiki (Wiki button at top of page) Considered easy altering of the unit textures?
https://www.sc2mapster.com/forums/resources/tutorials/179654-data-actor-events-message-texture-select-by-id
https://media.forgecdn.net/attachments/187/40/Screenshot2011-04-17_09_16_21.jpg
Recently starcraftized a couple of wow models for fellow mapmakers.
@Zolden: Go
Those look really awesome!
Played a bit with physics.
@Zolden: Go
I'll be honest here I laughed at the end of the first video. The physics look great it's to bad they can't really interact with units.
@JacktheArcher: Go
Actually I have a little hope. If we link (in max) attachment point to the physics object, and it will work, then UnitGetAttachmentPoint() would return its coordinates in game, and it would be used for gameplay. But I will only be able to test it if anyone tell me hoe that UnitGetAttachmentPoint() function work (it didn't work for me).
@Zolden: Go
Hey it is thomp from mario64
Contribute to the wiki (Wiki button at top of page) Considered easy altering of the unit textures?
https://www.sc2mapster.com/forums/resources/tutorials/179654-data-actor-events-message-texture-select-by-id
https://media.forgecdn.net/attachments/187/40/Screenshot2011-04-17_09_16_21.jpg
Recently sc2-ized some more wow models for my map:
Hey, normally I love your work, but this time, the last one really looks... plastic :/
T.
My Starcraft II Tutorials Youtube Channel
My Basic Moddeling Tutorials Youtube Channel
My assets here
The first 3 are ok, the 2nd one looks the best.
But for the love of god what is wrong with Lord Marrowgar? He looks like T2000 from Terminator. Why didn't you just get rid of the 3 other heads if you're not going to give them eyes too? Him and his weapon look like lumpy gold and silver turds. Stick with the original textures. Unless you were going for the T2000 look then which case I would say gj.
For the last creature I didn't use its natural texture, just applied heat wave normal and white specular. To save space and time. Tried to convince myself that it looks good, but looks like it doesn't. Thanks for clarifying it, dudes.
Applied that 4 headed dude's original textures
Marrowgar!
@Charysmatic: Go
Thanks for mentioning his name. I checked some images and added particles to make it look closer to the original look.
Now that looks amazing !! T.
My Starcraft II Tutorials Youtube Channel
My Basic Moddeling Tutorials Youtube Channel
My assets here
@TaylorMouse: Go
So much better. Actually looks really cool now.