 |
welcome, guest |
| Development Forum | ||||
 |
| |||
 peobs  |
Figured out how to use the Neuro Emitter and it's working great. I hooked up the Emitter to some neurons in one of the lobes to get an output when that certain neuron is firing. Did it on different lobes and it is really helpful to see the emitted chemical spike once that neuron fires. Using some of the unused "Brain chemicals" for testing, once the neuron fires they spike and just dissolve without doing anything at the moment. This will give me an opportunity to investigate if a newly developed lobe does anything. Later on the Neuro Emitter could be useful to create an "Cerebellum" or similar lobe that emits chemical in reaction to experience or thinking of an experience if an situation is encountered for example - "Lets approach the Grendel home" for example but then memories kick in and perhaps "fear-chemical" is released which then could lead to a chance of mind so to speak not to go there. What do you think? |
|||
 Wrong Banshee Dragoler  |
What you're describing can be achieved with regular emitters as well, so i'm not convinced about their utility, given a genome made with them won't work on normal versions of the game. Creator of the TWB/TCB genome base.  |
|||
peobs |
Just like with most changes that are done to the game, if you don’t update then you can’t use it, simple as that. Plus you don’t have to use it if you don’t want to. I do think that using both types of Emitter could have a broader implication and use, as it opens a wide variety on things you can do. Which you can’t with just the regular Emitter. Dragoler wrote: |
|||
Wrong Banshee Dragoler |
peobs wrote: Yes, but if you're using neuroemitters to emit chems when neurons are switched on, regular emitters can already do this, so you don't gain any new functionality by using them this way - you just restrict the functionality of your genomes to only work in the CE version. If you find a way to use them to do something that regular emitters can't do, then you will have a point. Currently using regular emitters or emitters in conjunction with lobes and tracts covers everything that neuroemitters can do, allows the genomes to work in all versions of the games, and is just more intuitive and versatile to work with. Creator of the TWB/TCB genome base. |
|||
lisdude |
I'm not a genetics expert, but neuroemitters strike me as an easier / more approachable alternative to more traditional setups. Neuroemitters... 1. ... can read up to three neurons at once. When they do, the inputs are multiplied together. These combined signals are used as the modifier for the chemical activation. If any of the signals is 0, the chemicals don't get emitted. (One interesting note is this makes them sensitive to low neuron signals. Any weak neuron in the chain can drastically reduce the output of the emitted chemicals in the end due to the multiplicative nature.) 2. ... update at the biochemistry level, before organs. So they don't rely on a healthy organ or exact an energy cost to function. This also means they don't consume an organ emitter slot (128 emitters per organ), if that's something that's important to you. 3. ... emit up to four different (or uh, same) chemicals simultaneously and all scaled by the same multiplied activation from the combined signals. I would tend to disagree that multiple emitters + lobes + tracts + SVRules to replicate a single neuroemitter is more intuitive, but I suppose that's subjective. A fun mutation-related experiment would be to create two genomes with the same functionality, one implemented with neuroemitters and one in Traditional Methods, and see which ends up being selected for evolutionarily. Based on the number of bytes involved with each approach, I have my prediction, but it would be fun to try! |
|||
Wrong Banshee Dragoler |
1. This makes it more difficult to control output because you can't weight how much the neurons effect the output yourself. Creating a lobe and a set of tracts allows you to adjust the weighting of the source neurons using SV rules. I grant this is a more advanced technique, so if a neuroemitter gives roughly the output you want anyway you may as well use one. 2. A bit of a niche use case, though I can see an argument for this. Them not being effected by the organs they're in sounds more like a bug than an intended feature; if invulnerability is the intention, that can still be achieved without having to make the genome CE exclusive. 3. Similar to the first point, using multiple emitters allows finer control of the output. Each emitter can be swapped between analogue and digital, allows for different sample rates, thresholds for activation, and can have their input signals inverted. These are not features of neuroemitters at all. For your experiment idea, my prediction is genetic drift will be the determing factor in which wins out :p Creator of the TWB/TCB genome base. |
|||
peobs |
I appreciate the discussion on this Idea  and your input and thoughts as I’m not a Genetic expert either. As of now I’m only using the NEmitters to get an output on some test lobes I do. The Brain in a Vat doesn’t work for me. I wish there where a simpler program available like that Biochemistry app where you can monitor different Chems and combination of them. I’m not planing on releasing any of the creatures I’m working on, so it is not really important if they would work on older engines or not. Thank you for all your input |
|||
| downloads cobs adoptions creaturelink metarooms breeds gallery art wallpaper screenshots graphics promos sprites |
dev hack shack script reservations dev resources active projects dev forum community links advice chat polls resources |
creatchi forum bookmarks general news help development strangeo survivor |
mycaves log in register lost pw |
0 online |
| creatures caves is your #1 resource for the creatures artificial life game series: creatures, creatures 2, creatures 3, docking station, and the upcoming creatures family. contact help privacy policy terms & conditions rules donate wiki |
||||