From: clark@daffy.csee.usf.edu (Matthew Clark)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.anime
Subject: Re: Controlling Mobile Suits (was: cheats in anime)
Date: 2 Nov 92 15:05:23 GMT
Reply-To: clark@daffy.csee.usf.edu (Matthew Clark)
Organization: University of South Florida, Department of Computer Science and Engineering

In article <1cigl7INNjn2@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>, gujn@uniwa.uwa.edu.au
(Jeremy Nelson) writes:
 
|> Yeah, I prefer that method, but seriousy, it may not be the best
|> method.
|> 
|> Lets face it, eveything should be computer controlled, or at least,
|> as
|> much as possible.  Computers react faster, and can consider more
|> rules.
|> (Acutally, not with present technology, but they will within not too
|> many years.)

	The kwy word is parallelzation.  Barring the breakthrough of a practical
optical computer (not CD tech), we are rapidly reaching a threshold of how
fast we can drive our silicon chips.  Other techniques are taking up the slack,
namely parallel processing, efficient pipelining and AI techniques that reduce
the amount of work/search the computer has to perform.
 
|> Consider the extraordinary complexity of a mech.  There are actions and
|> movements which would optimize the strength of the mech, and they would
|> not necessarily be at all obvious.  If the mech was damaged a computer
|> could analayze what was the best way to punch (for instance), and then
|> do it, where the pilot could not analyze with the same accuracy.

	Are we talking about a damaged enemy mech?  If that's the case then I think
is best left to the pilot.  Computers are horrible at strategy as they
are only able
to decide what's advantageous based on what we program it to.  (ie a
chess program is
little more than a massive search tree where it is given a board layout
and it chooses
the best move based on a heuristic we provide.)  Besides, computers
can't take data
into account we don't tell it to.  (what happens if that spot the
computer chooses
has an explosive device near it?)  Also, can the pilot decide between a
potentially
lethal blow and merely a disabling one?


|> 
|> It is much like the arguement between high level and low level
|> languages on computers.  A low level language can allow the programmer
|> beter optimization, but at the expense of time (it takes them longer).
|> The trend, however, is toward more intelligent compilers, which in some
|> cases provide better coding than a good (not great, true) programmer.

	Ah, but the human can react to novel data much much better than any 
computer can.  A computer simply cannot handle situations outside that which
we have given it.

|> 
|> In something like a mech, which would be Truly Hideously (tm) Complex, a
|> computer _could_, probably _would_, do a better job.  The more removed
|> the pilot from immediate actions, the better!  Because it allows
|> programs and hardware (which have had hundreds or thousands of man years
|> of work invested in them) to do their job.

	The best scenario is to design the computer to most efficiently carry out
the pilot's commands. 

 _Release 8.21.92 _   Kimi_wa,_Hontou no_TMN_wo_Mada Shiranai_  
|_   _|  \/  |  \| |O|  _| _ | | | _ | __| __| __| | | |  \/  | 1
  | | |      | |\  | | |_||_|| |_||_||__ |__ | __| |_| |      | &
  |_| |_|\/|_|_| \_|O|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|_____|_|\/|_| 2
  clark@daffy.csee.usf.edu         clark@galadriel.csee.usf.edu