[Home]DarkHallow/OldBulletinBoard

Robo Home | DarkHallow | Changes | Preferences | AllPages

September 23, 2004: Ver 0.74 -- WaveSuffering. I think it is better. It is in the challenges anyways.</br>

September 21, 2004: Ver 0.73.2 -- Still searching.
Score: 1980.11 after 697.

September 10, 2004: Ver 0.73.1 -- Memories.
Score: 2005.22 after 863

September 9. 2004: Ver 0.73 -- Try again.
Score: 2004 after 640.

September 7, 2004: Ver 0.72. -- Bug fix. This version better be a monster.
Score: 1996.63 after 971

September 6, 2004: Ver .71 -- EUREKA!!!! I have found, and more importantly understand my movement bug. Gross implementation here just to verify. I would say that beating Aristocles 58% before the bugfix and 73% after (over 500 rounds) should point to doing something right but I hate to take it for granted.
Score: 1982 after 837.

September 6, 2004: Ver .70 -- Roll back movement to an earlier version. Updated the gun to be quicker and better. Now using traditional rolling averages in the movement system. Using a more accurate positional predition system (that may not work, they never seem to). Sort of an experimental release.
Score: 1962 after 180.

August 28, 2004: Ver .63.1 -- Experimental movement tweak. Lots of testing and verifying things work as I originally thought.
Score: 1976 after 1019.

August 13, 2004: Perhaps I should go on vacation more often. Movement tweak. I really think this will be the last edition before I go to CA.

August 13, 2004: Ver .62 -- Fixed a gun bug.
Score: 1984.32 after 198.

August 13, 2004: Ver .61 -- Movement tweek. Eliminated one segment. I hate this game.
Score: 1992.21 after 319. Gun bug.

August 12, 2004: Ver .6 -- Movement fix. Will beat RMX, CC, SilverSurfer, and Shadow over 500 rounds. Not so good in the short run though. Test release.
Score: 1991.69 after 660+.

August 9, 2004: Ver 0.59.5 -- Movement fix.
Score: 1987.85 after 793

August 8, 2004: Ver 0.59.4 -- Gun mod. Also trying to baseline the movement. I have a known error in my movement projection algorithm. Want to see where I am before monkeying with it.
Score: 1994.49 after 644

August 4, 2004: Ver 0.59.3 -- Gun fix.

[[PEZ]]: "Perhaps your gun is not working right?" 
[[jim]]: "I worked so hard on it how can anything be wrong?"
[[PEZ]]: "I still think you should look at it"
[[jim]]: "Thats crazy talk."
I should have listened sooner.
Score: 2021.45 after 814

August 1, 2004: Ver 0.59.2 -- Experimental release.
Score: 2007.33 after 736

July 31, 2004 Ver 0.59.1 -- Small change to movement segments.
Score: 2008.63 after 682

July 30, 2004: Ver 0.59 -- Back to old school AndrewsCoolWay stats buffering.
Score: 2018.74 after 634

July 25, 2004: Ver 0.58 -- Straight visit counts in the movement stats. No other changes that I can recall. Just a little test to see where it places.
Score: 2005.8 after 760

July 24, 2004: Ver 0.57.1 -- Not a very inspiring effort. Score was 2001+. I did not even commit the version to CVS.

July 24, 2004: Ver 0.57 -- Rolling averages are back. I have gone 47 GuessFactors at a suggestion from Kuuran. Not much else has changed. Still need to tweak the surfing some but maybe next time.

July 22, 2004: Ver 0.56.1 -- Complete rollback to 0.55.4.1. Added better enemy energy tracking, removed one surfing segment.
Score: 2018.76 after 722.

July 21, 2004: Ver 0.56 -- Better enemy energy tracking (thanks ABC), terminated rolling averages experiment, slight change to some near range surfing. Very limited testing so this will fail miserably.
Score: 2009.0 after 691.

July 20, 2004: Ver 0.55.5.2 -- Still monkeying with traditional rolling averages. Made a change to the danger prediction code.
Score: 2006.71 after 699.

July 19, 2004: Ver 0.55.5.1 -- Still using the newer rolling averages. Scrapped the higher shot power and precise prediction for now.
Score: 1998.57 after 660. A step backwards as I learn a different way to do the same thing.

July 19, 2004: Ver 0.55.5 -- Changed future impact prediction calculation to a more (I hope) accurate representation. Changed my movement hit buffers to a more classical RollingAverage calculation. Increased shot power by .1 over all ranges except point blank. Highly experimental release. Not much testing.
RECALLED Precise point prediction not working as planned.

July 18, 2004: Ver 0.55.4.1 -- Rolling averages are not working. Changed to a straight visit count gun.
Score:2019.74 after 742. Very good result.

July 18, 2004: Ver 0.55.4 -- This gun consistently scores over 91% in the TC as a pure visit count gun but still manages to score over 90% as a rolling average gun. I am testing it here as a rolling average gun to see if it works as hoped for and if I get a boost against the top dogs. Very small movement tweak (added an additional wall segment bucket).
Score: 2009+ over 200 rounds. Recalled because rolling averages were not getting it done.

July 17, 2004: Ver 0.55.3 -- Almost completely untested. I have made some small tweaks in the gun and in the movement. I am getting some outstatnding results according to FloodGrapher, results that are better or comprable to RaikoMX in every segment excpet acceleration. If I ever get the gun completely worked out, watch out 8^)
Score: 2010.42 after 663.

July 11, 2004: Ver 0.55.2 -- Small movement tweak. Hopefully it makes a slight difference against the top dogs.
Score: 1999.99 after 748. It was above 2K for a while but slowly slid down below.

July 10, 2004: Ver 0.55.1 -- Refined some gun segments. No affect on movement. Still not top dog but this gun will score close to 90.5% in the TargetingChallenge. Hoping that a small improvement can push me a little bit further up the hill.
Score: 2008.28 after 630.

July 8, 2004: Ver 0.55 -- refactored gun that is much better, although not top dog.
Score: 2005.51 after 704. 2K baby!

July 1, 2004: Ver 0.54.6 -- Restored to the .54.3 movement. Say it with me: Only test one thing at a time.
Score: 1984.63 over 775

June 30, 2004: Ver 0.54.5 -- Now this one will actually move =^>.
Score: 1983.21 after 775

June 30, 2004: Ver 0.54.4 -- Small movement tweak. If this one gets over 2K at any time someone please let me know =^>. If it happens to stay over 2K after 500 rounds please snap a picture of it for me. I am going to bed now and will not be able to watch. Thanks!!!!
RECALLED: I left the TC settings on.

June 29, 2004: Ver 0.54.3 -- Still same gun but trying to do away with the smoothing. It is better in the targeting challenge but not near the best. Just want to see where it goes.
Score: 1997.86 after 695.

UNK :( : Rolled back to .54 movement.
Score: 1986.03 after 745

June 27, 2004: Ver 0.54.1 -- Still the same crappy gun. I have fixed two non-functioning firing segment so it is a bit better but not much. I fixed a logic error in the quick learning buffer. Lets see where this one ends up.

June 24, 2004: Ver 0.54 -- Refactored everything into their own classes. Small movement tweak at close ranges. Removed preference for 'wider' movement GFs. Setting up to re-do the gun completely. Hopefully the score does not fall :).

Score: 1979.39 after 714

June 20, 2004: Ver 0.53.2 -- Added a quick learning buffer, gun is *now* using rolling averages, added power management, should not hit the walls so often. Tested almost exclusively vs. cx.*. Looking for a fall.
Score: 1953.8 after 658 rounds.

June 17, 2004: Ver 0.53.1 -- Guns and movement buffers now have rolling averages. Should help me a lot vs. the other surfers in the crowd. Added a slight modification to the movement to favor "wider" guess factors. Should not be that big of a deal but it does make my movement profile look very RaikoMX'ish as reported by FloodMini.
Score: 1889.91 after 769 rounds. Realized that my gun was not using rolling averages so now improvement vs. the Surfing crowd.

June 16, 2004: Ver 0.53 -- Fixed reverse calculation bugs. That will teach me for limiting my tests to one bot.
Score:1889.3 after 749. Pretty good for a bot with seemingly no wall avoidance and no protection vs. diving in.

June 15, 2004: Ver 0.52 -- Refactored code to be "OO'ish".
Score: 1813.58 after 694 rounds. Had an error in the reverse calculations so it did not always surf if you used decimal firepowers. See note below on cause and effect.

June 13, 2004: Version 0.51: Features some tweaks against close range opponents. Steeper evasion angle.
Score: 1855.

June 11, 2004: Initial release. Just a test to see where it is.
Score: 1818.33 after 723 rounds.

Comments, questions, feedback:

Anyone have a suggestion on a good set of testbed bots for tuning WaveSuffering? I have it working pretty well vs head-on targeting and full-lead targeting now. -- jim

I like to test against:

  1. Quest Because it has a good bot with fast learning, quite effective GF gun, that rolls its stats. I like it when Quest gets less than 20% in survival.
  2. FloodMini Because it has non-rolling stats in it's GF gun. And becuase RaikoMX gets almost 85% against it and I only get 81%.
  3. Barracuda Because it fires near GF0 all the time. But it also has a challenging movement that sometimes refuses to let you pass by driving GF1 all of the time. Sometimes you have to reverse and then your surfing is put to a real test. CC often looks like a bullet collector in these situations. Watch RaikoMX against this bot for some 10 or so rounds. Be ready with a Kleenex because it is so beautiful you risk starting to cry. Again RaikoMX sets the goal for me, I think it gets some 99.6% or so in average. I get 98.7% with the version of CC that was most focused on GF0 avoidance.
  4. NanoStalker Because it fires GF0 all the time but it really likes a close, close fight so your evasion skills are put to a test. You should get close to 99% against this bot.
  5. DevilFISH Because it also likes a really close fight, but it fires linearly so you can't escape it as easily as you can with nanostalker. SilverSurfer gets some increadible 95% against it!
  6. Lacrimas Beacuase it is a helluva bot! I guess you could call it my WhiteWhale (goes for all of my bots). My current CC beats it though and I have decided to never release a CC that doesn't beat Lacrimas 1.36. I just wish iiley would return to the robocoding pack! I think he's the best robocoder ever.
  7. RaikoMicro Because it can beat a surfer in development, but doesn't stand a chance when the surfing has matured. It's a fast bot and it doesn't save data.

There, my $.1 -- PEZ

I also use DuelistNano, because it uses head-on targeting and since it is a move-to-point mover u can test your wall-segments with it. And of cause it is often very helpful to test your bot against other bots for yours, because you know (or should know) how they work and can find locate weaknesses better. --deathcon

Another good thing with testing against DevilFISH became appearant last night by Jim and me. Since traditional linear tergeting extrapolates on your current speed your surfing must either do this or segment its data on velocity to avoid getting hit as good as it can be done with surfing. Example: if you are stationary when DevilFISH fires; it is GF0 (as defined by absolute GuessFactors) that should be avoided. -- PEZ

Well I am glad you pointed that out as thats not exactly the lesson I learned. What I learned was thet it is better to avoid being close to your opponent =^>. I got a 30 point boost by adding a case for conditions when you are inside one WaveLength? (WaveLength? == periodicity of the waves). This case then considers which of two points will carry me farthest from my enemy and I then head there. I still think there are some issues with my surfing but I am getting closer. Soon it will be time to focus on the gun. -- jim

Better than measuring the distance I think it is to choose the farthest point when there is no wave coming at all. This often means you are inside one wave length, but it lacks the predictability issue you might add with your current method. -- PEZ

PEZ, are those percentages that you point out above over 500 rounds, 35 rounds, N rounds where N is between zero and infinity? Just interested as I can approach those numbers over 35 rounds but after about 100 I slide downwards some. After finally watching a RaikoMX vs. FloodMini I can see I have a long way to go. -- jim

They are mostly from 100-round battles. But when I decide to keep this or that tweak I run 1000-round battles with and without. Performance can vary wildly between two 100-round battles. -- PEZ

I HATE REFACTORING That is all. -- jim

There's always the alternative: Always write perfectly factored code. =) -- PEZ

jim, try comparing your last know-to-work version with your first broken one using a file compare program. I use WinMerge?. This has helped me track down bugs introduced by refactoring many times. Of course, with Major refactoring (splitting up files like you did) it may be a little more difficult.

According to Extreme Programming, refactoring should be a fun thing to do. But that can only be true if you can test if the refactored version didn't break using unit tests. I started out development on Locke with writing tests before the code as I usually do and that really makes refactoring a breeze. But, I was stupid and didn't make backups of those tests ... My harddrive crashed and I lost them. Now I find a have much less courage to go in and refactor something. Of course I could rewrite my tests but that would remind me too much of actual work instead of some programming fun in my free time :-) --Vic

I've tested Locke 0.6.3 against DarkHallow 0.52, and I don't think your bot is firing head on. But, DarkHallow is always travelling towards GF1, at least against Locke. I don't know if that's a bug, or if you are only testing movement against HeadOn? targeters. --Vic

All better now =^> -- jim

I was sadly disappointed in DH's performance so I was glad to see this message here. A quick look at what was happening showed that you were correct. I tested this bot heavily vs. FloodMini but not much else. In doing so I noticed it was possible to get hit with Waves in rapid succession in case where you are twisting or turning. I added a check to make sure that the bullet power matched the wave and moved on. Apparently FloodMini always uses whole number firepowers in it's shots or some sort of internal bug exists between shot power and reported energy drop. I was getting a margin of error of something on the order of .00000001. So of course 1.9000000001 != 1.9. And if they do not equal and you are not balancing your movement unless they are, well you can see where this leads. I have added a Math.round and it all should work now. Upload in a minute. Thanks for the feedback Vic --jim

Yes, you can compare for equality with the Robocde API calls. I usually do something like Math.abs(value - e.getValue()) < 0.001 instead. -- PEZ

Now you tell me :). What is the method for ensuring that your enemy scores at least one lousy point? A shut out is RR@H is useless. I know it has been discussed else where but why is it that the upload servlet or the scoring module has not been modified to change zero scores to a score of one? I never thought I would have to worry about making sure my enemy scored at least one point. This is ridiculous =^> -- jim

OK Everybody. Stop releasing bots, and if you must release, please no SlowBots. I am 16 points away from my goal of 1900 and I would like to see if I can make it there by bed time. I am now officially in the hunt for 2K. I think my next move will be to patch Jekyl's gun into DH. That gun seems to give people some of the top bots a fit so maybe this would be worth while. I should also probably hack in some wall avoidance at some point too. I am tempted not to as it seems that I get much better approaching wall performance, as reported by FloodGrapher, than RaikoMX the way it is now =^> -- jim

Well 1967.42 after 106 rounds with a momentum of 35 and change. Unfortunately I have not faced any cx.* bots except Princess. This means that when I finally do face them they will depress my score more than I would like. Still this is better than I had hoped for. I was hoping for 19K+ and if at all possible to slide in front of David Alves for #1 American in the competition. I think I am going to walk away a bit so I do not have to watch the fall :) -- jim

Don't worry about the cx.* bots. They don't drag your score down very much since they are pretty high ranked. Your LRP graph looks really good this time. Your surfing is definately starting to work! Good job. -- PEZ

Thanks. I have tried repeatedly to look at my LRP graph but I can not see it. For some reason it just never works for me. It has in the past though. I also have hope to beat some of the cx.* bots. I was really hoping to simply score 50% or better vs each of them as that would be a big improvement. If this holds I will need to finally add some "diving" protection, wall avoidance code. Still makes me laugh that DH crashes into walls. I like to think it makes segmenting on "out" a lot harder. -- jim

I wonder if it does. Good wall segmentation should "see" that you often crash. If, ineed, you do, I haven't noticed very much of it. Must run DH interactively some more maybe. -- PEZ

I've now checked. Not seen DH crash into any walls at all. Seems to handle it better than any of my bots. The diving problem you mention doesn't look exactly pronounced either. If you're using anything like a blin-mans-stick maybe you can try shorten it slightly. That'll make you dive a bit less steep and less often. But it would not let you hide your wall movement from segmentation like your current movement does. Looks very much like RaikoMX actually. It too uses a long stick. -- PEZ

Well you know the old American motto coined by Theodore Rosevelt? He said "Speak softly and carry a big stick." How could I mess with that tradition? It was the shorter stick that I used in previous versions that made me likely to hit the walls for some reason. Also I think it very interesting that you mention that the movement look similiar to RaikoMX as in graphing the two vs. FloodMini they get very similiar results. RaikoMX is still better (lower hit rate) and broader (especially towards +1) than what I have now. RaikoMX's constant velocity profile in particular is so much better than DH's that I think that alone counts for more than 50 points or so difference between them. Getting closer. Next up pass DT. -- jim

Whoah! 1955 points! That's a big jump! Great, jim! Which of the 4 tweaks you mention do you think accounted most for this jump? --Vic


A moment of silence please:
1st: jekl.DarkHallow	35245	13550	2710	16701	2280	3	0	272	229	0
2nd: jam.RaikoMX 0.32	32518	11450	2290	16738	2038	1	0	233	271	0
And to show it is not a fluke
1st: jekl.DarkHallow	34913	13250	2650	16841	2163	8	0	265	235	0
2nd: jam.RaikoMX 0.32	32770	11750	2350	16596	2070	2	0	236	265	0

WOOOOT!!!! Now, if we would only fight 500 round matches =^> -- jim

Cool! I think CC in its later incarnations has lost its edge against RMX in long battles. -- PEZ

V 0.54 has an impressive LRP graph against head-on targeters so far. Looking really good! Your gun is keeping you back now. With a RMX class gun you could be a throne contender! -- PEZ

Went through and fixed the dates in the bulletin section, just in case we look back in the future and get confused. =) -- Kuuran


Congratulations on 2000+!! --Brainfade

Thanks!!! I just got out of bed and saw it. Too bad I have to go to work as I have other ideas to try. Maybe later today. -- jim

Hey, u did it! Congrats jim, u surelly deserved it!! -- Axe

Congratulations man. I was sure u will make it!!! ... but i have to say: be careful and dont try to steel me my top5 ranking :D --deathcon

@everyone: Thanks for the words of encouragement. I am glad to have crossed that line.
@whoever put DH on the The2000Club page: Thanks!!!! I did not have time to do that before I left for work.
@deathcon: I have no aim to take #5 from you. You may find that when I get where I want to go you may have lost a ranking point though. I aim to see the American flag on top of the rumble. Hopefully next to a jekl.* robot. -- jim


Changes to the .55 Version that may have put me over the top:

Thats all I can think of now. If you want a real summary I can CVS diff it for you =^> -- jim

Congrats on breaking the 2K limit! It was less work for you than it was for me. Good luck on putting the american flag on top of the rumble. It'll be the first thing in a long while that the americans will be on top of anything. =) -- PEZ

Jim, my client was running your latest version, and i noticed this result:

Fighting battle 2 ... jekl.DarkHallow 0.55.2,kawigi.micro.Shiz 1.0
RESULT = jekl.DarkHallow 0.55.2 wins 4667 to 0
Donīt know if you are aware of a particularity of the server: 100% results are discarded... This means that this result, for example, will not count at all! And those (99.9%) are the more profitable results... In order to avoid this kind of stuff, I (and some fellows too) have a piece of code that makes SS stay still in the lasts rounds if the opp score is zero. Maybe u should consider doing something like this too... -- Axe


Can you share a little more detail on how minor changes moved the gun from 65% against DT to the 80s? I've had a few trial GF guns similarly perform disproportionately badly against DT 1.91 as compared to the rest of their results, so I'm quite curious.

Unrelated note: It'll hurt learning speed a bit, but have you tried just having a segment that's either 0 or 1 and simply rotates every time one of your bullets hits the opponent? -- Kuuran

	float[] stats = statBuffer[closingIndex][outIndex][accellIndex()][Math.min(3, (int)lastDecelTime++/13)][latVelIndex][distIndex];

You are doing really great with DH lately, jim! 2019 points that's a really great bot you have there....

About your outIndex: depending on the distance of the enemy you may end up segmenting unnecessarily because the enemy may not even reach the wall when you are close enough to it (I have the same 'problem' with Locke currently). Have you considered a BlindMansStick? This would represent the distance travelled in its current direction until a wave (fired now) would hit it. If that stick goes through a wall then you should segment for it. If not, you should not. I have not tried it in practise yet, but it is high on my todo list. In theory it should be an improvement. I've also been thinking that a BlindMansTail? could be useful. This is basically the same as the BlindMansStick, but you assume the enemy reverses immediately. The tail (getting more important as lastDecelTime? becomes larger) could indicate if it will encounter a wall when reversing. And of course then you could add a few outIndex values for that situation also.

About guessFactors: why does increasing that number 'muddy the waters' in your case? Maybe you are not using what I call BinOverflow? (filling neighbouring bins if they fall within the bot width). If you do that correctly -the edge bins are tricky- increasing that number should have no negative impact at all. I have read somewhere that ABC and someone else have calculated that 97 bins (iirc) is the optimal number to get good accuracy at the longest distances. Beyond that would just be a waste of cpu cycles :-)

--Vic

About that BlindMansStick for checking wall proximity. That's what I do, though I use a set number of fixed distances instead of comsidering the wave travel. I think I must try that. I makes a lot of sense. -- PEZ

I calculate 57 being the ideal number, and yes, getting all the buckets in the bot width is important when the bucket is half or less the bot width. Here's how I calculate this:
asin(8/11)/asin(36/1200)
buckets are required both forward and back, plus one stationary.

If you assume only a 800x600 battlefield it would be:

asin(8/11)/asin(36/1000)
which would mean 47 buckets. Using this number will help your longer range accuracy a fair bit.

Oh, and thanks a lot, Jim. It should be of great help. :)

 -- Kuuran

I am glad it helped. You have helped me in the past and it is nice to return the favor. -- jim

It would be interesting to hear you describe how your stat handling works. Both the rolling and the non-rolling. -- PEZ

When I say rolling I mean Paul's classical sense. When I say otherwise I mean Andrew's Quest sense. They are both rolling after a fashion in the sense that they are not persistent. For some reason I seem to get better results when I use Andrew's method but I really want Paul's methos to work as I understand it better. -- jim

OK, and have you tried totally accumulative stats? Seems to work for ABC. In any case it would be interesting to know. With CassiusClay and Pugilist I roll the stats super fast. Using deeper a deeper roll or accumulative stats makes them perform much worse. To me this is the remaining biggest mystery with WaveSurfing. (The different impacts rolling stats have on different implementations that is.) -- PEZ

When I use Paul's classical RollingAverages, I am using a depth of 5. It seems to work very well in testing but very poorly in the rumble. I haveno idea why that would be. I have also started to tinker with a more precise movement prediction engine as it applies to surfing and that seems to be showing some promise. I have not tried totally accumilative stats although I think I will release a DH to try that. I would love to breal into the 2030+ range. Thats my current goal.

My highest rated CassiusClay version used a rolling depth of 1. Which is about what Pugilist uses too (even if it is not really using rolling averages to achieve it). Maybe it is your weighting of the different stat sources that should be different for different rolling methods and depths? -- PEZ

I would recommend keeping a non-rolling gun around, as it will be better against non-adaptive movement every time. As for the rolling gun, have you tried more mundane moving averages? Exponential ones might just not be a good way to go about it. I'm guessing wildly here. -- Kuuran

I have tried several different ways to keep movement stats. What I have found works best is this:

	public void incrementHits() {
		guessFactors[0]++;
		fastBuff[0]++;
		
		for(int i=1; i<guessFactors.length; i++){
			fastBuff[i]*=0.98f;
			guessFactors[i]*=0.98f;
		}
		guessFactors[getGuessFactor()] += 0.01f;
		fastBuff[getGuessFactor()] += 0.01f;
		//Andrew's cool way
		if(getGuessFactor() + 1 <= (GUESS_FACTORS - 1)) {
			fastBuff[getGuessFactor() + 1] += 0.006f;
			guessFactors[getGuessFactor() + 1] += 0.006f;
		}
		if(getGuessFactor() - 1 >= 1) {
			fastBuff[getGuessFactor() - 1] += 0.006f;
			guessFactors[getGuessFactor() - 1] += 0.006f;
		}
	}
I do not know why but if I use that I will score somewhere north of 2015. Maybe I need to look at the projection aspect next to make sure it is working as I expect too. -- jim

But that not only includes stat decay. It also does some bin smoothing. Maybe that's where you gain the points? You do any bin smoothing elsewhere? -- PEZ

Congrats on reaching 2022 points! You should try rolling back your movement to version 0.59 together with this fixed gun. -- PEZ

Yeah, 10 more points may be gained that way. Congrats from me too! I'm curious how your fixed gun would score in the RRGunChallenge. --Vic

For anyone who was following along during the gun talk for this bot, it appears that advancing and retreating velocity was indeed more important than I originally thought. -- jim

How much more important? -- PEZ

2.5 points in the TargetingChallenge. My gun was operating at about %89 pre gun fix. It is operating at about %91.5 post gun fix. Strange as I did not think it would make that much difference. -- jim

I didn't realize you answered the question and decided to answer it myself. Helps my gun a LOT in the TargetingChallenge 500! Running a TC35 now to see if it might also be worth it in the Rumble. (Well, I'm also trying it in the rumble at the same time. Doesn't seem to lose me points so far. But at 165 battles it's way too early to tell...). -- PEZ

And. Big thanks for sharing this! Tiny change. Big difference. I like. -- PEZ

Of course it improves everyone's gun some and does not answer why *my* gun was shooting at 89%. So once again I will have the worst stinking gun in the business. Sigh. -- jim

Also, now you need to return the favor and provide me with a +1.5 point gun fix ;-) -- jim

How about you try carbon copy the segmentations I use in CC? That might tell you if it's in segmentation or elsewhere that your gun needs attention. -- PEZ

73% against Aristocles? Man, I must try that with CC. Sounds like your surfing must be working great! -- PEZ

Ainīt surfing cool? Congratulations! Aloha! -- Axe

I have had surfing working, then broke it, the fixed it, then borke it. My problem is that I do not like to make small changes and then release. I like to make big changes. Then wonder what the heck went wrong. I have to change this model. -- jim


Robo Home | DarkHallow | Changes | Preferences | AllPages
Edit text of this page | View other revisions
Last edited September 25, 2004 22:59 EST by Jim (diff)
Search: