| Statistics | We have 1675 registered users
The newest registered user is dejo123
Our users have posted a total of 30851 messages in 1411 subjects
|
| Who is online? | In total there are 2 users online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 2 Guests None Most users ever online was 443 on Sun Mar 17, 2013 5:41 pm |
| Latest topics | » THIS FORUM IS NOW OBSOLETE
 by NickTheNick Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:26 pm
» To all the people who come here looking for thrive.
by NickTheNick Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:22 pm
» Build Error Code::Blocks / CMake
by crovea Tue Jul 28, 2015 5:28 pm
» Hello! I can translate in japanese
by tjwhale Thu Jul 02, 2015 7:23 pm
» On Leave (Offline thread)
by NickTheNick Wed Jul 01, 2015 12:20 am
» Devblog #14: A Brave New Forum
by NickTheNick Mon Jun 29, 2015 4:49 am
» Application for Programmer
by crovea Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:14 am
» Re-Reapplication
by The Creator Thu Jun 25, 2015 10:57 pm
» Application (programming)
by crovea Tue Jun 23, 2015 8:00 am
» Achieving Sapience
by MitochondriaBox Sun Jun 21, 2015 7:03 pm
» Microbe Stage GDD
by tjwhale Sat Jun 20, 2015 3:44 pm
» Application for Programmer/ Theorist
by tjwhale Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:56 am
» Application for a 3D Modeler.
by Kaiju4u Wed Jun 10, 2015 11:16 am
» Presentation
by Othithu Tue Jun 02, 2015 10:38 am
» Application of Sorts
by crovea Sun May 31, 2015 5:06 pm
» want to contribute
by Renzope Sun May 31, 2015 12:58 pm
» Music List Thread (Post New Themes Here)
by Oliveriver Thu May 28, 2015 1:06 pm
» Application: English-Spanish translator
by Renzope Tue May 26, 2015 1:53 pm
» Want to be promoter or project manager
by TheBudderBros Sun May 24, 2015 9:00 pm
» A new round of Forum Revamps!
by Oliveriver Wed May 20, 2015 11:32 am
|
| | | Towards a working model for organisms. |  |
|
+52creator Tenebrarum Bashinerox ~sciocont Djohaal 9 posters | | Author | Message |
|---|
Djohaal
Learner
Posts : 144
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-12-03
 | | Subject: Towards a working model for organisms. Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:58 pm | |
| - Spoiler:
Well considering that we'll need to better plan this out, this thread is supposed to do the "how" part of "what" the organism editor should do. Scio's excellent list of things OE should do
Data management:Data should be stored in two instances, descriptive and interpretative. Descriptive data defines how the creature looks like. It should countain all the data required for the software to rebuild a creature on someone's computer from its dataset. Thus it should be stored on a parametric fashion where everything relevant to its final shape - position of vertexes of bones, bone hierarchy and angular data of meta-splines), position and rotation and morphs of organs, procedural texture data and possibly texture maps for fine detail can be stored on a relatively small file size that can be transfered among users. Animation data should be generated locally (eg, not part of the creature's DNA) and "baked" into scratch data folders which can be acessed quickly by the software for efficiency. This calls for several prerrogatives: 1: Deterministic assembly, since the same data should generate the same creature on different computers 2: Hierarchized data, since we'll have trees of limbs and organs which start on the root spine/wormacle 3: Standarized organ* data with each organ having an unique ID which should be shared and standarized among all copies of software. This should be very well thought out as to allow modability and expansivity later on. 4: A surface coordinate system for defining where the organs are attached to the body. *Organ here is refered as the "parts" we used on spore. Hands, feet, eyes, nostrils, ornaments, skin flaps, everything that is remotely an "object" that we attach on the base mesh should be considered an organ. I included hands and feet here because I think simulating hands and feet will be a bit beyond our initial possibility, thus using pre-animated appendages at first will be a better route of action. Interpretative data is the data that defines how will the creature interact with its enviroment. Here we'll need some complex analyizers to determine factors such as the creature's speed, stamina, health, metabolc rate, diet, horoscope, etc. This data should probably not be very large in volume and can be included alongside the descriptive data. Interpretative data variables would be pretty much the "stats" we have on an RPG game, and would dictate how the organism mode gameplay would fare. The hook is, this should be modular so we can add more analyzers and variables as it goes, because these same variables should be used on whatever auto-evo placeholder we may use. In a third instance we'll have the non-visible adaptations of a creature. These would be akin to RPG "quirks" which come on a big list with checkboxes for you to pick. They'd apply modfiers to the interpretative stats. For instance lets say you are creating a desert rat. We'd have a checkbox such as "efficient kidneys" which would lower urine volume and basal water consumption, but would decrease the rate of detoxification of the body. Or say you are making a cow, you could have a checkbox "adapted intestinal flora" which would make it capable of extracting more energy from grass. | |
|  | | ~sciocont
Overall Team Lead
Posts : 3406
Reputation : 138
Join date : 2010-07-06
| | Subject: Re: Towards a working model for organisms. Fri Dec 17, 2010 5:36 pm | |
| This looks like pretty good groundwork. | |
| | | | Bashinerox
Programming Team lead
Posts : 238
Reputation : 8
Join date : 2010-07-07
Age : 34
Location : Australia
| | Subject: Re: Towards a working model for organisms. Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:03 am | |
| This data model is actually almost identical to the real data model being currently used.
Kudos.
Except 4.
Just about everything is placed in relation to the underlying skeleton, in real life and in a heirachy, So, it's not a surface offset, it's a skeletal offset.. | |
| | | | ~sciocont
Overall Team Lead
Posts : 3406
Reputation : 138
Join date : 2010-07-06
| | Subject: Re: Towards a working model for organisms. Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:58 am | |
| - Bashinerox wrote:
- This data model is actually almost identical to the real data model being currently used.
Kudos.
Except 4.
Just about everything is placed in relation to the underlying skeleton, in real life and in a heirachy, So, it's not a surface offset, it's a skeletal offset.. Skeletal offset is a really good idea... nice work. | |
| | | | Tenebrarum
Society Team Lead
Posts : 1179
Reputation : 32
Join date : 2010-10-01
Age : 30
Location : ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
| | Subject: Re: Towards a working model for organisms. Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:08 pm | |
| Nice work! You should keep eachother posted Bashi/Djohaal. | |
| | | | Bashinerox
Programming Team lead
Posts : 238
Reputation : 8
Join date : 2010-07-07
Age : 34
Location : Australia
| | Subject: Re: Towards a working model for organisms. Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:33 pm | |
| - Tenebrarum wrote:
- Nice work! You should keep eachother posted Bashi/Djohaal.
We're keeping in touch | |
| | | | ~sciocont
Overall Team Lead
Posts : 3406
Reputation : 138
Join date : 2010-07-06
| | Subject: Re: Towards a working model for organisms. Tue Dec 28, 2010 5:25 pm | |
| Okay, I'm going for a thought dump here, so beware. PLEASE READ IT and deconstruct it if you wish, comments criticism are the only ways to move forward. - Spoiler:
All right, we need to define how physics will affect creature building. Now, I don't know how to do all of it, but I've brainstormed a few things. First off is legs.
Legs are going to show up on most land creatures- so we need to determine how strong they will be, right?
I'd guess the legs of an animal need to have the ability to hold up at least 200% of its mass. this probably changes from creature to creature, but that's a goo starting point, and we can always change it. That means the strenght of each leg is measured by the function.
s=2m/d
Where s is strength of the leg, m is mass of the creature, and d is number of legs. This helps us determine how much muscle we need to put on a leg.
We also need to determine a constant(s) for muscle strength, because that is the other variable we need to determine for procedural muscles is muscle mass.
Wiki on muscle strength
IN HUMANS
each muscle fiber exerts .3 micronewtons, and I've done some research to find that:
regular muscle fibers (proximal) have a width of 85-90 microns
fine-coordination muscle fibers (distal) have a width of about 20 microns.
The following contains maths that may be incorrect.
Therefore, in a leg, a 1 cm wide strip of muscle fibers that is one fiber thick can exert a force of about 35 micronewtons. so a 1cm by 1 cm strip of muscle can exert about 1250 micronewtons (.00125 newtons)
Remember that a newton is a measurement of force needed to accelerate 1 kg 1 meter per second per second.
Bundles of muscle fibers are a few centimeters long, so let's say 2 cm for their mength.
so a bundle of musle 1cm by 1 cm by 2 cm exerts about 1250 micronewtons, or we can say that one cm3 of muscle can exert about 625 mN.
Therefore we can determine the needed volume of muscle to do work.
s/.000625=v
s is needed strength in newtons, v is volume in cm3
So if you need a muscle to have the strength of 1 newton, it needs to have a volume of 1600cm3
That doesn't seem right. That's probably because musles aren't made up of all big fibers, they are a mixture of different sizes of fibers, so let's give an average fiber width of 50 microns, and an average fiber length of 1 cm
that gives us .012N/cm3
and
s/.012=v
So a muscle with these variables needs about 83 cm3 of musle to move 1 newton, which seems more reasonable.
Therefore we can say that in the OE, 1cm3 of muscle tissue equals
1.06 g
.012N of possible force
MUSCLE MASS
If we can find the volume of the musle's mesh (which we will need to do to do the work I have up there), we can find its weight. Muscles have a density of about 1.06kg/liter (remember that a liter is 1000cm3) So for each cm3of musle we have, we have 1.06 g of muscle.
MUSCLE EFFICIENCY
Muscle efficiency should peak at about 30%, because ATP is only 40% efficient. However, if we want, we can include an option to use a more efficient nucleotide (this is purely fictional as far as I know, but I'm not an expert, so I'll say it can happen) that is maybe 60% efficient, boosting muscle efficiency to a peak of 50%.
PLACEMENT OF MUSCLES
This is probably the most difficult part of muscling- where muscles need to be placed, and what shapes they need to take. I don't know right now how to do it, but I'll see if I can lay some ground rules down.
-The only thing we are going to place is skeletal muscle.
- there are about 639 skeletal muscles in the huiman body. We aren't going to go into that detail. the basic shape of the musles can be defined by about 32 large muscles or muscle groups. This means we will be shooting for showing mostly large muscles, then wrapping the skin around them.
-muscles must connect two or more bones
That's all I have for now
Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. I wrote this down quite quickly. I hope this helps with Muscling, I think you said you already had the meta-equation written and we were using a "meta sausage", so i assumed I could lay down some stuff for you. Also, I don't know how we're calculating the volume of a mesh in the game- do you have that covered?
more refrerences to read over when we need them
Biology Online
| |
| | | | ~sciocont
Overall Team Lead
Posts : 3406
Reputation : 138
Join date : 2010-07-06
| | Subject: Re: Towards a working model for organisms. Wed Jan 05, 2011 9:02 pm | |
| | |
| | | | 2creator
Newcomer
Posts : 69
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-10-14
Location : The interwebs
| | Subject: Re: Towards a working model for organisms. Thu Jan 06, 2011 10:52 am | |
| - ~sciocont wrote:
- Bumping for replies.
Ok. Seems reasonable. But would this be the same in, let's say, a low gravity environment? | |
| | | | ~sciocont
Overall Team Lead
Posts : 3406
Reputation : 138
Join date : 2010-07-06
| | Subject: Re: Towards a working model for organisms. Fri Jan 07, 2011 6:00 pm | |
| - 2creator wrote:
- ~sciocont wrote:
- Bumping for replies.
Ok. Seems reasonable. But would this be the same in, let's say, a low gravity environment? Good question. Really the question would be "Do lower-gravity environments produce less powerful muscles?" Well, if they do not, we will have very stringy-looking animals in lower gravity planets. If lower-gravity environments evolve less powerful muscle fibers, the animals will have larger muscles, but the muscles themselves will be less powerful (by volume) than muscles of a higher-g org. | |
| | | | Invader
Experienced
Posts : 528
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2010-07-10
Age : 27
| | Subject: Re: Towards a working model for organisms. Sun Jan 09, 2011 1:16 am | |
| - ~sciocont wrote:
- Okay, I'm going for a thought dump here, so beware. PLEASE READ IT and deconstruct it if you wish, comments criticism are the only ways to move forward.
- Spoiler:
All right, we need to define how physics will affect creature building. Now, I don't know how to do all of it, but I've brainstormed a few things. First off is legs.
Legs are going to show up on most land creatures- so we need to determine how strong they will be, right?
I'd guess the legs of an animal need to have the ability to hold up at least 200% of its mass. this probably changes from creature to creature, but that's a goo starting point, and we can always change it. That means the strenght of each leg is measured by the function.
s=2m/d
Where s is strength of the leg, m is mass of the creature, and d is number of legs. This helps us determine how much muscle we need to put on a leg.
We also need to determine a constant(s) for muscle strength, because that is the other variable we need to determine for procedural muscles is muscle mass.
Wiki on muscle strength
IN HUMANS
each muscle fiber exerts .3 micronewtons, and I've done some research to find that:
regular muscle fibers (proximal) have a width of 85-90 microns
fine-coordination muscle fibers (distal) have a width of about 20 microns.
The following contains maths that may be incorrect.
Therefore, in a leg, a 1 cm wide strip of muscle fibers that is one fiber thick can exert a force of about 35 micronewtons. so a 1cm by 1 cm strip of muscle can exert about 1250 micronewtons (.00125 newtons)
Remember that a newton is a measurement of force needed to accelerate 1 kg 1 meter per second per second.
Bundles of muscle fibers are a few centimeters long, so let's say 2 cm for their mength.
so a bundle of musle 1cm by 1 cm by 2 cm exerts about 1250 micronewtons, or we can say that one cm3 of muscle can exert about 625 mN.
Therefore we can determine the needed volume of muscle to do work.
s/.000625=v
s is needed strength in newtons, v is volume in cm3
So if you need a muscle to have the strength of 1 newton, it needs to have a volume of 1600cm3
That doesn't seem right. That's probably because musles aren't made up of all big fibers, they are a mixture of different sizes of fibers, so let's give an average fiber width of 50 microns, and an average fiber length of 1 cm
that gives us .012N/cm3
and
s/.012=v
So a muscle with these variables needs about 83 cm3 of musle to move 1 newton, which seems more reasonable.
Therefore we can say that in the OE, 1cm3 of muscle tissue equals
1.06 g
.012N of possible force
MUSCLE MASS
If we can find the volume of the musle's mesh (which we will need to do to do the work I have up there), we can find its weight. Muscles have a density of about 1.06kg/liter (remember that a liter is 1000cm3) So for each cm3of musle we have, we have 1.06 g of muscle.
MUSCLE EFFICIENCY
Muscle efficiency should peak at about 30%, because ATP is only 40% efficient. However, if we want, we can include an option to use a more efficient nucleotide (this is purely fictional as far as I know, but I'm not an expert, so I'll say it can happen) that is maybe 60% efficient, boosting muscle efficiency to a peak of 50%.
PLACEMENT OF MUSCLES
This is probably the most difficult part of muscling- where muscles need to be placed, and what shapes they need to take. I don't know right now how to do it, but I'll see if I can lay some ground rules down.
-The only thing we are going to place is skeletal muscle.
- there are about 639 skeletal muscles in the huiman body. We aren't going to go into that detail. the basic shape of the musles can be defined by about 32 large muscles or muscle groups. This means we will be shooting for showing mostly large muscles, then wrapping the skin around them.
-muscles must connect two or more bones
That's all I have for now
Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. I wrote this down quite quickly. I hope this helps with Muscling, I think you said you already had the meta-equation written and we were using a "meta sausage", so i assumed I could lay down some stuff for you. Also, I don't know how we're calculating the volume of a mesh in the game- do you have that covered?
more refrerences to read over when we need them
Biology Online
Read over it. It all makes sense to me. I'm sure someone else will find something more... constructive to say about it. | |
| | | | Commander Keen
Industrial Team Lead
Posts : 1123
Reputation : 36
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : Czech Republic (not that anyone would know where it is...)
| | Subject: Re: Towards a working model for organisms. Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:34 am | |
| I read the post, I understand it, but I don't know of any way to add to it. That's why I didn't post untill now. | |
| | | | ~sciocont
Overall Team Lead
Posts : 3406
Reputation : 138
Join date : 2010-07-06
| | Subject: Re: Towards a working model for organisms. Sun Jan 09, 2011 7:14 pm | |
| Thanks for the confirmation guys. | |
| | | | Mysterious_Calligrapher
Biome Team Lead
Posts : 1034
Reputation : 26
Join date : 2010-11-26
Age : 32
Location : Earth, the solar system, the milky way...
| | Subject: Re: Towards a working model for organisms. Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:53 pm | |
| We did pre-discuss this, scio, so this is why I didn't say much. However, I'm pretty certain that someone should have a look into muscles vs. Gravity.
I'm pretty sure that more gravity = more muscles, as well as the inverse of that, based off these two things:
1) It has been a long accepted fact that astronauts outside of the earth's gravity (free-fall, moon) can get muscle atrophy. (Read sci-fi for the education, not the martian princesses!)
2) If the force needed to move increases due to gravity, then muscle size will increase. Bone density will also increase because you need something strong to attatch that to. So there is a definite ceiling there, as more muscle + denser bones = more mass to move around.
I can't draw here, but you have a definite carrying capacity for size at different gravities - something that we should incorporate, yeah, but which the current maths have taken care of. Though, I imagine efficiency would be pretty constant, as cells are more or less created along stock plans - and muscular atrophying is generally a decrease in matter, implying a decrease in size, rather than a decrease in efficiency.
/textwall | |
| | | | Darkgamma
Learner
Posts : 155
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-11-21
Location : Dort, am Klavier
| | Subject: Re: Towards a working model for organisms. Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:58 pm | |
| Honestly, mr. Calligrapher, the muscle strength goes only to the point from which onwards there are simply inefficient muscles. | |
| | | | Tenebrarum
Society Team Lead
Posts : 1179
Reputation : 32
Join date : 2010-10-01
Age : 30
Location : ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
| | Subject: Re: Towards a working model for organisms. Thu Jan 13, 2011 8:03 pm | |
| - Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:
- /textwall
[/textwin] | |
| | | | Mysterious_Calligrapher
Biome Team Lead
Posts : 1034
Reputation : 26
Join date : 2010-11-26
Age : 32
Location : Earth, the solar system, the milky way...
| | Subject: Re: Towards a working model for organisms. Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:02 pm | |
| That's the ceiling that I was talking about - when we can no longer use the muscles due to inefficiency/the inability to cope with greater gravity/any number of other complications wich will depend on the actual math interplay between muscle strength, blood supply, gravity, and bone mass.
Sorry If I speak confusingly.
PS. That's Miss Caligrapher to you.
& Hi, Rex! | |
| | | | ~sciocont
Overall Team Lead
Posts : 3406
Reputation : 138
Join date : 2010-07-06
| | Subject: Re: Towards a working model for organisms. Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:12 pm | |
| nice post. You're right that there will be a ceiling. Now, I don't think we're going to be able to find research that would lead us to the point of the ceiling. However, we might be able to find researchh that will lead us to the correct function for the cieling. My guess is that it would be either hyperbolic or linear. Gravity on x, muscle needed to move mass on y. Eventually it will get to a point where the muscle's weight becomes greater than the weight that the muscle could lift. I believe the ceiling would be about 75% of the way there. | |
| | | | Darkgamma
Learner
Posts : 155
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-11-21
Location : Dort, am Klavier
| | Subject: Re: Towards a working model for organisms. Fri Jan 14, 2011 7:02 am | |
| - Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:
- That's the ceiling that I was talking about - when we can no longer use the muscles due to inefficiency/the inability to cope with greater gravity/any number of other complications wich will depend on the actual math interplay between muscle strength, blood supply, gravity, and bone mass.
Sorry If I speak confusingly.
PS. That's Miss Caligrapher to you.
& Hi, Rex! Oh, sorry then Miss Calligrapher. When I think about your and Scio's posts, you're both right. The only problem then is to make the physics and game engines reckognise this and include it. | |
| | | | Mysterious_Calligrapher
Biome Team Lead
Posts : 1034
Reputation : 26
Join date : 2010-11-26
Age : 32
Location : Earth, the solar system, the milky way...
| | Subject: Re: Towards a working model for organisms. Fri Jan 14, 2011 4:05 pm | |
| All right. Scio has math for the necessary muscle mass. Then, we figure in the gravity...
as each planet has a gravity value that is discussed in terms of earth's gravity (twice earth's gravity, 3 times earth's gravity...) the necesary muscle mass should be somewhat linear.
We might need a couple of sub-calculations for this one. | |
| | | | ~sciocont
Overall Team Lead
Posts : 3406
Reputation : 138
Join date : 2010-07-06
| | Subject: Re: Towards a working model for organisms. Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:06 pm | |
| I think it'll be easiest for us to have it on a linear scale. We can set up a point for earth's gavity/muscle mass, run it through the origin, and there we have our scale. we can then determine our cutoff point. I can actually do that this wekend, it's pretty simple. | |
| | | | Sponsored content
| | Subject: Re: Towards a working model for organisms. | |
| |
| | | | | | Towards a working model for organisms. | |
|
Similar topics | |
|
| | Permissions in this forum: | You cannot reply to topics in this forum
| |
| |
| |
