Farer
Joined 2 years ago
Karma
25
Submissions
77
Member since
Sep 30
breathingworld.com
View on Hacker NewsRecent submissions
Comment · 1 year ago
So interesting !
I made custom pathfinding solution before. How about considering my project too ?
Comment · 1 year ago
I really dislike extreme views. 0 or 1. This is a concept that only fits the Digital world. The world we live in is analog. Although we call the world we live in a 'Digital World,' in reality, the 'Digit' itself is simply recorded on a certain analog machine.
Just because the 'AI' services we use today cause certain levels of error doesn't mean we can disregard their value as zero. Are Apple’s services flawless? (Vision Pro... I won’t say more.) Since humans are not perfect, everything created by humans can never be perfect. Between 0 and 1, there are countless values like 0.1, 0.0002, etc. Ignoring this concept is something I personally find truly repulsive.
When the so-called 'AI' industry was booming, Apple was completely fumbling. Why? Because Apple is not perfect either. After all, Apple is run by people.
Comment · 1 year ago
"The end of tuning is stock."
Comment · 1 year ago
Yes, I was a huge fan of Ultima 7, 9 and Online.
I remember that incredible sense of freedom gave me a kind of liberation(?). It’s an honor to be able to have this conversation with you.
Thinking about how you were already grappling with pathfinding issues and addressing them in real-time back then makes me feel a bit envious. I’m sure there weren’t many people who could have had such experiences at that time.
It’s thanks to people like you with those experiences that today’s programming languages and skills have developed as they have.
My technical level is far below yours, but I want to complete a lightweight pathfinding algorithm for my project, no matter what.
Thank you for sharing such an inspiring story.
Comment · 1 year ago
Oh, thank you.
I'll have to take a look at the source code as well.
Comment · 1 year ago
Oh~ This is very similar to the concept I was thinking of.
I don't really like the idea of exploring strictly in a clockwise direction, though.
Thank you for the information!
Comment · 1 year ago
I’ve reviewed the source code.
It seems like starting with clear and accurate information about the obstacles could be an issue.
Also, if the obstacles become very large, preprocessing will likely be necessary.
Comment · 1 year ago
Oh, I saw that blog too. It helped me a lot to be inspired.
What I mean by "performance" is that I want to minimize preprocessing, and I want to minimize the amount of computation I can do even when I'm navigating in real time. I'll definitely watch the video you gave me. Thank you!
Comment · 1 year ago
Yeah, I thought about that too, but I'm also trying to keep pre-processing work as light as possible.
Comment · 1 year ago
The algorithm for finding detour points is as follows.
In fact, I’ve improved it a bit through research:
1. Detect a collision with an obstacle on the straight path connecting the starting point and the destination. 2. Decide which direction to explore along the obstacle's outline (for now, the side closer to the destination). 3. If the end of the visible outline is reached, search for an appropriate detour point around that outline. 4. Select a detour point where a straight-line movement from the starting point avoids the obstacle, preferably closer to the destination.
---
If the first detour point selection fails, I plan to search in the *opposite direction* along the outline where the obstacle was first encountered. I’m currently working on resolving this part.
You can check out my progress here: https://github.com/Farer/bw_path_finding