Home    LittleBigPlanet 2 - 3 - Vita - Karting    LittleBigPlanet 2    [LBP2] Tutorials
#1

Logic Blog - updated 2011/02/06

Archive: 83 posts

Yes indeed! Here it is, the moment you?ve all been waiting for! Ladies and Gentlemen, Now that CC has fixed up the blogs, let me proudly present...



The SwitchGeek Sessions
rtm223's World Famous Logic Blog
(name subject to chage, when I thinks of a better one)


Most logic tutorials / blogs / whatever focus on two things:
How to make a variety of switches, with giveaway prizes
How to use those generic switches to create something cool and complex


There?s nothing wrong with this approach, but it's very much my intention to take things in a different direction. It's unlikely the focus will ever be ?How to Make a <Insert Complex Contraption>? tutorial, although who knows? I am very fickle after all? Instead, the focus will largely be on logic skills and techniques; with a strong emphasis on theory and leading towards some advanced stuff. Certainly nothing here for the feint of heart: hic sunt dracones.

List of Blog Posts

[2009/12/02] Welcome to the Wonderful World of Wenches (http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/blog.php?b=842)
[2009/12/09] Waste Not, Want Not [Part 1]: Basic Thermo Optimisation (http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/blog.php?b=866)
[2009/12/13] Mini Blog: Logical Notation (http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/blog.php?b=872)
[2009/12/16] Waste not, Want Not [Part 2]: Input Sharing (http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/blog.php?b=874)
[2010/01/19] Waste not, Want Not [Part 3]: Implied Logic (http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/entry.php?881-Waste-Not-Want-Not-Part-3)


- - - ---------------------------- - - -

[2010/02/23] Emitter Blocking Theory (http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/entry.php?1041-Emitter-Blocking-Theory)


- - - ---------------------------- - - -

[2010/10/05] LBP2: Analogue Logic [Part 1]: Concepts and Fundamentals (http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/entry.php?2069-Analogue-Logic-1-Fundamentals[/url)
[2010/10/10] Analogue Logic (supplemental) - Notation (http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/entry.php?2106-Analogue-Logic-Notation)
[2010/10/12] Analogue Logic 2: Sorting and Addition (http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/entry.php?2107-Analogue-Logic-2-Sorting-amp-Addition)
[2010/10/26] Analogue Logic 3: Analogue - Digital Conversion (ADC) & Digital to Analogue Conversion (DAC) (http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/entry.php?2130-Analogue-Logic-3-DAC-amp-ADC)






------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Conventions Used
General stuff, so I don't have to keep repeating it in every blog I do. I?ll add to this as I add more technical stuff ? just think of this section as a cheat sheet and glossery for the blogs. If I end up using any terminology you aren?t familiar with, then just ask and I?ll add it in.

Tweaking
Unless I explicitly state otherwise, all connectors and switches will be left at their default settings, with the following exception:
Pistons are considered stiff by default


Terminology
For the sake of clarity I would attempt to use consistent terms throughout my tutorials. However, I have a tendency to get distracted and my mind flits between electronics, software, mathematical analogies and LBP terms. Plus it's sometimes easier to use certain terms in certain contexts. So, for switches and signals the following terms can be used interchangeably:
TRUE = 1 = Switch On = Active = Outwards Direction
FALSE = 0 = Switch Off = Inactive = Inwards Direction


Another terminology issue we may face is the terms "switches" and "gates". In LBP everything from a humble Perm all the way up to a complex logic network gets referred to as a "switch". I'm liable to talk about certain switches as "gates", it's just natural to me. I'm sorry.

geekNotes
What with this being a relatively advanced course, I thought I would dot spoilers around the place, like this:



This is supplementary information that could be technical stuff, random tangents, general musings, etc. They may be interesting, useful, distracting, confusing or could possibly just make your head kerplode.

You have been warned.





.		2009-12-01 02:30:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Wow, truly looking forward to it. Too bad about the spoiler bits. Didn't want to make it a thread, huh? Either way, I don't think there's anyone better suited for the job. Good luck to you, sir.

*waits patiently for first entry*

...

*chirp*


(want me to make you some fancy header when you decide on the permanent name? Nah, of course you don't.)		2009-12-01 02:49:00

Author:
comphermc
Posts: 5338

You can if you want. I was considering doing a community contest and giving out muchos XP though... Maybe hold back until I decide how to go about that.

I decided not to make it a thread because I would have to make the decision between having multiple threads, which would break the ordering, or dumping each topic pages into a single thread. I think blog entries for each topic, keeping them separate and organised and allowing people to respond to specific posts, is the best way to go. This thread is more of an index and place to keep the cheatsheet, along with general chat on the blogs themselves.

Hopefully that's how it'll work, anyway.		2009-12-01 10:01:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Right, CC got the blogs fixed up so here is a bump to announce blog post #1, the stupidly long opening entitled:

Welcome to the Wonderful World of Wenches (http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/blog.php?b=842)

Enjoy.		2009-12-02 10:57:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

you know rtm, the more I read about you/from you the more I think you and I think alike.
well.. not on the geek-part, I was failry good at pascal, but all of a sudden... one day.. I just lost it while I was half-way creating a small platformer-pixel game in pascal.
from that point on, I never touched code-related stuff again.

I am happy enough that I understand most lbp logic without having to think twice.		2009-12-07 00:59:00

Author:
Luos_83
Posts: 2136

You really have a knack of overcomplicating things ...

TRUE and FALSE? Why not inverted and regular, like the stupid people say it! 		2009-12-07 03:10:00

Author:
Incinerator22
Posts: 3251

TRUE and FALSE? Why not inverted and regular, like the stupid people say it!

Because...

True = On = Out = Fire (one-shot) = Whatever you call speed.

It's a term that can be used regardless of the type of switch output.		2009-12-07 03:43:00

Author:
comphermc
Posts: 5338

You really have a knack of overcomplicating things ...

TRUE and FALSE? Why not inverted and regular, like the stupid people say it!

To continue what comphermc said: Inverted is the term used for statically defining the tweak settings of a magnetic switch. TRUE/FALSE are used here to represent run-time values of signals.

What you are suggesting is that I use inverted to refer to the tweak settings of a switch and also the value of the signal it is outputting. Using the same term for two things that are completely different in the same text is never going to work.		2009-12-07 12:11:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

I'm a big user of logic, and like this blog. I am using the randomizer from the logic pack, but I'm using six different ones. In the first set of two, there will be a 1/6 chance of it emmiting a certain block. Then after about a minute of that, it will go to a 1/3, and then a 1/2. It may require tweaking, I'll have to see how difficult it is.2009-12-08 04:38:00

Author:
srgt_poptart
Posts: 425

Just to reiterate: Although links between my logic blog and the logic pack are going to happen, I really would like to keep a well defined line between the two as it benefits both the the Logic Pack and this blog to do so. The logic pack is official LBPC content: shiny and polished, with high production values and very accessible content with a hands-on approach. This is somewhat less so, so has no place with the logic pack. On the other hand, having no stamp of LBPC approval of my blog means that I can do whatever I feel like doing, which suits me just fine

With regards to your randomiser, depending what you are trying to achieve (I'm not 100% sure), you should be able to do it with 2 randomisers, maybe just one. Just have the outputs linked via ANDs and activate the other inputs of the ANDs when you want that output to be valid.


I'm currently in a bit of a dilema about blog #2 - it's growing too large and I can't decide whether to split it or hold back until the whole thing is done. I'd rather do the former if I can find a logical split (which I think I have now) so hopefully more logics tomorrow or Thursday 		2009-12-08 11:33:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

*Bump*

New blog released today. Get it here (http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/blog.php?b=866).		2009-12-09 12:55:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Mini blog to give an overview of logic notation. This will come in handy moving forwards. It's largely for my benefit, but I'm sure it can help you out when planning your logics in future.

Mini Blog: Logical Notation (http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/blog.php?b=872)

.		2009-12-13 17:55:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Proper Blog Today:

Waste Not, Want Not, Pt 2 (http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/blog.php?b=874)

Covering input sharing between multiple logic gates.

I'm unlikely to get the next installment out before Christmas, but you can certainly expect it before 2010 		2009-12-16 12:57:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay! 2009-12-16 13:13:00

Author:
Rogar
Posts: 2284

Rogar, I'm pretty sure you mentioned that you are already using these techniques anyway, but there still might be something in there for you 2009-12-16 13:15:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Sure, the wobble bolt was an eye-opener, and I have never had the need for an XOR-gate, so even the piston version was useful to see.

Can't wait to see the negative thermo OR-gate... 		2009-12-16 13:52:00

Author:
Rogar
Posts: 2284

Now, is an XOR something that triggers on an odd input, or just a single input?

Can we not just use a 3-way AND gate from the Logic Pack, and position the key-switch/key to activate when only one of the pistons extends? Then, this can be extended for any number of inputs (pistons).		2009-12-16 16:07:00

Author:
comphermc
Posts: 5338

Odd number of inputs, sadly.

It just happens that with two inputs, the only odd number is 1

.		2009-12-16 16:09:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Now, pardon my dense-ness but what is the function of a XOR beyond 2 inputs. I understand the idea of binary adder, yes, but it would seem to me that the "exclusive" part of XOR loses its pizazz when you get an activation upon three inputs.

My understanding (which is apparently low), would suggest that XOR should only activate when there are exactly 1 true input.

Am I missing something basic?		2009-12-16 16:13:00

Author:
comphermc
Posts: 5338

Well, OK. I don't think they actually make XORs in the form of greater than 2 bit, so in a technical sense it's probably undefined.

But:

a http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt82/rtm223/XOR-1.png b http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt82/rtm223/XOR-1.png c

Should be the same as

( a http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt82/rtm223/XOR-1.png b ) http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt82/rtm223/XOR-1.png c

Right? A two bit XOR, whose output is XOR'd with the third signal, like in the adder diagram. Well that comes out as an "odd" function. So conceptually, a 3 bit XOR works out as an odd. Or at least in my head it is!		2009-12-16 16:19:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Well, OK. I don't think they actually make XORs in the form of greater than 2 bit, so in a technical sense it's probably undefined.

But:

a http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt82/rtm223/XOR-1.png b http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt82/rtm223/XOR-1.png c

Should be the same as

( a http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt82/rtm223/XOR-1.png b ) http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt82/rtm223/XOR-1.png c

Right? A two bit XOR, whose output is XOR'd with the third signal, like in the adder diagram. Well that comes out as an "odd" function. So conceptually, a 3 bit XOR works out as an odd. Or at least in my head it is!

a http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt82/rtm223/XOR-1.png b http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt82/rtm223/XOR-1.png c

Is the same as (a+b+c) ? !(a?b) ? !(a?c) ? !(b?c) (If this is wrong, then ignore me)

While, ( a http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt82/rtm223/XOR-1.png b ) http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt82/rtm223/XOR-1.png c

Is the same as [((a+b) ? !(a?b)) + c)] ? ![((a+b) ? !(a?b)) ? c]

...

I'm not sure that helped, but the point is that (a+b+c) ? !(a?b) ? !(a?c) ? !(b?c) is not true as soon as you have 3 inputs. You can see that from all of the not, AND conditions. As soon as one of those is false, the whole thing kerplodes.

The second one does allow three inputs, but the first one does not... They are not quite the same.

Dangit, I hate it when you are right. XOR is indeed associative (upon some research). You win again... 		2009-12-16 16:30:00

Author:
comphermc
Posts: 5338

That's weird, I'm the complete opposite. I love it when I'm right

If it makes you feel better, I can never remember the words like associative


Edit: Just to confirm, there will be no logic blog this week (23rd), blame water, christmas and grant for getting me all excited about doing other stuff. Also it's gonna be another big'un (c. 3k words again, so it takes a little while, like). Normal service will resume next week 		2009-12-16 16:34:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Yay!!!! (http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/entry.php?881-Waste-Not-Want-Not-Part-3)


(new blog out)		2010-01-19 23:13:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

About time! Leaving us starving for so long...tsk. 2010-01-20 11:18:00

Author:
Rogar
Posts: 2284

Yeah I know Between losing almost the entire thing when I'd nearly completed it the first time, various real-world issues and generally not feeling like rewriting it all, it's taken quite a while to get this together. I make a lot of effort to be less tardy in future!!2010-01-20 13:07:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

No worries, at least you produce something worthwhile once in a while, which is more than some of us can say...2010-01-20 15:36:00

Author:
Rogar
Posts: 2284

Well, I just wrote this as a comment on the last blog, but I figure it makes sense to post it here as well.


Kinda ****** off here. I went to revisit my latency tests last night, and as it turns out, it's not that difficult to get stuff switching at 0.05s in both directions. Now I swear I tried a good few times and failed before, but last night thrice (yes thrice) in a row it was working. Which is a shame because I came up with some clever stuff to get around a problem that apparently doesn't exist.

I'm blaming leerdammer.

You do have to be really careful with your mag switch tweaking still though, and latency is quite an interesting topic, so there is probably some mileage in a latency blog.		2010-01-22 12:33:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

I'm crawing for a new blog-post about logic!

Give it to me! please... 		2010-02-01 15:14:00

Author:
Tamland
Posts: 106

Gee, I recently discovered how to subscribe to blogs, but how do I test I did it right...? 2010-02-18 18:57:00

Author:
Rogar
Posts: 2284

I wouldn't advise sitting next to your email inbox waiting.... Not unless you have a LOT of snacks. Logic blog will be returning as soon as possible, but I'm giving no guarantees on when that will be.

Worst case I'll just knock together some explanations of some unique logic pieces I have knocking around that would allow me to talk about some interesting concepts.		2010-02-18 20:41:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Logic Blog returns!

Although today, I'm not entirely sure if anything in there counts as logic, and also it 100% not what I told you was going to be next, but meh, deal with it. Actually what happened was, the next blog was supposed to be that worked example, but seeing as I kept you all waiting so long it didn't seem right to publish a worked example that had no new techniques in it. So I've gone off on a tangent and today we look at basic
Emitter Blocking Theory (http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/entry.php?1041-Emitter-Blocking-Theory), and applications thereof.		2010-02-23 13:41:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Is this a level too?2010-09-22 06:12:00

Author:
Unknown User

Nope,

I specifically wasn't creating levels alongside this as the intent was to teach people techniques, rather than produce one-off application-specific devices.

As logic blog 2.0 kicks off, this may well change as I think there are a lot of things where the techniques are going to be better demonstrated by example


----------------------------------

And on that subject, I'm wondering what exactly I should do about logic blog 2.0? It makes sense to begin during the beta I think, but I'm unsure whether it's going to make sense to publish it hidden away in the beta section of the site, or continue it in the blog area, as before, even though some people aren't in the beta.


Anyone not in the beta got any thoughts on this??		2010-09-24 16:02:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

I'm not in beta and in my opinion you should post them to blog area. I want to know much as possible about lbp2 to compensate my betalessness.2010-09-25 11:14:00

Author:
waD_Delma
Posts: 282

I agree with waD_Delma. I am not in the beta and would very much like to see them.

On a similar note I am curious if you have published anything regarding the score modifier activating objects and conditions in a linked level?

Ciao!		2010-09-26 01:12:00

Author:
TheAffected
Posts: 626

OK, I'm gonna kick this off again soonish, although bear in mind that even a couple of weeks into the beta I'm not planning on doing a beginner's guide to LBP2 logic. Sure I could cover the little bits and pieces like how to make a perm or a set-reset and crap like that, but that's all common knowledge (or will be for anyone who spends more than a day with the game) and... it's not very interesting. So I'll stick to some topics that are a little less than obvious and continue with the mission plan of pushing back the boundaries of what is possible.

On the other hand, I'll probably start producing bits and pieces to throw out into the community that are somewhat simpler and example applications - something that I avoided previously.


I'm also looking for the following:
1. A catalogue of the new switches in LBP2, basically images all of the sensors and logic devices.
2. Some kind of software for putting together graphs very quickly - I'm currently using excel, but the truth is it's quite faffy to actuall yget all the maths correct to produce a graph, when all I really need is a sketch.

So if anyone can help me with those then that'd be great.


WRT the score sensor, I will do at some point. At the moment upsilandre has his published in the beta with prizes and it's a much easier method to understand than mine.		2010-10-05 12:02:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Shameless bump, I managed to power through this first instalment of Logic Blog 2, and what a beastie it is - huge wall of text awaits those brave enough here (http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/entry.php?2069-Analogue-Logic-1-Fundamentals).

It's over 4000 words longs, so Id advise you to take it in stages, section 2 can be skipped initially (though it's probably well worth reading at some point), and realistically each of the sections is a logical stopping point if you need a break. It probably needs an extra proof read, but I don't feel like doing it right now, so I apologise for errors.

As ever, comments, feedback and questions in the thread or in the blog, please 		2010-10-05 21:16:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Thank you, Mr. rtm. I will look at it right now!

EDIT: Way longer than I expected... 		2010-10-05 21:23:00

Author:
piggabling
Posts: 2979

As ever, comments, feedback and questions in the thread or in the blog, please

Nice. Just one minor nitpick...


3.1.Toggles, Randomisers and Select Switches
These have no concept of analogue input and will only respond to the digital aspect of the input signal(s). The outputs do have an analogue component, however this will take a value at 0% or 100%, nothing in between.


Assuming "Select Switches" refers to "Selectors", this is not strictly true. If a "digital signal" is equivalent to, say, a battery at either 0% or >0%, the Selector also responds differently to a signal at <0% in the Cycle input, which causes it to cycle in reverse.		2010-10-05 22:58:00

Author:
Aya042
Posts: 2870

In this case aya, I consider the "digital" signals to be tri-state (0, 1 or -1), hence me saying that they aren't really digital. In actual fact I have a feeling there is a difference between a true binary signal and a tri-state signal (wrt to the meaning of zero in directional signals), but I'm not 100% atm and I'm certainly not sure which components output bi and which output tri, if that is indeed how it works. Either way they fit very closely into the same processing model, which is very different to the analogue. Certainly close enough that whilst my primary focus for the logic blog is analogue processing, I will be lumping them into the "other" category.

So the the selector and the counter increment inputs do not respond to the analogue components of the signal - they respond to the binary / tri-state / digital signal.


EDIT: Way longer than I expected...
You and me both mate 		2010-10-06 00:02:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Loving this analog stuff. I think it's not too much of a stretch to think that a mech could be built (there I go with mechs again) that has a variable walk speed (I could do that in lbp1 if it weren't for the fact that pistons can't be given direction+speed controls at the same time) and that uses different walk animations for forward/backwards.


Anyways, the logic blog has always been about technique and methodology, expanding or improving the toolsets available in an application agnostic manner.

That part made me laugh 'cuz the first thing I was gonna' ask was "what would you use this for?" I guess I tend to look at logic that way: without an application, it's hard for me to wrap my head around. I never took calculus in high school so some of that stuff was over my head (I had a bad teacher for trig--all of her students were struggling--so I just lost my taste for complex math) and I'm just now starting college after a 13 year hiatus.... which is not a plan I recommend (it wasn't meant to be a hiatus--I simply didn't think I needed school. I still don't, but you gotta' have that %&*$ paper to get a decent job... now I'm rambling about my life story so I think it's time to shut up).		2010-10-06 05:15:00

Author:
Sehven
Posts: 2188

I might kick off next blog with some graphical examples of speed values into the timer, try to cover it more visually and dump the references to calculus. I think it's useful for those familiar with calculus to understand that it is integration, but in reality I think all it takes is a few examples to get your head around it.

As for applications, it's a tricky one because with more advanced techniques, the applications are a bit more complex normally, but I wouldn't be doing this if there weren't plenty of applications there, I assure you. I'll give you a simple one that I implemented last night:

I made a little simple jumping vehicle, using movers and direct control and things and it annoyed me that you could be moving at full speed going left, jump and hold right and your air control was so great that you could land further back than where you started. I didn't want to remove air control completely, so I simply added a filtering system than limited the analogue stick signal to the range +/- 50%. Any signal >50 becomes 50.

Arguably, a division by two would have been better and give the player finer control, but that's tricky. Another option would have been to subtract 50% from the magnitude (so 45 > 0, 75 > 25). As it stands the simple limiting gives enough of a feel of reduced control in the air and so the gameplay is improved.


This is where I feel the analogue gives us more than digital in many ways - something like that can adds nuance of detail to the gameplay and empowers you to create mechanisms that feel right.		2010-10-06 10:49:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

In this case aya, I consider the "digital" signals to be tri-state (0, 1 or -1), hence me saying that they aren't really digital.

I knew you'd say that.

Actually I agree to a certain extent, which is why I called it a "minor nitpick" and not a "glaring mistake".

I think it's always going to be a little confusing to those who have a digital electronics background, and perhaps requires new terminology to differentiate it from that. At the very least, I think it might be useful to include your definitions of "digital" and "analogue" w.r.t. the way in which you use them, at the top of the post, clarifying that "digital" signals are effectively ternary (-1, 0, 1) rather than binary (0, 1).

At the same time, I'm not convinced that there is necessarily a "signal duality" (i.e. two separate signals), but rather that that all signals are analogue, and components react to them in different ways. Some components only respect whether it's zero or non-zero, some only respect the magnitude of the signal (ignoring the sign), and some only respect the sign (ignoring the magnitude).

I think the distinction you're making in the blog entry is not which components are "analogue" vs. "digital", but rather which components are most useul in dealing with analogue signals, i.e. those which respect the full range of an analogue signal and/or have the capacity to output something other than -100%, 0, or +100%.



...the first thing I was gonna' ask was "what would you use this for?" I guess I tend to look at logic that way: without an application, it's hard for me to wrap my head around.

I had something of a similar reaction myself, although not that "it's hard for me to wrap my head around", but more that "why would I bother trying to understand this without a useful application?", however simply adding something like this...


I made a little simple jumping vehicle, using movers and direct control and things and it annoyed me that you could be moving at full speed going left, jump and hold right and your air control was so great that you could land further back than where you started. I didn't want to remove air control completely, so I simply added a filtering system than limited the analogue stick signal to the range +/- 50%. Any signal >50 becomes 50.

...into the blog entry suddenly turns it from pure theory into something more practical, and I think you'll find more people might actually take notice of the article by simply putting it into the context of a useful application.		2010-10-06 15:40:00

Author:
Aya042
Posts: 2870

Of course you knew I'd say that, I'm quite predictable! Much as this is probably quite predictable:


At the same time, I'm not convinced that there is necessarily a "signal duality" (i.e. two separate signals), but rather that that all signals are analogue

I'm not buying that for one second.

It's quite easy to generate any given analogue value and have it interpreted as 0 or a 1, depending on how that value was generated - regardless of the device interpreting the digital signal. The timer is a perfect example - the digital output is 0 until it fills, then 1 until it empties - therefore at every analogue value in between (0.001 to 99.999, or whatever), the binary value can be either 0 or 1, this component alone completely debunks your model (which, incidentally, is the model I originally assumed). So I am very much making a definition between two signal types on the line. The signal combiner is another great example of a single component that debunks the model. You can produce analogue 0-99.999 with a digital 0 or 1, and analogue 0- (-99.999) with 0 or -1.		2010-10-06 16:21:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

I'm not buying that for one second.

Hmm'kay. I clearly haven't done as much experimentation in that regard, so I guess I'll have to take a closer look at these components. I'll put together some sort of 'voltmeter' device which displays the analogue and digital value of a signal (although if you're correct, the definition of "digital" might be too hazy to make this practical) , and see if that helps. I had a quick go at an analogue one yesterday, but if there is some sort of digital disparity, hopefully this will help to reveal it.		2010-10-06 17:19:00

Author:
Aya042
Posts: 2870

....a little simple jumping vehicle...

That's a good point. I don't think it would've occurred to me to do it your way: I probably would've used a separate mover during jumps and just given it 50% of the strength of the other one. Your solution is more elegant and has further reaching implications. It's the kind of extra polish that will separate the really good vehicles from all the other crap out there.

Don't get me wrong, even without examples, I found it all interesting, and I was able to follow most of it, but like Aya said, I was starting to wonder why I'd care about a sine wave. I used to work in communications, so I know how useful sine waves can be in the real world, but I can't think of anything that could be achieved with one in lbp. Still, it's a decent example because it's something anybody with any kind of electrical or engineering background can relate to.		2010-10-06 19:18:00

Author:
Sehven
Posts: 2188

Don't get me wrong, even without examples, I found it all interesting, and I was able to follow most of it, but like Aya said, I was starting to wonder why I'd care about a sine wave. I used to work in communications, so I know how useful sine waves can be in the real world, but I can't think of anything that could be achieved with one in lbp. Still, it's a decent example because it's something anybody with any kind of electrical or engineering background can relate to.

Hmmmm.... Maybe something akin to Johnee's dragonfly's "hover jitter"?		2010-10-06 19:49:00

Author:
Fishrock123
Posts: 1578

Shameless bump, I managed to power through this first instalment of Logic Blog 2, and what a beastie it is - huge wall of text awaits those brave enough here (http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/entry.php?2069-Analogue-Logic-1-Fundamentals).

It's over 4000 words longs, so Id advise you to take it in stages, section 2 can be skipped initially (though it's probably well worth reading at some point), and realistically each of the sections is a logical stopping point if you need a break. It probably needs an extra proof read, but I don't feel like doing it right now, so I apologise for errors.

As ever, comments, feedback and questions in the thread or in the blog, please

Thanks! I'll read it right away! BTW, rtm just double-posted? oh mai lawd!		2010-10-06 19:51:00

Author:
X-FROGBOY-X
Posts: 1800

Guys, is there any way to make a intersect function? (intersect of two value ranges of course).

Or.. Should I just wait until I get the tools? 		2010-10-07 21:03:00

Author:
Fishrock123
Posts: 1578

Intersect of two value ranges? I'm not entirely sure what you mean? What would be the inputs to such a system and what output would you expect?2010-10-08 13:21:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Intersect of two value ranges? I'm not entirely sure what you mean? What would be the inputs to such a system and what output would you expect?

This. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersection_(set_theory))

Just the intersection range between two different ranges of values. (4 inputs, the min and max of the first range, and second. | 2 outputs, the min and max of the intersection of the values.)		2010-10-08 16:41:00

Author:
Fishrock123
Posts: 1578

4 inputs, the min and max of the first range, and second. | 2 outputs, the min and max of the intersection of the values.

If you don't need to handle negative values, then it's pretty simple. The intersection would be from the maximum of the two 'min' values, to the minimum of the two 'max' values, so feed both 'min' values into an OR gate, and both 'max' values into an AND gate. You'll might have to deal with the case where the resulting 'min' is higher than the resulting 'max', which indicates there's no intersection range.

If you do need negative values, then it's a little trickier, as the gates compare magnitude, not value. What exactly do you need this for?		2010-10-08 18:28:00

Author:
Aya042
Posts: 2870

If you don't need to handle negative values, then it's pretty simple. The intersection would be from the maximum of the two 'min' values, to the minimum of the two 'max' values, so feed both 'min' values into an OR gate, and both 'max' values into an AND gate. You'll might have to deal with the case where the resulting 'min' is higher than the resulting 'max', which indicates there's no intersection range.

If you do need negative values, then it's a little trickier, as the gates compare magnitude, not value. What exactly do you need this for?

Partially wondering, and possibly something "HitPoints" wise. And, no, positive values will be just fine. If you have negative HP, your dead, I think... 		2010-10-09 16:16:00

Author:
Fishrock123
Posts: 1578

An alternative could be to test for being in either range and then ANDing the result... Probably far less efficient though and I don't think there are any benefits.


New blog out, though it's not an interesting one, merely a precursor to the next proper one which will be out once formatting and pictures are completed:

Analogue Logic - Notation (http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/entry.php?2106-Analogue-Logic-Notation)		2010-10-10 20:56:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Yeah, whatever was said in this thread I agree with and completely understand, 100%. 2010-10-10 22:45:00

Author:
GruntosUK
Posts: 1754

It possibly doesn't help being as drunk as I know you are right now Grant 2010-10-10 22:56:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

the next proper one which will be out once formatting and pictures are completed:

bam (http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/entry.php?2107-Analogue-Logic-2-Sorting-amp-Addition)

and filler here... shhhhh it's not spam if the moderators do it....		2010-10-12 00:52:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

I like the date you chose for the update. 10/10/2010 or 10-10-10 a.k.a. 101010 = 42 in binary.2010-10-19 15:10:00

Author:
Super_Dork_42
Posts: 1874

In fairness, I chose to publish on the day it was finished. All else is coincidence 2010-10-19 16:03:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/entry.php?2130-Analogue-Logic-3-DAC-amp-ADC

Probably the most painful logic blog to produce ever. I have no idea why, because it's al pretty simple this time around. Also, it's just ADC and DAC, covered in great detail, so you may well know the vast majority of the base concepts.

Once again, not fully proof read - point out my errors to me please 		2010-10-26 21:55:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/entry.php?2130-Analogue-Logic-3-DAC-amp-ADC

Probably the most painful logic blog to produce ever. I have no idea why, because it's al pretty simple this time around. Also, it's just ADC and DAC, covered in great detail, so you may well know the vast majority of the base concepts.

Once again, not fully proof read - point out my errors to me please good job on the blog		2010-10-27 00:23:00

Author:
WESFUN
Posts: 1336

Yay! More epic logic reading!


(am I the only guy who enjoys reading these?)		2010-10-27 00:44:00

Author:
Fishrock123
Posts: 1578

(am I the only guy who enjoys reading these?)

Not at all.		2010-10-28 07:50:00

Author:
Sehven
Posts: 2188

I enjoy them, even though they're costing me a fortune in Advil... 2010-10-28 15:31:00

Author:
booXely
Posts: 654

So, not to put any pressure on you or anything, but ehm... how's the next one coming along? I'm kinda jonesing for another fix here... 2010-11-09 18:59:00

Author:
Rogar
Posts: 2284

Does this (http://thesaurus.com/browse/soon) answer your question?2010-11-09 21:53:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

That page told it me it was coming any minute now, I'm waiting. :kz:2010-11-09 23:24:00

Author:
booXely
Posts: 654

Haha, OK maybe I lied then

Most likely next week, in all honesty. Most of the content is written, but I still need to organise images and formatting etc and I'm absolutely swamped with important things ATM


Edit, I just did a word count, on the basis of this installment being relatively long..... I believe I may have to split this one, 7000+ words is a little long methinks 		2010-11-09 23:47:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/entry.php?2325-Analogue-Logic-4-Basics-of-Sampling-amp-Scaling2010-11-20 01:38:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Yay! Guess I went to bed too early yesterday.2010-11-20 13:15:00

Author:
Rogar
Posts: 2284

Heya, the analog-to-digital link is somewhat scrambeld, it goes to: "http://<br%20/>http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/entry.php?2130-Analogue-Logic-3-DAC-amp-ADC" (unless it's some webkit browser bug...)2011-01-18 02:32:00

Author:
Xario
Posts: 238

Heya, the analog-to-digital link is somewhat scrambeld...

Fixed... 		2011-01-18 11:25:00

Author:
Aya042
Posts: 2870

Hmm, I suppose half this thread belongs on the LBP2 Tutorials forum now. 2011-01-18 19:25:00

Author:
Rogar
Posts: 2284

Hmm, I suppose half this thread belongs on the LBP2 Tutorials forum now.

I'm gonna go ahead and move this to the LBP2 section as it's all applicable to LBP2 (even though the winch stuff is kinda redundant now), unless rtm wants to split it into two posts?		2011-01-18 20:32:00

Author:
Aya042
Posts: 2870

New logic, finally:

http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/entry.php?2409-Analogue-Logic-5-Division-amp-Multiplication		2011-02-06 18:10:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

New logic, finally...

Excellent blog, particularly as I was looking for a way to divide analog signals - just a shame the sampling technique gives you a frame of latency. Couple of comments:-

In this diagram...
http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt82/rtm223/APhoto_9-2.jpg?t=1295875606
...I'm suprised you went with a feedback NOT fed into another NOT, as I seem to recall you talking about the benefits of fast selector cycling (e.g. plugging output #1 into input #2 and vice-versa) - plus it also saves you a component.

And towards the end where you talk about finding mean values, you mention it being safer to do the division first, but you should probably point out there's a limit of granularity to analog signals - when you start dividing by values of the order of 10,000+, you start losing precision.		2011-02-06 21:48:00

Author:
Aya042
Posts: 2870

I've been looking forward to this for weeks, but now I'm kinda overdosed on LBP2... oh alright, just a peek. 2011-02-07 21:27:00

Author:
Rogar
Posts: 2284

...I'm suprised you went with a feedback NOT fed into another NOT, as I seem to recall you talking about the benefits of fast selector cycling (e.g. plugging output #1 into input #2 and vice-versa) - plus it also saves you a component.
That would certainly be better - the reason for double NOT is the evolution of the design - from sampler to 15Hz sampler to divider - no actual technical justification. Either way works. If you have OCD mine might look prettier with it's improved symmetry



And towards the end where you talk about finding mean values, you mention it being safer to do the division first, but you should probably point out there's a limit of granularity to analog signals - when you start dividing by values of the order of 10,000+, you start losing precision.
How many values do you need to find the mean of? Yeah it's a valid point, the analogue signals aren't analogue but I don't know exactly what the limits are. Generally for most of what I describe here - multiplication, downscaling, averaging, it's reasonable to just take it as a continuous data range.		2011-02-07 22:00:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

I enjoy logic, but many people state the new logic made creating harder. Anyone that hates logic should not be on lbp. Definetaly not LBP2 because that's the domane of logic

Also I know this logic is awsome. Without logic there would be no movie cameras on one shot. No films, no controllinators, no timed things, no triggers, no destroying, no fun, nothing! Also want to make your dialogue like MM's with those symbols?
Remove from queueAdd to queue
[/URL]

http://lbp.me/v/y1-d2z (http://lbp.me/v/rq3k2b)http://ia.lbp.me/img/bm/92a8f716b68194a67747cae6653c1002f8624e4c.pngCheck status (http://lbp.me/search?q=ryan4708#)
Remove from queueAdd to queueThere's been an errorz!


What the dues is that? ( It says There's been an erroz! ) Or is that my computer?


[URL="http://lbp.me/v/y1-d2z"]		2011-05-03 01:29:00

Author:
Unknown User

Just to clarify: the first group of posts is LBP1, the middle post is for both LBPs, and the last group is for LBP2.2011-08-05 22:48:00

Author:
L1N3R1D3R
Posts: 13447

OMGLBPBBQ!!!!111one! A new blog post!?

... Oh, never mind, false alarm. 		2011-08-05 23:09:00

Author:
Rogar
Posts: 2284

OMGLBPBBQ!!!!111one! A new blog post!?

... Oh, never mind, false alarm.
LOL, that's exactly what I thought.		2011-08-06 04:08:00

Author:
SSTAGG1
Posts: 1136

i dont follow much of your logics o.o
you are rele smart! o.o		2012-02-08 20:13:00

Author:
Unknown User


LBPCentral Archive Statistics
Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Datenschutz
Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.