>rc:
>
>>The problem with Tedd's observation in my opinion is that for the most
>>part, geese seem to be the main ones using it. Others just clump along. Or
>>ovoid.
>
>Many migratory birds use the V shape. But, even if it is was just one
>species, the number of species that fly in a V doesn't affect the
>algorithm or claim.

It surely affects the validity and application of any conclusions drawn.
Any conclusions must then be only limited to the one species modeled.

So you can say some birds, but not birds in totality as you said.

**>>Tedd wrote:
>>>It just goes to demonstrate that when birds are flying somewhere
>>>specific, all they have to do is to figure out where the center of
>>the flock is, fly towards it, while keeping a certain distance from
>>the others. AND they will naturally form a V.<<**

And it affects this overbroad claim. All you have proven is that a
simulation, when coded as you have it, will produce a v-pattern. You can't
say anything about nature from it.

Now, if you said "when birds in this simulation are flying somewhere", no
argument.

>>
>>I disagree completely with the assumption of -natural- V formation,
>>particularly drawing this conclusion from a simulation.
>>
>>I can make my own boids version  fly toward a place using an algorithm in
>>the pseudocode to direct the center of mass towards a point, and they will
>>-not- form a V.  So you can't infer anything at all about natural behavior
>>from a simulation in this case. That is my point.
>
>Obviously  your algorithm addresses the subject differently than
>mine, as such I would expect our programs to behave differently. But,
>that doesn't prove that a V in not natural (actually a V is natural).

That a V in itself is natural or not is not in question. It does prove that
the contested statement was overbroad and thus false.

>It only proves that you have not been able to get your birds to fly
>in a V -- but, most birds don't.

Yes, why I protested your comment as being overbroad.

So, maybe your algorithm is more
>fitting to sparrows and mine to ducks.

May be.

 Besides, I can't help it if
>you can't get your ducks in a row. :-)

Good one.

>What I did notice about your version, is that some birds fly too
>close to the center and then suddenly fly away at speeds greater than
>any other birds fly (thus, the skeeter observation).


That is due to the lack of a speed limiter. I didn't come up with this
particular version...Conrad Parker did. I interpreted his pseudocode as
best I could. His supplied speed limiter algorithm did not work, or I could
not get it to work properly.

 I don't see that
>happening in nature* nor in the original boid program. So, you have
>added your own spin on the algorithm as I have. Nothing wrong with
>that, just an observation. However, my alteration of the program (the
>V) can be seen in nature.

I added nothing much at all. I have seen birds flying, all ways.

- I didn't post the thing as a model of reality though.-   I posted it
because it was neat.

>In any event, I find stuff like this fascinating. I hope I'm not
>annoying anyone.

Just me. And thus others, as a result. :)


>tedd
>* (other than with skeeters -- maybe you have discovered the skeeter
>algorithm)

Whatever.


Robert Bob


----------------------------------------------------
2. Presumptuous or overbearing statements, etc. resulting from such a feeling.

Today's Word, Tomorrow