"Accurate simulation" feature in Golly?
Posted: March 24th, 2015, 5:33 pm
So I was thinking about stuff and I came up with a possible idea of a feature in Golly.
Now, the reason that it has to emulate B0 rules, and odd Wolfram rules aren't even supported, are because of the infinite grid, meaning it would have to update an infinite number of cells.
However, some other programs don't have this issue because they often run using bounded grids, so there's only a finite number of cells to update.
So perhaps could be a function to enable "accurate simulation" on such rules when simulating in a bounded grid, at least up to a certain size (above which, or with lack of a bounded grid at all, it would throw an error or at the very least a warning), meaning that you could run B0 rules and odd Wolfram rules without having to emulate using equivalent rules.
Would something like this be feasible?
And sorry if this has been suggested before.
EDIT: just found, by chance, a post by Andrew (from almost five years ago!) that states he's already working on it, or at least tried to work on it in the past.
so I guess this thread is pointless now.
Now, the reason that it has to emulate B0 rules, and odd Wolfram rules aren't even supported, are because of the infinite grid, meaning it would have to update an infinite number of cells.
However, some other programs don't have this issue because they often run using bounded grids, so there's only a finite number of cells to update.
So perhaps could be a function to enable "accurate simulation" on such rules when simulating in a bounded grid, at least up to a certain size (above which, or with lack of a bounded grid at all, it would throw an error or at the very least a warning), meaning that you could run B0 rules and odd Wolfram rules without having to emulate using equivalent rules.
Would something like this be feasible?
And sorry if this has been suggested before.
EDIT: just found, by chance, a post by Andrew (from almost five years ago!) that states he's already working on it, or at least tried to work on it in the past.
so I guess this thread is pointless now.