pben 2002-08-29 20:42:47 | Now that we are at 2.5% is the end in sight for this phase of the project? My poor old PC has been chewing on for a day and a half it has found 15 above 2% and will not send in a packet for the better part of another day. If in a week or so you are sure that we have closed in on the best solution of 4.21b you have plans for trying something else? I have liked giving my spare CPU cycles to your effort. The result viewer is great for someone like me who uses the background porgram. I just fear how long of a run it will take for the combined design. Thanks |
Stephen Brooks 2002-08-30 02:50:43 | quote: I was thinking it might be, but results turned in recently have been slightly higher than I would have expected if we had already reached the maximum result. I have the feeling my "hand-made" result might not be the optimum after all. It scored about 2.45% whereas there are scores on the board now of about 2.65%. Statistical variations of +0.2% are quite rare with this version of the program (or at least they were at slightly lower scores when I tested this). So I'll have to wait and see what happens - and maybe test the statsitical variation in the simulation again. If we get to 3% there will definitely have been an improvement beyond the parameters I set. "As every 11-year-old kid knows, if you concentrate enough Van-der-Graff generators and expensive special effects in one place, you create a spiral space-time whirly thing, AND an interesting plotline" |
Jwb52z 2002-08-30 07:12:19 | Stephen, could you answdr my question, or try to, in my thread called "weird result. I don't know what happened"??? |