Went over the current draft of the background. Agreed that this should be completed by Friday 1st of November to be sent to second marker in time for the week 9 review.
For the week 9 review need to complete a report on what other work has been carried out during the project, including any practical work or other research, also need to create a revised plan of what work is to be done and estimated dates of when this will be completed.
Received feedback from IPO. Main feedback was that the project could be too complex a project for honours level, it is important to establish where this project is re-implementing existing algorithms or develops new ones.
Friday, 25 October 2013
Friday, 18 October 2013
Meetings: Friday 18th October 2013
Went over the work that has been done on the lit review, agreed that it is along the right tracks and to continue with it, with the aim to be completed by week 9 review. Agreed that more detail is needed on the working of the GPU as this will be specific to the implementation.
Found an A* CPU implementation that has been used in professional triple A games. This will be modified to suit the needs of the project and used as a benchmark to compare the GPU implementation of a diffusion based algorithm.
Asked to get a copy of the work on pathfinding from the computational intelligence module as this may be helpful.
Still wait on feedback from IPO from second marker.
Found an A* CPU implementation that has been used in professional triple A games. This will be modified to suit the needs of the project and used as a benchmark to compare the GPU implementation of a diffusion based algorithm.
Asked to get a copy of the work on pathfinding from the computational intelligence module as this may be helpful.
Still wait on feedback from IPO from second marker.
Friday, 11 October 2013
Meetings: Friday 11th October 2013
Presented a draft of the sections that are to be included in the lit review. Agreed that don't need to go into too much detail about the different types of parallel systems only need to give a brief overview.
Look more closely at why using the GPU and why the particular technology could be useful for running pathfinding algorithms. highlight the differences and the advantages/disadvantages over the CPU.
Look at the different APIs that are available for programming on the GPU and give a justification about the chosen API.
Look at the different types of pathfinding algorithms which are available and what is traditionally used in games.
Highlight the advantages/disadvantages in the context of the project and look at the existing work that has been done and pick out what the findings/conclusions are and how they relate to the current project.
Discussed how the algorithms are going to be compared and what the best method of comparing the algorithms would be. Decided that A* is going to be very difficult to paralyze and that the best method if running a GPU implementation of A* would be to test it for a large number of agents and look at the scalabilty in comparison to the GPU. This has already been a few times in the past so it may be better to compare a CPU implementation of A* for a large number of agents against a GPU implementation of a diffusion based algorithm and see which has the better scalabilty and performance. The reason for this is that a CPU A* implementation is what is traditionally used in games so by comparing it against a different algorithm implemented on the GPU it may be possible to find a better algorithm for performing pathfinding within games?
Discussed how rendering could be effected by running the algorithms on the gpu for a large number of agents. Concluded that rendering is not important as the problems are the same for the CPU and GPU implementation, at this stage is has been decided that no rendering of agents will be carried out however if the project is successful and there is time left over it is something that could be implemented to make the application more visually appealing.
Aims for the coming week are to complete a first draft of the lit review in preparation for the week 9 meeting.
Look more closely at why using the GPU and why the particular technology could be useful for running pathfinding algorithms. highlight the differences and the advantages/disadvantages over the CPU.
Look at the different APIs that are available for programming on the GPU and give a justification about the chosen API.
Look at the different types of pathfinding algorithms which are available and what is traditionally used in games.
Highlight the advantages/disadvantages in the context of the project and look at the existing work that has been done and pick out what the findings/conclusions are and how they relate to the current project.
Discussed how the algorithms are going to be compared and what the best method of comparing the algorithms would be. Decided that A* is going to be very difficult to paralyze and that the best method if running a GPU implementation of A* would be to test it for a large number of agents and look at the scalabilty in comparison to the GPU. This has already been a few times in the past so it may be better to compare a CPU implementation of A* for a large number of agents against a GPU implementation of a diffusion based algorithm and see which has the better scalabilty and performance. The reason for this is that a CPU A* implementation is what is traditionally used in games so by comparing it against a different algorithm implemented on the GPU it may be possible to find a better algorithm for performing pathfinding within games?
Discussed how rendering could be effected by running the algorithms on the gpu for a large number of agents. Concluded that rendering is not important as the problems are the same for the CPU and GPU implementation, at this stage is has been decided that no rendering of agents will be carried out however if the project is successful and there is time left over it is something that could be implemented to make the application more visually appealing.
Aims for the coming week are to complete a first draft of the lit review in preparation for the week 9 meeting.
Friday, 4 October 2013
Meetings: Friday 4th October 2013
Went over Gantt chart and reviewed dates and times for each section. Agreed that the write up should be a continual process throughout the entire project and not just at the end of the project. Gantt chart will be updated to reflect this.
Discussed how data structures and the chosen heuristics could affect the implementation of A* if done poorly. One possible solution to this is to find an implementation of A* that is assumed to be efficient and use it for comparisons.
Began a sequential implementation of A* for a 2D map during the week, aim is to complete this for Friday 11th October and then continue work on it to lead to pathfinding over a dynamic 3D map.
Look into papers about parallel AI and continue with writing up lit review.
Discussed how data structures and the chosen heuristics could affect the implementation of A* if done poorly. One possible solution to this is to find an implementation of A* that is assumed to be efficient and use it for comparisons.
Began a sequential implementation of A* for a 2D map during the week, aim is to complete this for Friday 11th October and then continue work on it to lead to pathfinding over a dynamic 3D map.
Look into papers about parallel AI and continue with writing up lit review.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)