Framsticks

I've found, and this is just my experience, that actually limiting the
genepool during directed evolution has produced quicker results. I only use
mutation and crossovers and set delete to 'only the worst' this means that
only improved genomes get added to the pool replacing the worst in the list.
i even induce 'plaques' on the population if it becomes stagnant by deleting
all but a few of the best. Its a step back in evolution but usually gives a
jolt to the genepool in the long run.

If my population becomes way to stable before i get my desired results i go
back to random deletion and a larger genepool.

I'm hoping V2 has some better statistical analysis so we can really answer
your question though. For now you'll just have to rely on quesswork or take
about 2 years of your life to run some numbers :)

"Bear Naff" wrote in message
news:9fcn2k$fha$1@net.frams.poznan.pl...
>
> "Craig Baker" wrote
> > Has anyone done any experiments in Framsticks to find the optimal
> > genepool size for a given amount of evolution time, or anything similar?
> > As Mucha suggested in an earlier post, a small genepool may be a very
> > important factor limiting evolution. I'm not a biologist, but from the
> > info I can find on natural evolution, a population as small as 1000
> > individuals is usually considered an "extreme bottleneck". Does
increasing
> > the genepool size dramatically produce faster evolution, or does it just
> > take longer to simulate all of the new individuals?
>
> Err, I would that in attempts where developing a onoculture is acceptable
> (i.e. using a high cross-over value in _creation_) a large genepool would
be
> highly beneficial. However, if one is doing a "refinement run" (i.e. one
> where cross-over is turned of, especially to ensure the preservation of a
> particular structural design.) I'm not sure a large genepool is _that_
> useful, but IANAG (I Am Not A God).
>
>