Noob Neurons

[otto]

Not bad for a first. Eh? eh???


startshape init
background {b -0.6}
rule init
{
child{}
init{r 10 x 18 s 0.93 alpha -0.15}
}

rule init
{
child{}
init{r -10 x -18 s 0.93 alpha -0.15}
}

rule init
{
child{}
init{r 10 y 10 s 0.93 alpha -0.25}
}

rule init
{
child{}
init{r -10 y -10 s 0.93 alpha -0.25}
}

rule init 0.01
{
init{s 5}
}


rule child
{
center{}
}

rule center
{
arm{
s 0.95
b 0.9
}
arm{
s 0.95
b 0.9
r 60
}
arm{
s 0.95
b 0.9
r -60
}
arm{
s 0.95
b 0.9
r 120
}
arm{
s 0.95
b 0.9
r -120
}
arm{
y 0.5
b 0.9
r 180
}
}

rule arm
{
segment{}
arm{
y 1
s 0.95
r 5
b 0.9
}
}

rule arm
{
segment{}
arm{
y 1
s 0.95
r -5
b 0.9
}
}

rule arm 0.065
{
branch{alpha -0.3}
arm{
y 0.5
s 0.95
b 0.9
}
arm{
y 0.5
s 0.95
b 0.9
r 60
}
arm{
y 0.5
s 0.95
b 0.9
r -60
}
arm{
y 0.5
s 0.95
b 0.9
r 120
}
arm{
y 0.5
s 0.95
b 0.9
r -120
}

}

rule branch
{
CIRCLE{
hue 10
sat 0.5
b 0.6
alpha -0.8
}

SQUARE{
s 0.2 1
hue 200
sat 0.9
b 0.8
alpha -0.3}
}


rule segment
{
SQUARE{
hue 40
sat 0.7
b 0.6
alpha -0.7
}

SQUARE{
s 0.2 1
hue 200
sat 0.2
b 0.2
alpha -0.5}
}

[/list]

[robo git]

Not bad at all. Indeed I like it a lot!

Question: Is the 'child' rule necessary? I would have thought that you could just directly call to center from there.

Also you could achieve a very similar look with a couple less lines of code if you did this:

Code: Select all

rule arm 0.065
{
 branch{ alpha -0.3 }
 center{}
}

Although that DOES mean it sends an 'arm' back down where it came from, which can lead to a overlapped, more "central"-biased look, which may not be what you're after.

[otto]

You're right about the child rule, I must have left it in there from when I was writing it.

Replacing that arm rule does make things simpler, and the outcome doesn't look too bad. However, I think I like the five calls to arm better, it looks a little less cramped.