For those who are following my progress with grad school, you are already aware that I was invited out to Illinois (specifically, the University of Illinois) to tour their graduate program in Atmospheric Science. I indicated that I had a few concerns, chiefly whether or not the program was ultimately for me.
I chose to go over the first few days of spring break. Namely, Monday through Wednesday. This wasn't optimal (due to senior project commitments), but it worked for the best all things considered as I would not have to work around classes.
From here on, I'm going to give fair warning that my writing may be fairly train-of-thought. The day that I spent with the department was filled with a LOT of information, and I am admittedly still processing a lot of it. That said, I think writing it out will help me to that end, and provide for some new reading for anyone who is interested.
My first day there (Monday), I arrived around 7:30 at night. The professor who picked me up from the airport took me to dinner (a nice italian restaurant - quite good!) and then to the hotel. Interestingly, the hotel is actually located within their student union - a concept that I found to be actually quite interesting. That said, I had been travelling for about 12 hours by that point, and also had an early morning on Tuesday, so I quickly fell asleep.
Tuesday was the really busy day. From breakfast onwards, I met with professors in the department to discuss their work, as well as the grad students of those professors to see what life as a grad student is like. It was this part of the trip that really surprised me, and not in a bad way.
Two themes really recurred during the entire trip. The first was that we (there was 3 of us) were constantly being asked if we had any questions - about the program, expectations, the school, or even the city/life in general there. The second was the very very obvious commitment to their grad students. Not just in the 'cheap labor' sense, but it was very clear that the success and happiness of their grad students was a priority there. You weren't just there to work for 2 or 3 years for a degree - you also were expected to publish, to go to conferences, and to really establish yourself as a research scientist.
Also worth noting is that the entire department is very informal. Professors preferred to be called by their first name instead of "doctor ...". This was the case with us, and with their undergraduates and grad students. I recognize that that sort of informal attitude isn't for everyone, but a relaxed atmosphere was a definite plus for me.
Also interesting to note is that, provided your advisor is okay with it, you were not expected to appear in the office every day if you did not need to (This was the grad students saying this, not the professors). If your work could be done remotely, you were more than welcome to be outside or even at home working. Once again, the flexibility in the department is such a great thing - something I definitely valued.
Of course, so far I have talked only about the campus and the personal side of it - interactions, mentality, etc. To that end, I absolutely loved the campus and the department. The other side of the coin is the work that I'd be doing, and that is where things get a little more blurry.
Every professor I met with talked about the work that they were doing. This ranged from forecasting to climate modeling. A big recurring theme in the work is the use of numerics to simulate the atmosphere - something which is a core interest of mine even now. To that end, there is no shortage of work in modeling, numerics, and programming.
By the same token, however, this isn't all a good thing. While yes, there are opportunities to gain 'in the field' experience - something which the department strongly encourages - those opportunities are not incredibly common, on the order of once or twice per year. This of course brings to light the question of what I'd be doing the other weeks of the year, and that is where the question mark (for me) comes in.
Something I've always enjoyed about my major now is the hands on aspect - yes, I'll spend time working, simulating, and modeling - but at the end of it I ultimately go and build the thing and then test it. Based on the impression I got in speaking with professors, far more time is spent in the former rather than the latter part of this.
Then again - that is to be expected. Engineering is about developing and deploying new technologies. In research, that simply means you're on the cutting edge. For the sciences, it's about developing a better understanding of the world around us - once again on the cutting edge in the case of research - even though you may not get anything immediately useful out of it. But it's that dichotomy that has me worried.
The hands-on aspect of Engineering is what I love. The fact that you get to hold your work. I won't mince words and say that it's that lack of hands-on work that makes a decision difficult. The people are awesome and the campus is gorgeous... but if I'm going to be bored, then what is that ultimately worth? I also hold a lot of pride in my title as an Engineer - I've worked hard to get it, and I admit I'd have a hard time walking way from that. A scientist is also a prestigious title, and one that I am sure someone who's spent as much time working on it would hold equally valuable.
At the end of it, I guess that is what the ultimate question for me is. Is this the right choice for me? I will have the opportunity to use some of the most powerful computing resources in the world (I learned that Deep Blue, soon to be the world's most powerful supercomputer, will be built on that campus) and develop models that explain our world. But the final goal of my degree would not be those models - it would be interpreting what those models say. While it's definitely exciting, I find the idea of a new technology a bit more so.
There is little doubt that I will be admitted. I will not be making a decision until I hear back from the other schools to which I've applied (which should be any day now), but this trip has made a big impression on me. I loved the campus and the people, but I admit that the work has me concerned. It would be challenging, and I will get to work with some of the most powerful computers in the world working on things no one else has ever done (quoting the professors - 'Your thesis will not be on something that's been investigated before'), but is the result ultimately interesting to me? That is a question I still do not know how to answer, and something I will have to think long and hard on when it comes time to make my decision in the coming weeks.
Naturally, I will keep updating here as things progress. I suspect my next entry on the subject will be once I hear from another school - and again when I make a final decision. It may be to try working for a year, or maybe I will find the answer in grad school and go from there. At this point, I can't honestly say I know for sure.
Until then.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Game time!
So, it's spring break (Finally!), and I've had a bit of time to think about how I want my game to progress forward. I've made a few changes to it since my last post on the matter to address what I felt was an interesting, but ultimately hard to work with idea.
Taking a leaf from games like Advance Wars, I wondered what would happen if you instead added a turn-based element to the game. Pure turn-based strategy is not where I want to go with this, though. I feel those have been done about as well as they can be, especially for another battle simulation game. My idea is to exploit a mix between the two, and address what I ultimately felt was a weakness in my initial iteration of the idea.
Something I thought (and was echoed by those I asked) could be an issue was that commanding a fully real-time army from the large and small scale would ultimately be very tricky. At the small scale, it's hard to say that your actions ultimately make a difference in a battle involving thousands of units. At the large scale, it's too easy to forget the smaller details that only appear at the close levels. When you've got the option (or have to) switch between the two, something is bound to be lost. Your small scale decisions don't matter, but your large scale decisions are too broad to be effective. It becomes so detail-oriented that it would only be fun for the most hardened of strategists. While that could be a fun concept for later, it's not what I'm aiming for now.
This iteration also had the problem of storytelling. From battle to battle, there is only a few opportunities to actually tell a story, and none of them in any truly meaningful way. While RTS or turn-based games aren't known for story (Except maybe Final Fantasy), it'd still be nice to have something.
In this new iteration, I've had the idea of mixing the RTS and turn based elements that I've liked from previous games.
At the highest level, the game is a turn-based strategy. You have control of individual armies where you are able to assign special attributes, adjust the mix of unit types, etc. Each army will also have a commander who can impart traits (such as additional unit capacity, higher cohesion/damage/accuracy, etc) upon the army he commands. The benefits that the commander brings are also related to the number of battles he has been in. If an army is overrun in battle, the commander also runs the risk of being killed/captured.
Each turn, an army can move over the map in a certain radius from its position at the beginning of the day. It may move to a city to reenforce it, or to relieve a battered army that is in battle. To that end, it's up to the player.
Each turn as well, the player will have the option to either directly oversee a battle, or allow the computer to run simulations that determine losses/victory/defeat, etc. The thing is, a battle is not guaranteed to end in one turn. With enough reinforcements, battles can carry on for multiple turns. In certain situations for plot advancement, the player will be required to oversee a battle, but otherwise it's totally up to the player. They can oversee all or none of a battles in a turn.
Controlling individual points on the map are also important - they give you defensive positions, and maybe certain cities/etc can provide you with beneficial items.
Within an individual battle, I figure that it would last... say... 10 minutes per turn. During this 10 minutes the battle progresses in real time, and you are able to control whatever assets you have available, which is decided from what armies you have moved to the battle. You can then attempt to best your opponent in real time as opposed to letting the computer decide.
A cool idea I had would be how to handle an army reaching the city mid turn. Let's say I have one army in battle, and another stationed half of a turn outside the city. Since the battle is going badly for me, I move that second army into the city at the beginning of the turn. Now, in a traditional turn based game, my new army won't be available to me until the beginning of the next turn, and may never actually reenforce my existing army (who will then be wiped out).
Instead, the game will calculate the time required to reach the city (half of it's movement distance = half a turn). If I oversee the battle, I will see my new units arrive on the field halfway through the fight. I can then reenforce my positions and perhaps turn the tide of battle, or at least stem the casualties. If I don't oversee the battle directly, the simulation will take into account the arrival of the new units on the field.
This is more or less train-of-thought, and I'm sure several other changes will come, but there's a few ideas here that I really like, and will likely incorporate. Hopefully full-on programming will begin before too long!
Taking a leaf from games like Advance Wars, I wondered what would happen if you instead added a turn-based element to the game. Pure turn-based strategy is not where I want to go with this, though. I feel those have been done about as well as they can be, especially for another battle simulation game. My idea is to exploit a mix between the two, and address what I ultimately felt was a weakness in my initial iteration of the idea.
Something I thought (and was echoed by those I asked) could be an issue was that commanding a fully real-time army from the large and small scale would ultimately be very tricky. At the small scale, it's hard to say that your actions ultimately make a difference in a battle involving thousands of units. At the large scale, it's too easy to forget the smaller details that only appear at the close levels. When you've got the option (or have to) switch between the two, something is bound to be lost. Your small scale decisions don't matter, but your large scale decisions are too broad to be effective. It becomes so detail-oriented that it would only be fun for the most hardened of strategists. While that could be a fun concept for later, it's not what I'm aiming for now.
This iteration also had the problem of storytelling. From battle to battle, there is only a few opportunities to actually tell a story, and none of them in any truly meaningful way. While RTS or turn-based games aren't known for story (Except maybe Final Fantasy), it'd still be nice to have something.
In this new iteration, I've had the idea of mixing the RTS and turn based elements that I've liked from previous games.
At the highest level, the game is a turn-based strategy. You have control of individual armies where you are able to assign special attributes, adjust the mix of unit types, etc. Each army will also have a commander who can impart traits (such as additional unit capacity, higher cohesion/damage/accuracy, etc) upon the army he commands. The benefits that the commander brings are also related to the number of battles he has been in. If an army is overrun in battle, the commander also runs the risk of being killed/captured.
Each turn, an army can move over the map in a certain radius from its position at the beginning of the day. It may move to a city to reenforce it, or to relieve a battered army that is in battle. To that end, it's up to the player.
Each turn as well, the player will have the option to either directly oversee a battle, or allow the computer to run simulations that determine losses/victory/defeat, etc. The thing is, a battle is not guaranteed to end in one turn. With enough reinforcements, battles can carry on for multiple turns. In certain situations for plot advancement, the player will be required to oversee a battle, but otherwise it's totally up to the player. They can oversee all or none of a battles in a turn.
Controlling individual points on the map are also important - they give you defensive positions, and maybe certain cities/etc can provide you with beneficial items.
Within an individual battle, I figure that it would last... say... 10 minutes per turn. During this 10 minutes the battle progresses in real time, and you are able to control whatever assets you have available, which is decided from what armies you have moved to the battle. You can then attempt to best your opponent in real time as opposed to letting the computer decide.
A cool idea I had would be how to handle an army reaching the city mid turn. Let's say I have one army in battle, and another stationed half of a turn outside the city. Since the battle is going badly for me, I move that second army into the city at the beginning of the turn. Now, in a traditional turn based game, my new army won't be available to me until the beginning of the next turn, and may never actually reenforce my existing army (who will then be wiped out).
Instead, the game will calculate the time required to reach the city (half of it's movement distance = half a turn). If I oversee the battle, I will see my new units arrive on the field halfway through the fight. I can then reenforce my positions and perhaps turn the tide of battle, or at least stem the casualties. If I don't oversee the battle directly, the simulation will take into account the arrival of the new units on the field.
This is more or less train-of-thought, and I'm sure several other changes will come, but there's a few ideas here that I really like, and will likely incorporate. Hopefully full-on programming will begin before too long!
Friday, March 2, 2012
Paydirt!
I promised I would keep up to date with this as I heard back from grad schools, regardless of how certain I was with the progress, so here's how it stands now.
Last time I wrote on the topic, I had mentioned switching my applications around, and how that had put me in a sticky situation. Well, sticky situations remain complicated, but at least the ending is becoming a bit clearer now.
About a week ago, I got an interview with Honeywell which I felt went really well. Monday morning I was contacted to inform me that my application had advanced to the next level, which is good news. I won't hear anything for a few weeks, but it's out there which is a definite plus.
On Thursday morning I was emailed by the department head of the Atmospheric Sciences department at UIUC saying he wanted to talk to me about a potential opportunity there. (UIUC is one school where I kept my application at Atmospheric Science) He asked that I let him know when I'd be available for a 15 minute conversation, and he would call me. I let him know I was available as soon as class was over.
When we spoke, he mentioned that they were looking at TA positions for the year, and that I was being considered for one. He gave me a short description of what I'd be doing, and asked if I was interested - I was. I let him know that I was definitely not in a position to commit just yet, but I was definitely interested. UIUC has, up to this point, continually impressed me with how pleasant they've been to work with, something which is massively factoring into my decision.
The next part of the conversation is where things got impressive, to me anyway. He asked if I would be able to come see the campus to see if I felt I would be a good fit, and if it's somewhere I wanted to be. I told him I would love to, but I honestly didn't have the funds to do so. His immediate response was that that was no issue - the department would cover all of that, plane, hotel, etc. The only cost to me would be my time. It would definitely be an interview for both parties (The dept. head said they would also like to see if I'd be a good fit for them), but it's gone far beyond my wildest thoughts so far.
So, here I am, with a chance to really get a look into whether Atmospheric Science would let me do what I want to do with a degree. The department is really making me feel like they want me there, which is such a huge thing for me. And they're paying to have me come out there.
I'm still going to wait to hear back from PSU and UWash, but with one (unofficial) acceptance down with funding, and an interview for a job that's gone well, I'm in a much better spot than I could've hoped to be at this point. After kicking and punching the wall for so long, it looks like it's finally starting to come down.
Last time I wrote on the topic, I had mentioned switching my applications around, and how that had put me in a sticky situation. Well, sticky situations remain complicated, but at least the ending is becoming a bit clearer now.
About a week ago, I got an interview with Honeywell which I felt went really well. Monday morning I was contacted to inform me that my application had advanced to the next level, which is good news. I won't hear anything for a few weeks, but it's out there which is a definite plus.
On Thursday morning I was emailed by the department head of the Atmospheric Sciences department at UIUC saying he wanted to talk to me about a potential opportunity there. (UIUC is one school where I kept my application at Atmospheric Science) He asked that I let him know when I'd be available for a 15 minute conversation, and he would call me. I let him know I was available as soon as class was over.
When we spoke, he mentioned that they were looking at TA positions for the year, and that I was being considered for one. He gave me a short description of what I'd be doing, and asked if I was interested - I was. I let him know that I was definitely not in a position to commit just yet, but I was definitely interested. UIUC has, up to this point, continually impressed me with how pleasant they've been to work with, something which is massively factoring into my decision.
The next part of the conversation is where things got impressive, to me anyway. He asked if I would be able to come see the campus to see if I felt I would be a good fit, and if it's somewhere I wanted to be. I told him I would love to, but I honestly didn't have the funds to do so. His immediate response was that that was no issue - the department would cover all of that, plane, hotel, etc. The only cost to me would be my time. It would definitely be an interview for both parties (The dept. head said they would also like to see if I'd be a good fit for them), but it's gone far beyond my wildest thoughts so far.
So, here I am, with a chance to really get a look into whether Atmospheric Science would let me do what I want to do with a degree. The department is really making me feel like they want me there, which is such a huge thing for me. And they're paying to have me come out there.
I'm still going to wait to hear back from PSU and UWash, but with one (unofficial) acceptance down with funding, and an interview for a job that's gone well, I'm in a much better spot than I could've hoped to be at this point. After kicking and punching the wall for so long, it looks like it's finally starting to come down.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)