This paper addresses the procedural generation of levels for collaborative puzzle-platform games. To address this issue, we distinguish types of multiplayer interaction, focusing on two-player collaboration, and identify relevant game mechanics for a puzzle-platform game, addressing player movement, interaction with moving game objects, and physical interaction involving both players. These are further formalized as game design patterns. To test the feasibility of the approach, a level generator has been implemented based on a rule-based approach, using the existing tool called Ludoscope and a prototype game developed in the Unity game engine. The level generation procedure results in over 3.7 million possible playable level variations that can be generated automatically. Each of these levels encourages or even requires both players to engage in collaborative gameplay.
Dit proefschrift presenteert twee theoretische kaders voor het ontwerpen van games en beschrijft hoe game designers deze kunnen inzetten om het game ontwerpproces te stroomlijnen. Er bestaan op dit moment meerdere ontwerptheorie¨en voor games, maar geen enkele kan rekenen op een breed draagvlak binnen de game industrie. Vooral academische ontwerptheorie¨en hebben regelmatig een slechte reputatie. Het eerste kader dat game designers inzicht biedt in spelregels en hun werking heet Machinations en maakt gebruik van dynamische, interactieve diagrammen. Het tweede theoretische kader van dit proefschrift, Mission/Space, richt zich op level-ontwerp en spelmechanismen die de voortgang van een speler bepalen. In tegenstelling tot bestaande modellen voor level-ontwerp, bouwt Mission/Space voort op het idee dat er in een level twee verschillende structuren bestaan. Mission-diagrammen worden gebruikt om de structuur van taken en uitdagingen voor de speler te formaliseren, terwijl space-diagrammen de ruimtelijke constructie formaliseren. Beide constructies zijn aan elkaar gerelateerd, maar zijn niet hetzelfde. De verschillende wijzen waarop missies geprojecteerd kunnen worden op een bepaalde ruimte speelt uiteindelijk een belangrijke rol in de totstandkoming van de spelervaring.
There appears to be some hesitation within the forensic biology community to formally evaluate and report on findings given activity level propositions. This hesitance in part stems from concerns about the lack of relevant data on the dynamics of biological traces and doubt about the relevance of such expert opinions to the trier of fact. At the Netherlands Forensic Institute formal evaluative opinions on the probability of case findings given propositions at the activity level are provided since 2013, if requested by a mandating authority. In this study we share the results from a retrospective analysis of 74 of such requests. We explore which party initiates requests, the types of cases that are submitted, the sources of data being used to assign probabilities to DNA transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery (TPPR) events, the conclusions that were drawn by the scientists, and how the conclusions were used by the courts. This retrospective analysis of cases demonstrates that published sources of data are generally available and can be used to address DNA TPPR events in most cases, although significant gaps still remain. The study furthermore shows that reporting on forensic biology findings given activity level propositions has been generally accepted by the district and appeal courts, as well as the other parties in the criminal justice system in the Netherlands.
Climate change is one of the most critical global challenges nowadays. Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration brought by anthropogenic emissions has been recognized as the primary driver of global warming. Therefore, currently, there is a strong demand within the chemical and chemical technology industry for systems that can covert, capture and reuse/recover CO2. Few examples can be seen in the literature: Hamelers et al (2013) presented systems that can use CO2 aqueous solutions to produce energy using electrochemical cells with porous electrodes; Legrand et al (2018) has proven that CDI can be used to capture CO2 without solvents; Shu et al (2020) have used electrochemical systems to desorb (recover) CO2 from an alkaline absorbent with low energy demand. Even though many efforts have been done, there is still demand for efficient and market-ready systems, especially related to solvent-free CO2 capturing systems. This project intends to assess a relatively efficient technology, with low-energy costs which can change the CO2 capturing market. This technology is called whorlpipe. The whorlpipe, developed by Viktor Schauberger, has shown already promising results in reducing the energy and CO2 emissions for water pumping. Recently, studies conducted by Wetsus and NHL Stenden (under submission), in combination with different companies (also members in this proposal) have shown that vortices like systems, like the Schauberger funnel, and thus “whorlpipe”, can be fluid dynamically represented using Taylor-Couette flows. This means that such systems have a strong tendency to form vortices like fluid-patterns close to their air-water interface. Such flow system drastically increase advection. Combined with their higher area to volume ratio, which increases diffusion, these systems can greatly enhance gas capturing (in liquids), and are, thus, a unique opportunity for CO2 uptake from the air, i.e. competing with systems like conventional scrubbers or bubble-based aeration.
The energy transition is a highly complex technical and societal challenge, coping with e.g. existing ownership situations, intrusive retrofit measures, slow decision-making processes and uneven value distribution. Large scale retrofitting activities insulating multiple buildings at once is urgently needed to reach the climate targets but the decision-making of retrofitting in buildings with shared ownership is challenging. Each owner is accountable for his own energy bill (and footprint), giving a limited action scope. This has led to a fragmented response to the energy retrofitting challenge with negligible levels of building energy efficiency improvements conducted by multiple actors. Aggregating the energy design process on a building level would allow more systemic decisions to happen and offer the access to alternative types of funding for owners. “Collect Your Retrofits” intends to design a generic and collective retrofit approach in the challenging context of monumental areas. As there are no standardised approaches to conduct historical building energy retrofits, solutions are tailor-made, making the process expensive and unattractive for owners. The project will develop this approach under real conditions of two communities: a self-organised “woongroep” and a “VvE” in the historic centre of Amsterdam. Retrofit designs will be identified based on energy performance, carbon emissions, comfort and costs so that a prioritisation strategy can be drawn. Instead of each owner investing into their own energy retrofitting, the neighbourhood will invest into the most impactful measures and ensure that the generated economic value is retained locally in order to make further sustainable investments and thus accelerating the transition of the area to a CO2-neutral environment.
Since March 2013, Paul Peeters is a member of the ICAO/CAEP Working Group 3, which is responsible for setting a new fuel efficiency standard for of civil aviation. He does so for the International Coalition for Sustainable Aviation (ICSA). ICSA was established in 1998 by a group of national and international environmental NGOs as official observers. Since its inception, ICSA has contributed to CAEP’s work on technical means to reduce emissions and noise, the role of market-based measures, supporting economic and environmental analysis, modelling and forecasting, and ICAO’s carbon calculator. It has also been invited to present its views at ICAO workshops on carbon markets and bio-fuels, and has presented to the high-level Group on Internation Aviation and Climate Change (GIACC). ICSA uses the expertise within its NGO membership to formulate its co-ordinated positions. To gain the broadest level of understanding and input from environmental NGOs, ICSA communicates with, and invites comment from, other NGO networks and bodies working in related areas. ICSA’s participation in ICAO and CAEP meetings is currently provided by the Aviation Environment Federation (AEF), the International Council for Clean Transportation (ICCT) and Transport and Environment (T&E). See http://www.icsa-aviation.org
