tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3245128056723135607.post8698393552168065151..comments2023-07-27T01:37:35.495-07:00Comments on SorceryGames Dev: Simulation = gameplay?VoodooChiefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05034494031676796112noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3245128056723135607.post-33951937901007489612010-07-15T05:45:23.871-07:002010-07-15T05:45:23.871-07:00Oh yeah, definitely when using Lua. It's alway...Oh yeah, definitely when using Lua. It's always about balance. My favorite part :D. And yeah, there is come good stuff with the double physics step. And a lot of other tricks as well. The interesting bit, is often rendering takes enough time to push ya to 30Hz, and then the double physics step is a great option. And many times a double 60Hz step is around the same speed as a single 30Hz (depending on system and data) because there's less corner work and inter-penetration to solve through. So it's very much a worthwhile technique to review.<br /><br />One thing I think a lot of gamers misunderstand is that they think making 60Hz is just a better engine or some such. In reality it's a balance that studios choose to take or not. With current hardware, sure, anyone could run at 60Hz, but that always comes at a trade-off. Because you can always use the extra processing time of a move to 30Hz to make other improvements, most often increasing the display quality like more polys or better post effects, but it could just as easily be better physics or more particles. A more efficient code base just gives you more quality points to spend on the features you want.emptydesertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3245128056723135607.post-12165811498191887462010-07-15T01:25:29.285-07:002010-07-15T01:25:29.285-07:00Yo ED,
Yeah i never quite explained that right (as...Yo ED,<br />Yeah i never quite explained that right (as usual for me). The 30hz double physics is the same as single pysics pass for 60hz. Or should be close. Sometimes you can take some excellent shortcuts for multiple passes though. Beyond 6 hz you have to see what evironment you are in and see how much continuous collisons models will cost. I know in lua and the environment i am that continuous physics wold be a major burden, and multiple pass style is the way to go for our simple games.<br /><br />Thanks for the informed comment<br />Da VoodoochiefVoodooChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05034494031676796112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3245128056723135607.post-75519025022879594292010-07-14T07:15:26.782-07:002010-07-14T07:15:26.782-07:00Yup. Simulation can be a fine thing, but (other th...Yup. Simulation can be a fine thing, but (other than a couple specialized sub genres) it doesn't make the game. In fact, simulating real world physics accurately usually detracts from gameplay like you said. I like how you touched on gravity. The thing a lot of people don't realize I think is that most games have gravity set quite low. That's because when people think they want real world physics, what they really want is movie physics. I have yet to see a car flip end over end from the explosion of it's gas tank in the real world...<br /><br />And jump mechanics, great point on that. Jumping is a gameplay item. Which is why it's ok that even the most simulation based games tend to have exaggerated jumps and other games no jumping at all.<br /><br />I don't know if I agree with you on the physics step though. Because display framerate doesn't really make a difference to simulation quality, just the physics framerate does. In other words, if you simulate once per display frame at 60Hz or twice per display frame at 30Hz you get the same results. And the processing cost of the two would be nearly identical (as far as the physics goes). Increasing the physics processing frequency does improve collision detection on thin objects though. Beyond 60Hz though, the cost usually takes a big jump, so then a continuous collision model for the fastest moving objects become increasingly attractive.emptydesertnoreply@blogger.com