Qndre Posted February 20, 2004 Report Posted February 20, 2004 This is just a suggestion but what about friction for ships? If you don't engage the thrusters then you slow down. I know this isn not useful for space-games but there is something like "ground warfare" or "metal gear" where it would make sense. And what about WDL compatiblity so that you can write your own game-physics-engine in the powerful C-compatible programming language WDL? I've already written some WDL code which would be able to do that. It's a full physics- and movement-engine written originally with 3D compatiblity but also compatible to a 2D-game like subspace is: //////////////////////////////////////////// // Qndre's Game Physics Engine 1.0.1 // // Requires a running instance // // of the A4 engine // // and an A5 compatible WDL C interpreter // // (C) by Qndre // // // // This software is still in beta. // //////////////////////////////////////////// var intindicat = 0; var a_position[3]; var a_angle[3]; var friction; var force[3]; var temp[3]; var dist[3]; action move_me { while (1) { force.pan = -10 * key_force.x; my.skill14 = time*force.pan + max(1-time*0.7,0)*my.skill14; my.pan += time * my.skill14; vec_set(temp.x); temp.z -= 4000; trace_mode = ignore_me+ignore_sprites+ignore_models; result = trace(my.x,temp); if (result > 5) { force.x = 0; force.y = 0; force.z = -5; friction = 0.1; } else { force.x = 10 * key_force.y; force.y = 0; force.z = -0.5 * result; friction = 0.7; } my.skill11 = time*force.x + max(1-time*friction,0)*my.skill11; my.skill13 = time*force.z + max(1-time*friction,0)*my.skill13; dist.x = time * my.skill11; dist.y = 0; dist.z = time * my.skill13; move(my,dist,nullvector); move_view(); wait(1); } }Even if it's not possible (and I don't think anyone would implement this into his server) then it's a good suggestion, isn't it? <_<
Dr Brain Posted February 20, 2004 Report Posted February 20, 2004 What part of "impossible" don't you get?
»CypherJF Posted February 20, 2004 Report Posted February 20, 2004 I told him to move it here, sorry ekted <_< ...
Qndre Posted February 20, 2004 Author Report Posted February 20, 2004 I said: "It is just a suggestion"
Dark Nexus Posted February 21, 2004 Report Posted February 21, 2004 I guess i can't completely express the goals of ground warefare, but if you are moving you are still running, you are not really supposed to slow down unless you want too. In real life, if you are running, friction typically does not gradually slow you down as you work, you slow down as you want. Granted friction is a major factor in running. Just my 2 cents.
Mr Ekted Posted February 21, 2004 Report Posted February 21, 2004 OMG I am quoted in your siggy! I am famous!
»D1st0rt Posted February 21, 2004 Report Posted February 21, 2004 I don't think that's what makes you famous...
Mr Ekted Posted February 21, 2004 Report Posted February 21, 2004 Then it must be my quote next to the picture of Faye.
Ancient Power Posted February 21, 2004 Report Posted February 21, 2004 OMG I am quoted in your siggy! I am famous!can you say obsession?
Dr Brain Posted February 21, 2004 Report Posted February 21, 2004 Quoted from the one dumb post I ever saw you make. Imagine the odds...
Ancient Power Posted February 21, 2004 Report Posted February 21, 2004 Then it must be my quote next to the picture of Faye.I thought you were into man-fayes...
Aileron Posted February 21, 2004 Report Posted February 21, 2004 I dunno, maybe we should add an engine for modern physics as well. Put relativity and Quantum physics in. No...that wasn't lag, you forgot to account for the difference in your time frame and my time frame because my ship is taveling near c and yours is at zero. Now I must own you by exploiting the curved space around that nearby wormhole. <_<
Dark Nexus Posted February 21, 2004 Report Posted February 21, 2004 i have a shrine for mr.ekted in my closet. every day i pray he will come to my house and bless me with his presence. <_<
Qndre Posted February 21, 2004 Author Report Posted February 21, 2004 I guess i can't completely express the goals of ground warefare, but if you are moving you are still running, you are not really supposed to slow down unless you want too. In real life, if you are running, friction typically does not gradually slow you down as you work, you slow down as you want. Granted friction is a major factor in running. Just my 2 cents.Yes but in Metal Gear at example you can never stand still. You always move a little bit. On real life you can stop. If you are running then friction doesn't slow you down, that's right. But if you are running then you have your trusters on and so you move. If you want to stop moving you switch your trusters off (in real life you stop moving your legs) and the friction between your feet and the ground (theoretically) slows you down. And the physics engine can't only implement friction but also gravity (especially useful in 3d games - not useful in subspace).
Smong Posted February 21, 2004 Report Posted February 21, 2004 Here is one reason why we can't have friction. If you slow down when you let go of the arrow keys, the client will have to send some kind of information to the server so that other players know they are slowing down. That sounds OK, but now imagine someone hitting the arrow keys, not holding them down, either loads of packets get sent to the server, or if there is a sample rate, people will see that player begin to slow down at a different place (far enough to dodge weapons). OMG you are here now...I thought he came from SFN and brought a piece of it to MGB forums.
mister manners Posted February 21, 2004 Report Posted February 21, 2004 Here is one reason why we can't have friction. If you slow down when you let go of the arrow keys, the client will have to send some kind of information to the server so that other players know they are slowing down. That sounds OK, but now imagine someone hitting the arrow keys, not holding them down, either loads of packets get sent to the server, or if there is a sample rate, people will see that player begin to slow down at a different place (far enough to dodge weapons). OMG you are here now...I thought he came from SFN and brought a piece of it to MGB forums. where the -*BAD WORD*- is the gravity in space, except for the particles of dark matter floating around. Lets say air friction is 1. then i ll say dark matter's friction is .0000000000000000000000000000001, however, its m!@#$%^&* engulfs the m!@#$%^&* of all the hydrogen oxygen, helium, it completely dwarfs all other m!@#$%^&* like 1:.00001 just cool to know... it also helps stop galaxies from crashing too much
»D1st0rt Posted February 21, 2004 Report Posted February 21, 2004 I think you should implement time travel into continuum so that if you die, you can go back in time and move a little bit to the side.
Aileron Posted February 22, 2004 Report Posted February 22, 2004 ...but a time travel feature is already in CTM. Here's how to do it: First, you disconnect that DSL or Cable Modem, and fix the 56k up to a phone line. Then, take one of those AOL 900 free hours CDs. Then, install it on your computer. After, that you connect to AOL and run CTM. Congradulations, you will now be able to travel half a second back in time. Still, it would be more 1337 to implement relativity. WTF? I died when I was hit with only two L1 bombs?!?Those were L3s, when traveling at you near c, all things appear red. Ha, you can't hit me! I'm behind a wall! ... WTF?N00b, at speeds near c, line of sight can bend around objects.
Jason Posted February 22, 2004 Report Posted February 22, 2004 Physics pisses me off. It's all educated guesses pulled out of educated !@#$%^&*es. We're not sure of any of it.
Aileron Posted February 22, 2004 Report Posted February 22, 2004 Well, maybe some of the most recent theories in modern physics are, but most of it is actually very calculated and definite.
Snrrrub Posted February 22, 2004 Report Posted February 22, 2004 The whole idea behind the scientific method is that scientists build a model upon what they believe the universe is based. This model is based on observations and hypotheses, and is described mathematically. These models help us every day by allowing us to predict the outcome of other phonomena that have not yet been observed. When the model consistently and accurately predicts such phenomena, it is said to be "good". If it fails to accurately make such predictions, it is modified until it is can be considered good. So do we really "know" any laws? Not really. We have no derivation for Newton's Second Law or for Schrodinger's Equation. But does it matter whether we know something to be true if what we think we know is good enough in our realm of experience? Remember boys and girls, there is no absolute truth when it comes to science. It's all just a part of our imagination. It's just a really USEFUL part of our imagination. -Snrrrub
mister manners Posted February 22, 2004 Report Posted February 22, 2004 The whole idea behind the scientific method is that scientists build a model upon what they believe the universe is based. This model is based on observations and hypotheses, and is described mathematically. These models help us every day by allowing us to predict the outcome of other phonomena that have not yet been observed. When the model consistently and accurately predicts such phenomena, it is said to be "good". If it fails to accurately make such predictions, it is modified until it is can be considered good. So do we really "know" any laws? Not really. We have no derivation for Newton's Second Law or for Schrodinger's Equation. But does it matter whether we know something to be true if what we think we know is good enough in our realm of experience? Remember boys and girls, there is no absolute truth when it comes to science. It's all just a part of our imagination. It's just a really USEFUL part of our imagination. -Snrrrub-*BAD WORD*- strait ever heard of dark matter, im not makin this up...
Recommended Posts