Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

What do you mean?
I'm simply alluding to how vehicles in SC work: not by feeding parameters into a set of physics engine rules and letting those decide the outcome, but by deciding the outcome, and figuring out what the physics engine rules need to be and feeding those into the engine so that the parameters yield the correct result. That is, outcome dictates “physics” in SC rather than the other way around.
 
I'm simply alluding to how vehicles in SC work: not by feeding parameters into a set of physics engine rules and letting those decide the outcome, but by deciding the outcome, and figuring out what the physics engine rules need to be and feeding those into the engine so that the parameters yield the correct result. That is, outcome dictates “physics” in SC rather than the other way around.
Why do you think that? And if so, is it that bad? Don’t most games do this, or at least a mix of the two?
 
Why do you think that?
It's not something I “think” — it's how it works.
People who dug into the engine discovered it half a decade ago; CI¬G's own documentation confirmed it.

Yes, it's bad because of how boundlessly idiotic it is. No-one else does it this way because they are not boundlessly idiotic. You either use your physics engine because you want a realistic outcome, or you don't because you want a pre-determined outcome. You don't put layers upon layers of self-defeating and competing code on top of each other to turn the former into the latter. The idiocy of doing so compared to… you know… just deciding the outcome and have it be that way is boundless.

Or, as it is more commonly labelled at CI¬G, “Tuesday.”
 
It's not something I “think” — it's how it works.
People who dug into the engine discovered it half a decade ago; CI¬G's own documentation confirmed it.

Yes, it's bad because of how boundlessly idiotic it is. No-one else does it this way because they are not boundlessly idiotic. You either use your physics engine because you want a realistic outcome, or you don't because you want a pre-determined outcome. You don't put layers upon layers of self-defeating and competing code on top of each other to turn the former into the latter. The idiocy of doing so compared to… you know… just deciding the outcome and have it be that way is boundless.

Or, as it is more commonly labelled at CI¬G, “Tuesday.”
I m sure thats how it worked for the old cryengine we know but CIG is using the heavily modifed star engine worked on and finetuned for optimal results by the magic germans...dont you know anything about this project? Take your outdated knowledge and I dont know....post it somewhere..... :D
 
It's not something I “think” — it's how it works.
People who dug into the engine discovered it half a decade ago; CI¬G's own documentation confirmed it.

Yes, it's bad because of how boundlessly idiotic it is. No-one else does it this way because they are not boundlessly idiotic. You either use your physics engine because you want a realistic outcome, or you don't because you want a pre-determined outcome. You don't put layers upon layers of self-defeating and competing code on top of each other to turn the former into the latter. The idiocy of doing so compared to… you know… just deciding the outcome and have it be that way is boundless.

Or, as it is more commonly labelled at CI¬G, “Tuesday.”
A very passionate argument from you, I’ve read more of those here. Then I launch the game and see something else.
 
What am I looking at here? Proof that predetermined hard coded vehicle behaviors are dictating the physics instead of the other way around ? #nophysicsworthofthatname #fake #neverbeendonebefore

Why it’s the bespoke coded genius of physics grids, oft lauded for their striking verisimilitude, as you well know good sir.

But to me it’s mainly a vehicle that can’t self-right itself, in a massive proc gen landscape ;)
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom