You guys sound like artist arguing with programmer which ones work is more important. That's like Mom and Dad arguing who made the child. ;P
🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉
Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
Rotation with limited turn rate in degrees
19 minutes ago, JoeJ said:You guys sound like artist arguing with programmer which ones work is more important.
I try to argue that it require to understand where line betwin high tech and arts into gamedev is. Really quality games require both - high tech to drive gameplay and quality arts/story to look quality and be fun to play. Just becouse high tech make arts/story alive. And than higher tech involved then simplier to make arts and story alive with less additional code or ever without story/art-specific code.
Yes, but beginning your argumentation with 'Any processes into world, real or dummy ,described by differential equations.' sounds just math nerdy from the artists perspective. I mean, do equations help me to compose an earwig melody? Is there any useful research in understanding why some melodies are earwigs? Nope. There is research, but it's results are zero or bullshit. I use this example because i think it's closer to being analyzable than asking for 'How do i get a game design idea like Tetris?'. In either case math does not help, and might never will.
But back on (off)topic, personally i think there is a lot of low tech in use where high tech would exist, lots of unused potential, but this does not apply to every kind of games. Lots of games, especially those being really strong at art have no need for high tech, e.g. Limbo.
However, in general there is a high need for progress in both fields. IMHO we are far from the point where games are considered as art. And also our tech is far from being good enough.
The thought any state of the art is good enough leads to stagnation followed by burnout, like what happened to pop music industry. Only as long as technical progress and creative ideas are rolling, this can be avoided. At the moment things look pretty much like stagnation to me, for both AAA and indie.
Meanwhile we have a rich history of progress in games and it's always hard to compete against compressed history, but i totally agree there's a need for advanced engineering, or however we want to call it. To me that's really what games is about, but i would not want to argue with an artist / designer about that. (but i do it constantly without intention 
)
24 minutes ago, JoeJ said:Any processes into world, real or dummy ,described by differential equations.' sounds just math nerdy from the artists perspective.
It just explain why any game background involve high tech. Arts and story that visible on screen is a top of iceberg, while underwater background is differential eqiuations that makes story and gameplay alive.
24 minutes ago, JoeJ said:I mean, do equations help me to compose an earwig melody?
It help to play it into gaming world. Also it help to detect a time when it have to be played.
25 minutes ago, JoeJ said:Lots of games, especially those being really strong at art have no need for high tech, e.g. Limbo.
For game arts then higher tech involved than faster modeller can model a world.Really most of games that involve high tech have arts/design that at lest not worse or in many cases was a top at moment of game release. Just becouse any game have plenty of tech and and archictural objects, modeling and simulating of wich high tech tools make easier, even in case game logic and phisics works not exactly same as into reall world. Really high tech intended to simplify make of anything that human make.
20 hours ago, JoeJ said:But you could use this simple code to guide the missile as well:
vec newMissileDir = (prevMissileDir * 0.98 + (targetPos-missilePos).Unit() * 0.02).Unit(); // behaviour depends on rate of updates!
It already cares for 180 degree issues and is the simplest and fastest thing to do i guess, there is not even a need to check for zero vectors on normalization, except the missile already hits the target.
float fAdjust = fElapsedTime * 0.02f;
float fKeep = 1.0f - fAdjust;
vec newMissileDir = (prevMissileDir * fKeep + (targetPos-missilePos).Unit() * fAdjust ).Unit();
Now its good for time ?, nice 1 pole intergration smoothing filter, most basic thing.
I will try that.
edit : The time will be very messy since it dont take count for distance.
No i wont use that.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
