josh, in the development update 1 video you mentioned that the "size factor" is going to be "100, maybe 200" times the size of a fighter, is that still valid?
because here you mentioned that you implemented your own physics engine, but i couldnt find out if that was before or after the development update...
necro thread is necro ^^
Post
Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:25 am
#47
Early Spring - 1055: Well, I made it to Boatmurdered, and my initial impressions can be set forth in three words: What. The. F*ck.
Re: Development Update #1: January 2013
From what I understand, the scale difference limitations are due to the physics engine in general. These statements were made after he made his own engine.
The double precision ended up making more of a difference than anything else which increases scale, but probably not to death star vs. fighter level.
The double precision ended up making more of a difference than anything else which increases scale, but probably not to death star vs. fighter level.
Early Spring - 1055: Well, I made it to Boatmurdered, and my initial impressions can be set forth in three words: What. The. F*ck.
Post
Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:44 am
#48
Re: Development Update #1: January 2013
If I recall correctly, Josh was able to scale up the size of planets and the distance between objects by a factor of 10. I'm hoping this will mean that we can at least expect a 1000-2000 fold difference between the largest and smallest vessels in the game.DWMagus wrote:From what I understand, the scale difference limitations are due to the physics engine in general. These statements were made after he made his own engine.
The double precision ended up making more of a difference than anything else which increases scale, but probably not to death star vs. fighter level.
Post
Mon Jan 27, 2014 12:01 pm
#49
While the problem with large variations in ship scales was simply the fact that collision detection becomes a massively more processor intensive task the larger the ships in question become. If that is the case, not sure the switch to double precision has anything to do with making the calculations involved run any faster.
Re: Development Update #1: January 2013
Aren't those different issues? The issue with size of planets and distances, as I thought I understood it, is that without double precision the massive numbers involved start making things go a little haywire.ThymineC wrote:If I recall correctly, Josh was able to scale up the size of planets and the distance between objects by a factor of 10. I'm hoping this will mean that we can at least expect a 1000-2000 fold difference between the largest and smallest vessels in the game.DWMagus wrote:From what I understand, the scale difference limitations are due to the physics engine in general. These statements were made after he made his own engine.
The double precision ended up making more of a difference than anything else which increases scale, but probably not to death star vs. fighter level.
While the problem with large variations in ship scales was simply the fact that collision detection becomes a massively more processor intensive task the larger the ships in question become. If that is the case, not sure the switch to double precision has anything to do with making the calculations involved run any faster.
Post
Mon Jan 27, 2014 12:07 pm
#50
Re: Development Update #1: January 2013
They could be. I'm hoping for the biggest difference in scales that the engine can support either way.Mordakai wrote:Aren't those different issues? The issue with size of planets and distances, as I thought I understood it, is that without double precision the massive numbers involved start making things go a little haywire.
While the problem with large variations in ship scales was simply the fact that collision detection becomes a massively more processor intensive task the larger the ships in question become. If that is the case, not sure the switch to double precision has anything to do with making the calculations involved run any faster.
Post
Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:02 am
#51
Re: Development Update #1: January 2013
Thymine, you goddamn troll, you purposely bumped this thread so that unsuspecting folks click the link and watch 15 minutes of I AM A MORON.
Post
Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:03 am
#52
I legitimately have no idea what you're talking about.
Re: Development Update #1: January 2013
I did what?Vartul wrote:Thymine, you goddamn troll, you purposely bumped this thread so that unsuspecting folks click the link and watch 15 minutes of I AM A MORON.
I legitimately have no idea what you're talking about.
Post
Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:34 am
#53
Re: Development Update #1: January 2013
I think it was meant facetiously... as in:
1. People are waiting on Josh's new video to drop.
2. They will know when it does because there'll be a new thread in the Announcements section.
3. This will be the topmost thread.
4. The topmost thread saw some action recently.
5. But it was from one of the first videos, not the latest one.
6. And you were the last one to comment on that old thread.
7. Therefore you are pure evil.
I think.
Also, oh, bollocks, now my name is the last to post in this thread....
1. People are waiting on Josh's new video to drop.
2. They will know when it does because there'll be a new thread in the Announcements section.
3. This will be the topmost thread.
4. The topmost thread saw some action recently.
5. But it was from one of the first videos, not the latest one.
6. And you were the last one to comment on that old thread.
7. Therefore you are pure evil.
I think.
Also, oh, bollocks, now my name is the last to post in this thread....
Post
Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:36 am
#54
Re: Development Update #1: January 2013
This. Also, Stop bumping this! Oh wait.Flatfingers wrote:I think it was meant facetiously... as in:
1. People are waiting on Josh's new video to drop.
2. They will know when it does because there'll be a new thread in the Announcements section.
3. This will be the topmost thread.
4. The topmost thread saw some action recently.
5. But it was from one of the first videos, not the latest one.
6. And you were the last one to comment on that old thread.
7. Therefore you are pure evil.
I think.
Also, oh, bollocks, now my name is the last to post in this thread....
Post
Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:37 am
#55
Re: Development Update #1: January 2013
Poor you.
... ah... crap.
... ah... crap.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Post
Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:01 am
#56
Early Spring - 1055: Well, I made it to Boatmurdered, and my initial impressions can be set forth in three words: What. The. F*ck.
Re: Development Update #1: January 2013
Ah, reminds me of the time I got reported by a fellow mod because I posted in a locked topic for the specific reason to bump it.
Fun times.
Fun times.
Early Spring - 1055: Well, I made it to Boatmurdered, and my initial impressions can be set forth in three words: What. The. F*ck.
Post
Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:36 pm
#57
Re: Development Update #1: January 2013
Yeah, you had us with that one.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Post
Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:38 pm
#58
Re: Development Update #1: January 2013
We shouldn't be posting in here because it might raise people's hopes in thinking that it's the 2014 update!
Bump.
Bump.
Post
Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:40 pm
#59
Re: Development Update #1: January 2013
Cry wolf ?
ANd when the update finally hits... NOBODY WATCHES !
ANd when the update finally hits... NOBODY WATCHES !
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Post
Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:41 pm
#60
And we should stop spamming too.
Re: Development Update #1: January 2013
Yeah that would be a very, very bad thing.ThymineC wrote:We shouldn't be posting in here because it might raise people's hopes in thinking that it's the 2014 update!
Bump.
And we should stop spamming too.