Video games in relation to the real world

Hello forum vaironxxrd here,
I like a good teenager like to play video games, and hope to get a degree being something in the Computer Science field.

This is a question I could had easily research but not find specific answers.

The question is , are real world physic's formulas entered right up into a game or converted to some sort of ratio?

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vaironxxrd

Hello forum vaironxxrd here,
I like a good teenager like to play video games, and hope to get a degree being something in the Computer Science field.

This is a question I could had easily research but not find specific answers.

The question is , are real world physic's formulas entered right up into a game or converted to some sort of ratio?

Thanks.

---

Your question makes no sense. Physics is coded as is convenient.

CB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainBlack

Your question makes no sense. Physics is coded as is convenient.

CB

---

So same formulas?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vaironxxrd

So same formulas?

---

WOW. What are you talking about??

Are physics formulas converted to a RATIO?!?!

Physics is a major component of many video games, but you don't necessarily need to know physics to be on a game project. You can hire Mr. F for that.

But I wouldn't expect to get a job coding until you can communicate more... efficiently...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheChaz

WOW. What are you talking about??

Are physics formulas converted to a RATIO?!?!

Physics is a major component of many video games, but you don't necessarily need to know physics to be on a game project. You can hire Mr. F for that.

But I wouldn't expect to get a job coding until you can communicate more... efficiently...

---

I did this on the fly, ok thanks anyways.
What I believe I'm trying to say, is that the size of a road on your screen is not the same so therefore they must use some kind of conversion?
if you have ever heard of Arcgis I guess you know what I mean by now. The scale of an object in the screen in relation to the scale of an object in real world metric units or something similar.

I totally agree with communication , I'm trying to improve on that subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vaironxxrd

I did this on the fly, ok thanks anyways.
What I believe I'm trying to say, is that the size of a road on your screen is not the same so therefore they must use some kind of conversion?
if you have ever heard of Arcgis I guess you know what I mean by now. The scale of an object in the screen in relation to the scale of an object in real world metric units or something similar.

I totally agree with communication , I'm trying to improve on that subject.

---

You model in 3D and project onto the screen plane using some notional eye position.

CB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheChaz

WOW. What are you talking about??

Are physics formulas converted to a RATIO?!?!

Physics is a major component of many video games, but you don't necessarily need to know physics to be on a game project. You can hire Mr. F for that.

But I wouldn't expect to get a job coding until you can communicate more... efficiently...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainBlack

You model in 3D and project onto the screen plane using some notional eye position.

CB

---

Thanks for the explanations, and sorry for the lack of communication.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vaironxxrd

Thanks for the explanations, and sorry for the lack of communication skills.

---

(Wink)

Hey

Depends on the game. The formal name for the ratio approach is "Design for Effect". It doesn't have to be ratios, although I know what you mean. The crux of it is, you make rules that give you effects that correspond to what you want, rather than start by entering the basic ingredients of physics and letting the effect come out via emergence. (Someone PLEASE correct me on that last term if I'm using it wrong.)

There are two simulators you can look at to see the approaches if you like.

Microsoft Flight Simulator (or Train simulator) use a design for effect approach. They tell the simulator how the plane will move using a text file of inputs that only make sense to the simulator. This is also called "Abstracted design."

X-Plane is rather an object motion simulator based on real world physical equations.

The weakness of physics based games is that you have to simulator *everything* to get purely accurate results. To the degree that you leave something out and to the degree that the item left out will affect object behaviour, you get error.

e.g,

How fast will a given aircraft accelerate down the runway?

Abstract games check data that is given via tables that dictate effects.

X-plane type games just crunch all the variables into the physics equations and produce the effect indirectly.

Most games are abstracted, even games that are meant to be realistic.

True physics based simulators are used more in industrial applications.

I hope this is helpful!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheChaz

But I wouldn't expect to get a job coding until you can communicate more... efficiently...

---

It's hard. He's a teenager.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam12

Hey

Depends on the game. The formal name for the ratio approach is "Design for Effect". It doesn't have to be ratios, although I know what you mean. The crux of it is, you make rules that give you effects that correspond to what you want, rather than start by entering the basic ingredients of physics and letting the effect come out via emergence. (Someone PLEASE correct me on that last term if I'm using it wrong.)

There are two simulators you can look at to see the approaches if you like.

Microsoft Flight Simulator (or Train simulator) use a design for effect approach. They tell the simulator how the plane will move using a text file of inputs that only make sense to the simulator. This is also called "Abstracted design."

X-Plane is rather an object motion simulator based on real world physical equations.

The weakness of physics based games is that you have to simulator *everything* to get purely accurate results. To the degree that you leave something out and to the degree that the item left out will affect object behaviour, you get error.

e.g,

How fast will a given aircraft accelerate down the runway?

Abstract games check data that is given via tables that dictate effects.

X-plane type games just crunch all the variables into the physics equations and produce the effect indirectly.

Most games are abstracted, even games that are meant to be realistic.

True physics based simulators are used more in industrial applications.

I hope this is helpful!

---

But your modelling for effects require that you anticipate all possible actions and account for them, modelling the physics results in the system giving the right behaviour even if the designer did not anticipate the players action.

IIRC Aviator used the 6 degree of freedom models derived from those used in UK guided missile programme. These require/d only the adjustment of a small number of physically meaningfull parameters to represent any aircraft (at least while it remained within the limits of the linearisations in the model). Also the integration of the equations in a 6DoF model is trivial on modern processors (though not on the machines where we originally had to implement them).

I suspect the real reason for prefering modelling for effects is that it does not require that the game designer understand the physics underlying the objects in the game (and similarly the assumption that the player won't realise when the objects behaviour deviates from what it should be).

CB