What is Digg?139 Comments
- alx1507, on 12/26/2007, -1/+129Well now I have no need to buy Crysis.
- jmontez, on 12/26/2007, -2/+102Just go outside and be amazed!!
- dansmeek, on 12/26/2007, -2/+84this is awesome! i love phyiscs so much. i dream for the day every game has realistic physics and movable enviornments. I would also love to build a complete physics engine. something with a large scope. that handles the waves of the ocean (and currents) to the dirt plastering all over a fed ex package dropping off an airplane at a few thousand feet.
one day i know this will be possible. - wellyuk, on 12/26/2007, -0/+63To be fair, flash (to my knowledge) doesn't come with a physics engine. The guy who built those demos is the one who deserves the credit, not flash.
- crapmatic, on 12/26/2007, -0/+34Where's the 3000 barrels?
- BryanJK, on 12/26/2007, -0/+32Have you tried Garry's Mod? Thats a great game for physics lovers :D
- Gagle, on 12/26/2007, -0/+21The guys at Box2D deserve most of the credit...not flash developers
- chrisbarr, on 12/26/2007, -2/+22What in the world kind of boring game involves delivering FedEx packages?
- filefly, on 12/26/2007, -1/+18Reminds me of Sodaplay: http://www.sodaplay.com
- NyteStarNyne, on 12/26/2007, -0/+15Am I the only one addicted to smashing the stack of squares?
- Etheo, on 12/26/2007, -4/+19I must have a ***** up mind because I read "never knew flash could ejaculate my penis like this"
Or just too ***** drunk to read. - inactive, on 12/26/2007, -0/+13Desktop computers are years away from being able to handle anywhere near the absolutely massive processing power that'd be needed for such a detailed physics engine...
- skatehead, on 12/26/2007, -1/+14For anyone that wants to use Box2DFlash, it's an open source project, available here:
http://box2dflash.sourceforge.net/
I posted this a month or so ago, but it never got popular: Original story:
http://digg.com/programming/Powerful_open_source_p ...
Credit goes to Erin Catto for writing the original Box2D c++ library.
Cheers,
-Matt - juliolarri, on 12/26/2007, -0/+13Paper boy comes to mind...
- chrisbarr, on 12/26/2007, -0/+13We're already in that simulation, but you have to take the red pill.
- Shadow503, on 12/26/2007, -0/+13This runs smooth as butter, I'm getting a 300+ frame rate.
- chris9902, on 12/26/2007, -1/+13outside? I played that game once and thought It was rubbish.
- a1lostnomad, on 12/26/2007, -4/+16Direct SWF link: http://www.barechoons.com/media/flash/PhysTest.swf
- TheWorm, on 12/26/2007, -0/+11At first I read that as "SFW" and I was wondering what could possibly make physics "NSFW"
- boris4ka, on 12/26/2007, -1/+12never knew flash could efficiently calculate physics like this.
- joegibes, on 12/27/2007, -0/+10I'm waiting for the spring update... I hear they're removing "Snow."
- Wohmfg, on 12/26/2007, -2/+12A lot like sodaplay.
- inactive, on 12/26/2007, -1/+11That's a big factor right there - even if the technology existed, there would still be major restrictions because the games are meant to be played a certain way. I mean, what happens when a developer spends hours designing a puzzle to unlock a door, and then the player just takes advantages of the physics engine to blow a hole through the wall? Or level a building key to the story? Really cool, yes, but I can see how it would get out of hand really quickly.
- grumbel, on 12/26/2007, -1/+10Don't hold your breath. While physics are very popular these days, we are still a long while away from approaching even remotely realistic physics in games, most games use very simplified and unrealistic physics or have you ever seen a barrel bounce around like in reality like they do in almost all games? Another annoying thing is that many games do provide some kind of physics, but still restrict you to a very small and linear level design, thus forbidding you do actually explore the environment in a free manner (you are a 'save the world' superhero, but can't jump over a one meter high wall...).
- yutt, on 12/26/2007, -0/+8Never knew flash could efficiently calculate penis ejaculate like this?
- CaviMike, on 12/26/2007, -0/+8I've been playing with that tank-track for like 20 minutes.
- EntropyGun, on 12/26/2007, -0/+8Parcel Truck Driver Hero
- Linkin4, on 12/26/2007, -1/+9I think he was backing you up
- Sornos, on 12/26/2007, -0/+8I'm going with a little from column A and a little from column B.
- blast_flame, on 12/26/2007, -0/+8The Ai in that game is too bad for my taste. Sure you have a few good ones but the average is terrible
The "pain" damage system they have is pointless.
I've heard they're going to improve it with an expansion known as the "technological singularity " but at the moment it's too terrible for its physics to make up for it. - SiNN4R, on 12/26/2007, -2/+9never.
- ddgromit, on 12/26/2007, -0/+7by computer he means a computer, moron, like the one in front of your face
- iNaya, on 12/26/2007, -3/+9There's this really awesome game called RL. All you have to do is turn off your computer and go outside. Try not to kill random things because that would almost ensure that the game stops being fun.
- EntangledPhysx, on 12/26/2007, -0/+6Party pooper
- amacinnis, on 12/26/2007, -0/+6I remember reading once that the larger the difference between the system and the simulation, the larger the difference in the end result. The author argued that the only way to create a perfect simulation of the universe was to create a 1:1 scale model, which would defeat the purpose.
- inactive, on 12/26/2007, -0/+6CAST AWAY: The Game
- JDoms, on 12/26/2007, -1/+7This is an ActionScript 3.0 port of the C++ box2d engine. The C++ version was used to make the game Crayon Physics: http://www.kloonigames.com/blog/games/crayon/
I've been fooling around with this AS 3 port and it seems to have a lot of potential. It is a bit tricky to get used to, as the code structure is pretty similar to the C++ version, but after a bit of experimenting it starts to make sense (even to beginner ActionScript programmers such as myself).
It doesn't have any built in support for display objects (yet), so putting movie clips on those wireframes is a bit tricky to figure out, but there is a good method in the support forums on the Box2d website.
While experimenting, I was able to create 250 circular physics objects without substantial drop in frame rate. Once I got up to 300 it started to lag quite noticeably.
I hope we start to see more flash games utilizing physics engines like this one. - Orion682, on 12/26/2007, -0/+6Pretty much no game does water, or fluids, at all. They simulate it, but don't process ***** physics-wise with regard to water. Fluid dynamics simulations are currently still well beyond any home system at the moment, and we've still got a few more years till that becomes feasible on its own, let alone in tandem with other physics calculations.
Haven't you ever wondered why no game has true running water? Waterfalls, rivers, etc are all just animated textures and brushes at the time of this writing, regardless of what engine they're on. - Hoxie, on 12/26/2007, -1/+6Jesus boy, what kind of rig are you running? Thats a bit too smooth.
- Angrysock, on 12/26/2007, -0/+5Well... I only dugg it up after I played it for like 30 minutes.... I assume everyone else did the same.
- treyd, on 12/26/2007, -0/+5Interesting; do you have a link?
- Angrysock, on 12/26/2007, -0/+5I took like 45 minutes playing that.
- TheMidnight, on 12/26/2007, -0/+5Actually, according to our current physics model it wouldn't be entirely possible. With quantum mechanics, the best we could do would be to predict trillions of waveform functions for various objects, which means we could only predict probabilities for a sequence of events in a physics engine. We don't even know enough about how the decoherence of quantum mechanics on macroscopic scales to really even do anything useful with it. Sure, we could probably do a classical mechanics engine with an impressive number of variables, but that would limit you to classical systems. Simulating near-light speed would require relativity, and you're not going to be able to do complex systems like a tornado or anything involving turbulence without a complete understanding of all scales of physics, or a unifying theory, neither of which we have today.
- marvy, on 12/26/2007, -0/+4Running an exact simulation of the universe inside of a computer, that is part of that universe, involves a sort of infinite recursion. Furthermore, as every step that the computer calculates involves numerous steps in the real Universe, it would always be slower than actual time. This would make a look into the future impossible.
- rojano17, on 12/26/2007, -0/+4yeah but i hear it runs better on DirectX 8000
- zjordan04, on 12/26/2007, -0/+4I heard that has like DirectX 9000 graphics.
- Metal_Hurlant, on 12/26/2007, -0/+4That has a lot to do with actionscript 3, which is currently the fastest ecmascript runtime around, by a long shot.
(That will change once Firefox integrates the same technology to run javascript.) - grumbel, on 12/26/2007, -0/+4### Really cool, yes, but I can see how it would get out of hand really quickly.
Do you see people leveling buildings 'just for fun' in reality? I don't and the reason for that is simply because its hard. Real buildings, at least the big ones, don't just fall down after a tiny explosion, you need a pretty big one. And well, you won't be running around with hundreds pounds of explosives in a game that is build around realistic physics. Also it is simply a matter of keeping things real. Why don't we blow a hole in the wall? Because the enemies would obviously hear that and come and shoot you dead. This would mean that you would sneak, because its the only way to survive, not because the game gives you a automatic "Game Over" screen when you are found.
The joy of a game based around real or close-to-real physics and behavior is that they work for most part automatically. You don't have to worry much about crazy *****, because it will simply be extremely hard to pull of, either you don't have enough explosive or the enemy forces will stop you from accomplishing your goal. You simply don't design restricted levels in such a game and then think about the billion ways people could break out of your restrictions, instead you design consistent scenarios that are then simply run. If it is to easy to infiltrate a enemy base, you simply need more guards.
Look at Operation Flashpoint for a great example, while that game doesn't really have a real physics engine, it allows enormous freedom, you can basically do anything you want at any point in the game, even level a building. There are no invisible falls and nothing like that. However the enemy soldiers and the limited amount of stuff you can carry around are enough to keep you in check. You can still pull of crazy ***** every once in a while, sneak into an enemy base, steal their helicopter and level the base with it, but such things are very hard to pull of, since most often the enemies will simply spot you, shot you, end of story. And unless you actually have a bunch of satchel charges you can forget the building leveling of course too, since your M16 just won't work very well against one. - jordanisj, on 12/26/2007, -0/+4I can see the paper title now: "Graphical model of the reciprocating motion of human mammary tissue."
- endlessoul, on 12/26/2007, -2/+6You see, this is why I come to Digg.
I love this stuff. -
Show 51 - 100 of 135 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is