Optimizing Physics (updated weekly)

I call this trick Physics Optimization, or Fake Physics. I did not make this video or this discovery. It instead came from another YouTube user, named Jurisnake. Check weekly for updates.

Posted by AmaroqDricaldari on May 10th, 2011
Intermediate Server Side Coding.

He discovered it on accident while working on one of his games. The video is from his work-in-progress multiplayer game.
Please excuse his English, it isn't his first language, and this is a very early video of his.

The way he optimized the physics allows the application to move large amounts of objects at the same time while using minimal Processing Power.

I am still trying to figure out how this could be applied to a 3D game.

Here is my attempt to explain it:

When you are trying to convert a value to an integer and set it to 1.9, it is still 1. Also, when using integers, you can end up with a reversed Y Axis.
You also have the ability to devide the force between multiple moving objects while having them move the same way as the same amount of force being applied to only one object, and it uses the same Processing Power as only one moving object.
In addition (see below), the objects are just acting with pre-programmed algerythms whenever there is an algerythm available, and thus "real" physics are not required.
Another technique is to set Dynamic Objects to include a script to become static when there is no even incolving said object occuring at the moment. This is very useful because Dynamic Objects always use up processing power, even when nothing is happening to them, they are not doing anything, or they are not moving.

All of this might just make a difference when you try to cause an avalanche of 1000 Explosive Barrels in a game of Crysis, or when you try to use a cannon to launch hundreds of Watermelons in Garry's Mod.

Me: Can you please re-explain "Fake" Physics? Maybe directly, or maybe﻿ in the description, or through Pause Anotations or something.

Jurisnake: By "fake" it is﻿ meant that these block-objects are not following a consistent physical law. They just react to certain situations in a way that makes them "look" physically believable.

Author
AmaroqDricaldari May 11 2011, 10:06am replied:

What he means is that he knows how to reduce the amount of force on an object while keeping the same effect, and also how to apply a small amount of force between multiple objects without making anay of them move slower. I know, it sounds wierd. English isn't his first language. Btw, I have a seperate YouTube Channel.

THe reason his video is on here is because he let me host it on this website.

DuckSauce May 11 2011, 9:04am says:

Yeah, it seems nice, but I can see the difference from advanced physics... the physics objects don't interact with each other, perhaps he still needs to do that, but it's an important part of physics interaction.

Secondly, no I won't excuse his language for that reason, english is not my first language either, that doesn't mean I'm raping it up this badly.(I find it really hard to believe someone can misspell Axis into Achsis unless they were just randomly hitting letters, if they are really someone that works with physics, he must have seen that word written properly somewhere o.0)

I would however excuse his language if it's not in his interest to learn it, while it's an important language, I know I don't want to learn stuff properly just because people think I should, I knew what words he was using/trying to use, though I still don't quite get...

How the hell does it work? And why did you make this a tutorial, when:
A. It's not a tutorial... he just tells some things and shows it, but doesn't go into detail how it works, making it useless.
B. You didn't make it, nor explain it so it becomes a tutorial.

Sorry for the heavy critique here, but if I'd still be writing mod news post, I know it'd be ****** if an useless article is popping my article off the front page, so please, turn it into something useful, or get it gone from the front page, for the sake for the mod developers that could use the attention.

Author
AmaroqDricaldari May 11 2011, 10:19am says:

I should have written it as a blog instead. I did understand what he meant when I asked him about it, but I didn't know how to write it down without it sounding stupid.

Anyway, this was one of his early videos, but he did get better at English overtime, so you can expect some of his other videos to be easier to understand.

DuckSauce May 11 2011, 10:43am replied:

I see you tried to explain it a bit, but it's really the same as what's in the video...

"When you are trying to convert a value to an integer and set it to 1.9, it is still 1."
Yeah I saw that in the video... what's the point of this telling us this though, I'm not even sure if every programming language will roundown integers when casting, but assuming they do, it's pretty much common knowledge you could find with google instantly.

How does that information relate to what he's doing though?

"when using integers, you can end up with a reversed Y Axis"

Uh yeah, -y is reversed y, even floats can be reversed like that... again, what is the point of this information? It does not tell anything useful.

"You also have the ability to devide the force between multiple moving objects while having them move the same way as the same amount of force being applied to only one object, and it uses the same Processing Power as only one moving object."

That is actually kinda bad when I think about it... but barely noticeable, guess that's where part of the "fake" comes in.

As for the same amount of processing power... yeah I got that too from the video, why repeat all this information? Additionaly I find it hard to believe that it's the same amount of processing power, how did he measure that? What I would believe is that the processing power required for one object is so low, that multiple objects won't have a noticable impact.

Author
AmaroqDricaldari May 11 2011, 2:24pm replied:

When I re-explained it, I thought that some people couldn't understand the video. I am trying to figure out a better way to describe it.

macacos2 May 11 2011, 12:13pm says:

This would've been a revolutionary discovery if this was 1992

Author
AmaroqDricaldari May 11 2011, 2:29pm replied:

What if you were playing Crysis and tried to cause an avalanche of 1000 Explosive Barrels? Even on a high-end computer, doing something like that would slow the game down horribly. That is where this discovery might make a difference in modern games.

You are not logged in, your comment will be anonymous unless you join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) which we encourage all contributors to do.

2000 characters limit; HTML formatting and smileys are not supported - text only

Tutorial
Tutorials
Members only
4,106 (1 today)
##### Report Abuse
Report article
Related Groups
2D Games Fans & Clans group with 279 members
4TH Generation Gamers Hardware & Tech group with 318 members