![]() And that is, when some field is just getting started and you don't really understand it very well, it's very easy to confuse the essence of what you're doing with the tools that you use. Now, the reason that we think computer science is about computers is pretty much the same reason that the Egyptians thought geometry was about surveying instruments. And to the Egyptians who did that, geometry really was the use of surveying instruments. Geometry originally meant measuring the Earth or surveying.Īnd the reason for that was that, thousands of years ago, the Egyptian priesthood developed the rudiments of geometry in order to figure out how to restore the boundaries of fields that were destroyed in the annual flooding of the Nile. The name comes from Gaia, meaning the Earth, and metron, meaning to measure. Geometry, first of all, is another subject with a lousy name. In fact, there's a lot of commonality between computer science and geometry. And it's not about computers in the same sense that geometry is not really about using surveying instruments. And it's not about computers in the same sense that physics is not really about particle accelerators, and biology is not really about microscopes and petri dishes. It's also not really very much about computers. It might be engineering or it might be art, but we'll actually see that computer so-called science actually has a lot in common with magic, and we'll see that in this course. "Computer science is a terrible name for this business. You are not restricted to the tactics that fit to a certain type of ship (say, photon torpedoes, 2D, shields, warp and impulse drives, very close engagement ranges). Which means you can build the ship that best matches the tactics you want to try, no matter how crazy. But they start with a vision, with a 'foregone conclusion' what the result should be.ĬoaDE seems to not have much preconception ("vision") how ships are to be build (well, except tapered cylinder - to which I do not really agree it's the only or main right way), armed, engined, mass ratio'ed, etc. They may change some things, they may abandon the game (or divert into a quite new direction) if they see the results and think it does not work. ![]() They would start out with these ideas in mind - and an idea if this was to be more of a multiplayer bridge simulator or more of a singleplayer action game - and build that. If CoaDE was drawing it's vision from the sources as you say, then CoaDE would have a given idea how things will work.Įxample: if someone draws their vision of space travel and space combat from Star Trek, then they would build a world, a game, a system where reversing the polarity solves 50% of all problems, stealth is extremely good, combat distances are closer than the typical distances between the opponents in WWI trench warfare, you can warp (except when you cannot) and laser beams do glow in space. Or are they rather building a research tool, with no "vision" what the outcome should be, except that it should be as realistic as it can be, no matter where that takes them and no matter if they like the results? They use all the knowledge about crashes, the physics and materials science behind that, and use knowledge of simulation and computer science to create that thing - what exactly is their vision?ĭo they even have a vision how a car is 'supposed' to crumble? Someone writes a simulator to understand how cars deform in a crash and what such a crash would mean to occupants. Any project that claims to be so just inherits its vision from whatever it's drawing its basic assumptions from - in this case, it's sfconsim/Atomic Rockets/the hard-SF fandom/etc. There's no such thing as a project without vision. ![]() It largely felt like singleplayer, with the exception that sometimes timewarp wouldn't happen instantly because someone else was still busy. When the game fast forwarded enough for your purposes, you stopped the timewarp again and did your stuff. If your opponent was busy doing something, you waited until they were done. Basically, whenever you didn't have anything to do, you cranked up your timewarp, and if your opponent also had nothing to do, the game would fast forward. If one player dropped out of timewarp entirely, the game didn't warp at all. If one had it at step 3 and one had it at step 2, it would run at step 2. The timewarp problem was solved by simply setting the lowest common timewarp level among both players. Admittedly only two players max (as there were only two factions to pick), but still. I used to play a game called Star Wars: Rebellion, which had a timewarp feature and multiplayer. time warp has to be a thing, and everyone needs to do so in lockstep, at all times. The only issue I see is if it is multiplayer.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |