RE: [Algorithms] Game loop timings

[Mark W. <Mwa...@to...>]

> > I can see how, on a CPU-limited console, you'd want to run=20
> physics at=20
> > a lower frame rate than graphics. However, for systems with=20
> > fast-moving objects and massive, interactive physics, you=20
> really want=20
> > physics stepped at rates of 100 Hz or more. Intel had a=20
> dual-core demo=20
> > at GDC that used Novodex and stepped physics at 200 Hz; very smooth.
>=20
> You definitely need to step the solver and integrator at more=20
> than 30Hz.
> 100Hz is usually good enough, yes. But:

Hmm, on Carmageddon TDR2000 we had cars and objects moving at up to 1000
km/h (probably faster) using swept collision and
interpolating/extrapolating graphics (which was a requirement for
variable speed replay). The physics and collision was run at a
"constant" 25Hz using the discussed N, N+1 technique. Whilst it probably
could've been better, it wasn't at all bad for 1999 and certainly didn't
require 100Hz updates!
If you're using intersection based collision techniques then I'd agree
that a faster update rate would be desirable.

Cheers,
Mark
Torus Games