Re: [Algorithms] Formula for Damping f times

[Richard F. <ra...@gm...>]

I'd say that you have to aim for 100% repeatable with a physics model
that is meant to be part of a network game, but for non multiplayer
games you could get away with it. However, what do you benefit from
variable time step apart from reduced CPU time on tasks? Not much I'd
say. What you gain from fixed time step, fixed point math, or at least
repeatable math, is the ability to debug your model.

2009/6/9 Alen Ladavac <ale...@cr...>:
> Richard wrote at 6/9/2009:
>> indeed, this is something, i think, that many computer engineers need
>> to "get over". The fact that we don't have real Reals should be
>> justification enough for fixed point math in physics models and also
>> renderers that work with non-trivial algebra but require
>> repeatability.
>
> It depends on what you want to do with your physics models. On the
> other hand you could say that some computer engineers need to get over
> trying to make everything 100% repeatable. Not saying that a complete
> mess of maths is acceptable, but seeing both sides of the story, I
> more and more believe that perfect repeatability is kind of like a
> philosopher's stone.
>
> JM2C,
> Alen
>
>



-- 
fabs();
Just because the world is full of people that think just like you,
doesn't mean the other ones can't be right.