2 ms·

I would like to say that I understand Newtonian physics, but have difficulty creating a physics engine. I understand how to render a 3 dimensional environment o

I would like to say that I understand Newtonian physics, but have difficulty creating a physics engine. I understand how to render a 3 dimensional environment on to a 2 dimensional screen, but I also have difficulty coding such functionality. Does this prevent me from creating a rich, 3D game? Not at all.

andrewcooke 17y ago
so you build on abstractions / tools created by others? another way of saying the same thing is to ask: why stop at algorithms? why not argue that a programmer needs to understand electronics, or the physics of semiconductors. i think that's a good point (and have voted you back up from zero :o) i do think i can make a different argument which makes a better case for maths, but i can also see a valid objection to that. i'll sketch it out anyway: abstractions / tools cannot make fundamental limitations go away; they can only hide them or present them in alternative ways. so at some point you still have to address limitations in your physics engine, or your renderer. if you refuse to understand the underlying maths then you are (1) very much at the mercy of the api / designer of the tool and (2) at a big disadvantage in looking for workarounds. the same idea more generally: maths (or logic; the two are closely related) is a very powerful language for dealing with complex systems. if you don't master that language then you are not going to be able to handle the same level of complexity as someone who can. the objection i see to that argument is that great art doesn't necessarily require breaking technical boundaries (it can even be motivated by constraints). so yes, i agree - you can make great art by using tools provided by people who understand the technicalities. i guess my only comeback to that is that the original title is "great developer" not "great artist"...

andrewcooke 17y ago

so you build on abstractions / tools created by others? another way of saying the same thing is to ask: why stop at algorithms? why not argue that a programmer needs to understand electronics, or the physics of semiconductors. i think that's a good point (and have voted you back up from zero :o) i do think i can make a different argument which makes a better case for maths, but i can also see a valid objection to that. i'll sketch it out anyway: abstractions / tools cannot make fundamental limitations go away; they can only hide them or present them in alternative ways. so at some point you still have to address limitations in your physics engine, or your renderer. if you refuse to understand the underlying maths then you are (1) very much at the mercy of the api / designer of the tool and (2) at a big disadvantage in looking for workarounds. the same idea more generally: maths (or logic; the two are closely related) is a very powerful language for dealing with complex systems. if you don't master that language then you are not going to be able to handle the same level of complexity as someone who can. the objection i see to that argument is that great art doesn't necessarily require breaking technical boundaries (it can even be motivated by constraints). so yes, i agree - you can make great art by using tools provided by people who understand the technicalities. i guess my only comeback to that is that the original title is "great developer" not "great artist"...