Minecraft + Physics = Awesome!

The only place you'll ever hear the truth
User avatar
pWEN
level0
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:40 pm

Postby pWEN » Fri Mar 11, 2011 5:18 pm

This is amazing! I haven't been this excited about a tech demo video since you posted that dynamically-generated city video!
Image
Yrael
level1
level1
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 9:55 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Postby Yrael » Sat Mar 12, 2011 8:38 am

Same as pWEN. It's truly awesome !
layla
level0
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 7:07 pm

Postby layla » Fri Mar 18, 2011 7:13 pm

The way I handle this is to get the AABB of a block rigid body and get the cells it intersects in a single time step. I then place block shapes at them cells inside a compound and run the step, I then remove all the shapes from the compound at the end of a step. This seems faster than using a mesh for each chunk but still not as fast as in the video. I can only handle 100 bodies with this method before it goes below 30fps. Is there any special optimizations you do to get the speeds you get?
Azh321
level0
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:09 pm

Postby Azh321 » Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:13 pm

Is there any chance of you releasing the source code of that demo??? I would love to toy with it and see how it works, since I generally only program 2d games.

Please and thank you!
CresCoJeff
level0
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:50 pm

Postby CresCoJeff » Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:54 pm

I'm with Azh321-- a source code release for this would be an amazing learning tool! Please consider it :D

Thanks!
User avatar
pWEN
level0
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:40 pm

Postby pWEN » Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:17 am

I would also like some source or even pseudo code! Would greatly help my understanding of this sort of program!
Image
User avatar
ryansumo
level1
level1
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:46 am
Location: Manila
Contact:

indie game awards

Postby ryansumo » Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:52 am

Regarding the IGF awards I must admit I was one of those that thought that it was kind of odd that minecraft basically swept the awards. I was in the camp of "Notch doesn't really need the fame and money anyway". Your view on this was enlightening however, and I will say that you've swayed me.

Still, it seems like there ought to be a way to recognize newcomers to the indie game scene, sort of like a "Best new artist" award in the grammies or something like that, if only to recognize younger developers/companies that show a lot of potential. The "Nuovo" award does this to certain extent, but the way it's worded makes me feel it's skewed towards more "arty" games.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:24 pm

A few notes:

Basically swept? Minecraft won the audience award and the grand-prize, even some of the other nominees were surprised when they won an award since no-one expected minecraft not to. It did win a lot of the developers choice awards however, which is separate from IGF.

I don't see the need for a "best new artist" at IGF, mostly because near everyone that contends at IGF is a newcomer so the award would nearly always go to the grand winner.
Really, if you want to know what other upcoming developers might be worth keeping an eye on, then just read the rest of the nominee list.
CXZman
level1
level1
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:22 pm
Location: France Nantes 44

Postby CXZman » Mon Apr 25, 2011 3:44 pm

I might sound a bit trolling there but... what's the point of going physics, collisions and explosions and all in minecraft ?

What I mean is minecraft basically works on the solid base of the universal 1 cube base scaling unit. Everything (even glass panes, which should be rather thin since they're panes) is scaled on that. And everytime you try to build something, you construct or deconstruct within that heavy constrain. And that's the very reason why it's so easy and powerful and possible for minecraft to exist as the best sandbox world ever.

Now you kick a block and it falls... randomly. Of course it falls randomly, that's what you intend it to do, but that's a big problem. Not a single block in a minecraft world works "randomly". They're all aligned and put in place according to the 1 cube scale. The only things that "fall" are :

- liquids
- pickup objects
- caracters

Liquids : they're some of the rare objects that don't exactly match the 1 cube scaling unit. But if you carefully watch them pouring, you'll notice that they're in fact pretty regular, nothing like random, and they sometime follow strange paths when falling around complex rocks patterns. This is nothing like Chris' falling blocks simulation. Liquids always falls into place and within the scaling. They're sometimes less tall than a block, but always as large.

Pickup objects : they have all kind of shapes, size, and they share that common property to be pickable (indeed :) ). Since then just don't have anything to do with blocking objects, or even construction matter, then can behave anyway they want, fall, bounce, burn, twist, whatever... They're not concerned by the scaling constrain.

Caracters : they ought to move and fall. Like pickup objects, they're not constrained by the scaling. The only reason they're cubic is aesthetic.


None of those objects have to fall exactly aligned with any of the world blocks, but blocks you throw around should be (because you intend then to exist as a world part when they've stopped falling). So their trajectory should be predictable, not random. But if it is predictable, it won't feel right !

So again, what's the point ? Anyway, any creeper blowing up will do that : big hole and flying blocks... but those would be pickable objects...
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Mon Apr 25, 2011 3:50 pm

CXZman wrote:I might sound a bit trolling there but... what's the point of going physics, collisions and explosions and all in minecraft ?

The "point" is that this isn't actually meant to be "Minecraft + Physics" but a prototype voxel engine with physics. It's an experiment, not necessarily meant to go anywhere, and its only connection to Minecraft is that it was inspired by it.

Or, quoting the original post:

This is just a prototype, just a tuesday afternoon hobby project, but wouldn't it be awesome to play an FPS or a wargame with this kind of totally destructible environment?
CXZman
level1
level1
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:22 pm
Location: France Nantes 44

Postby CXZman » Mon Apr 25, 2011 4:50 pm

Ok ok :) just by seeing the color/texture used on the building I could guess that.

I also read that sentence. I carefully read it. And it says :

but wouldn't it be awesome to play an FPS or a wargame with this kind of totally destructible environment?


And my point is : "What ?! Do you imagine what would it involve ?"

Red Faction tried that, but hit technical limitations (not only, destructible environment poses a level design problem, anyway...). Minecraft use a voxel logic to handle a part of that, but that kind of model leads people to build things, not try to survive by building things, or just survive (even in the survival mode). Maybe it's the game difficulty, maybe it's just that there's a gamedesign problem, on-top of the technical issue.



Chris' engine works (there's a video of it running, no doubt about it). That's not what I discuss :) I discuss the sentence above. And since we have this great example (minecraft) I use it to argue. Chris base that wish to see destructible environments on his own test. Right ?
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:05 pm

The concept of destructible terrain is not new, and while that quote isn't more than wishful thinking at this point it's entirely possible to become viable in the future. The "level design problem" is entirely dependent of the kind of game you want to make.

Beyond that I have no idea what your point is, especially since the only relevance of Minecraft to this discussion is the use of voxels.

Also, this:
but that kind of model leads people to build things
isn't true. Minecraft is designed specifically for building, most other games wouldn't even allow you to do that. As an example, Worms 3D terrain is pretty much voxel based for no other reason than you being able to destroy it.
CXZman
level1
level1
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:22 pm
Location: France Nantes 44

Postby CXZman » Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:10 pm

Beyond that I have no idea what your point is, especially since the only relevance of Minecraft to this discussion is the use of voxels.


Of course not. If you missed it, this topic is named "Minecraft + Physics = Awesome!". I'm not the one involving Chris' test engine with minecraft, and associating physics awesomness with minecraft.
Chris did it. That's what I discuss.


But your point about Worms and the building need in minecraft is true, I admit.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:24 pm

CXZman wrote:Of course not. If you missed it, this topic is named "Minecraft + Physics = Awesome!". I'm not the one involving Chris' test engine with minecraft, and associating physics awesomness with minecraft.
Chris did it. That's what I discuss.

And then he explained what he meant. He never said anything about actually adding physics to Minecraft, he showed how a voxel based game (like minecraft) could become (conceptually) awesome with the addition of physics. The Minecraft + Physics isn't meant to be taken more literally than describing the movie Speed like Die Hard on a bus.
CXZman
level1
level1
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:22 pm
Location: France Nantes 44

Postby CXZman » Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:21 pm

Well that's exactly where I'm standing right now, I assume that a game (like minecraft) might receive the addition of physics (collisions, explosions, shattering, falling around, etc) and I question it's awesomness (even its conceptual awesomness, whatever it means).

A game "like minecraft" could mean different things. If it's about its world engine, I find it pointless because of logical issues (about which I still want to discuss). If it's about the purpose of the game, I stop right there since I believe there's no other way around to make that kind of sandbox game without the strong constrains minecraft's engine implies. And if we're conceptually talking about a game like minecraft-but-not-really-like-minecraft that include destructions and falling around things and state that it would be awesome... then I ask for a bit more details :)

You know I really seek good news about that. I didn't came by just to talk shit about Chris' work :) I'm interested with solutions to that, with examples of engines/games that have solved that kind of issues, or any way to not only conceptually but really knock out that issue.

Yes Minecraft + Physics would equal Awesome! if it was remotely, conceptually, whateverly possible. That's my point.


But anyway, one of the answers I could have got would come from Atomontage since the guy explain he worked on a scattering + physics engine to simulate "sands" flowing when pushed around.

Return to “Introversion Blog”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests