Physics- why not?

Discuss and unveil current Marathon projects.

Post Mar 24th '11, 10:57

Personally, I'm better at making physics models than maps, or at least my friends and I think so, but when I posted one on Simplici7y, I got shot down with "if you don't wanna die around here...HOST DON'T POST" and stuff like that. I can't host, which may be a problem for me to ask treellama about, but is there any reason why we're not supposed to upload physics?
AttilaGeek

Post Mar 24th '11, 11:19

No. Don't let others block of your creativity. If they don't like your physics models, they shouldn't download them.

Besides, I think many people in the community dislike making physics models or simply aren't good in it, so your talent can probably be very useful for scenarios in progress. Which is an extra reason to continue experimenting.
Eternal - Xmas I - Xmas II - Xmas III - Victory Dance IV - Winter I: The Venom - KTA III - Phoenix - somewhere in the heavens, waiting: The Syndicate
User avatar

Drictelt

Post Mar 24th '11, 11:33

Drictelt wrote:No. Don't let others block of your creativity.


Thanks! I had wondered if there was a file problem or whatnot since nobody else posts them, but that's really encouraging and i'll keep it in mind! [MGrin]
AttilaGeek

Post Mar 24th '11, 12:59

Almost everybody can make bad physics models. They take maybe a few minutes--longer to upload them than to make them. If everyone did what you did, S7 would be full of thousands of useless physics models.

Read at least the first post in this thread: http://www.pfhorums.com/viewtopic.php?t=5787 Consider carefully which of thermoplyae's three user bases you want to be in.

I'm not trying to discourage you from being creative. Drictelt doesn't play net games, so perhaps he doesn't understand how frustrating it is when people host with physics models they alone think are awesome. Perhaps he doesn't understand that posting yours to Simplici7y, even if they aren't intended for multiplayer, validates that behavior.

There's a difference between true creativity and goofing off for 30 seconds in Anvil and posting the result. Being able to do the latter isn't going to help any scenarios. Learn to map, learn to draw, learn to write terminals or scripts. That's what scenarios need.
Last edited by treellama on Mar 24th '11, 15:39, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar

treellama
Pittsburgh

Post Mar 24th '11, 14:17

Treellama wrote:Perhaps he doesn't understand that posting yours to Simplici7y, even if they aren't intended for multiplayer, validates that behavior.

That's right, I hadn't realized that.

Anyway, what about posting your creations here for review, like many people do with their maps?

Learn to map, learn to draw, learn to write terminals or scripts. That's what scenarios need.

I think that's a strange remark. Judging from my experience, physics-modelers are far more rare than mapmakers. I mean, I ended up doing most of the physics work in the Syndicate (for now), and I'm rather bad with anvil.
Eternal - Xmas I - Xmas II - Xmas III - Victory Dance IV - Winter I: The Venom - KTA III - Phoenix - somewhere in the heavens, waiting: The Syndicate
User avatar

Drictelt

Post Mar 24th '11, 14:55

Drictelt wrote:I think that's a strange remark. Judging from my experience, physics-modelers are far more rare than mapmakers. I mean, I ended up doing most of the physics work in the Syndicate (for now), and I'm rather bad with anvil.

Well, there are physics models that just involve tweaking some values here--say, making overpowered weapons or shooting alien projectiles--and then there are the physics and shapes modifications necessary to make new weapons work. The former is what I decry, although the latter is also not very useful by itself on S7.
Last edited by treellama on Mar 24th '11, 14:56, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar

treellama
Pittsburgh

Post Mar 24th '11, 15:15

Treellama wrote:The former is what I decry, although the latter is also not very useful by itself on S7.

In other words, you should start out by making a TC, so the physics are worth something. I can't wait for the title screen.
User avatar

Wrkncacnter

Post Mar 24th '11, 16:23

But here's the thing- I do actually want to get better at it. The one I posted is my fourth physics model, and the fifteenth version of it. I realize that it's probably not as great as I think it is, but I put a lot more than 30 seconds into it. That's why I uploaded it, to see what other people think so I can make it better, not to try to make a joke of it.
AttilaGeek

Post Mar 24th '11, 16:31

AttilaGeek wrote:That's why I uploaded it, to see what other people think so I can make it better, not to try to make a joke of it.

Without a context, it's difficult to judge. It's clearly not meant for net play, because it comes with a shapes file. So, what is it for? If it's to replace the physics of an existing scenario, then it's hard to see how it could be better suited than the physics the scenario already comes with--considering all of the levels and monsters were designed around those physics.

If it's for a new scenario, then, again, how can we give useful feedback without the scenario itself? It all depends on the levels and monsters that end up being designed around the physics model.

Are you starting to see the issue yet?
Last edited by treellama on Mar 24th '11, 16:32, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar

treellama
Pittsburgh

Post Mar 24th '11, 16:52

Treellama wrote:Are you starting to see the issue yet?


Oh, okay. That makes a lot of sense- It was originally inteded to be played in infinity, so I tried to keep the general gist of it the same (hunters are still hunters, etc.) the same. Every so often i'd give the shapes file to the guy I play with, and we'd net play it until I changed the physics enough to require a new shapes, but that wouldn't work throughout the community. Another thing I use it for is solo survival on a netmap with aliens, it works for that too.

Another important thing is that the only change I made in the shapes file was the addition of color tables, so if anyone wants to use it for net play or in a scenario it won't be that different.
AttilaGeek

Post Mar 24th '11, 16:55

Maybe you can team up with somebody who makes survival maps. You two could make a survival pack that includes your embedded physics and shapes patch.

I don't play survival so I'm not fit to comment on how good the physics are.
User avatar

treellama
Pittsburgh

Post Mar 24th '11, 16:57

Alright- do you know who that would be?
AttilaGeek

Post Mar 24th '11, 16:59

It's really too bad the Marathon community is so entrenched on this issue, sure, nobody enjoys playing Tresh's umpteenth automatic rocket model but, as with any moddable game, there's the potential for interesting multiplayer modifications. There's even some minor precedent for it in TK's Powerdrive.
Image
function rate() { x = document.getElementsByClassName('current-rating'); for (var i in x) { x[i].style.cssText = "width: 25px"; x[i].innerHTML = "Currently 1/5 Stars."; } }

if (document.URL != "http://www.simplici7y.com/reviews") window.onload = rate;
Dis

Post Mar 24th '11, 17:10

Dis wrote:It's really too bad the Marathon community is so entrenched on this issue

I'm not sure what other redeeming qualities Aleph One's net play has than its goofy / balanced-weapons Infinity physics. Compared to modern shooters, the controls suck, the net code is laggy, and the graphics are extremely outdated. But it's still so damn fun.

Maybe the entrenchment helps keep net play alive.

I guess you could make the argument that people stick around because they like playing games with their metaserver buddies, or maybe they like playing on Ryokomaps and they can't find those anywhere else. But, if you're honest with yourself, I think you play for the physics. There's a reason shotgun/rocket maps are at the top of the list every month.
Last edited by treellama on Mar 24th '11, 17:11, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar

treellama
Pittsburgh

Post Mar 24th '11, 19:17

If I'm understanding everyone correctly, I think the main issue is not that Attila is creating physics, nor that they are bad (they're said to be, I haven't checked them out), but that S7 is not the right place to put unfully tested, standalone physics experiments. However, as Wrk already hinted at (that's how I read it anyway - it's always a bit dubious when he says something) it would be little better if every newbie started making complete TC's for the sole purpose of making fun physics files. Then again, the only way to learn to make good physics files, is making physics files. So, quoting myself:

what about posting your creations here for review, like many people do with their maps?


or, even better:

what about finding someone who's learning the mapping skill and try to create something coherent together? Then put that on the pfhorums for review and if it's good, you can still put it on S7.
Eternal - Xmas I - Xmas II - Xmas III - Victory Dance IV - Winter I: The Venom - KTA III - Phoenix - somewhere in the heavens, waiting: The Syndicate
User avatar

Drictelt

Post Mar 24th '11, 20:39

You're right in that it's hard to make anything better, I experienced this firsthand when I tried adapting the MPDX physics for multiplayer. Maybe physics just aren't the angle to take: Rugby, Elim and Survival are all big hits that changed the fundamental gameplay. It really seems like anything with altered physics gets diminished attention, everyone plays the PD maps in Paradise Lost, but how often do you see people hosting PD?
Image
function rate() { x = document.getElementsByClassName('current-rating'); for (var i in x) { x[i].style.cssText = "width: 25px"; x[i].innerHTML = "Currently 1/5 Stars."; } }

if (document.URL != "http://www.simplici7y.com/reviews") window.onload = rate;
Dis

Post Mar 24th '11, 20:59

Drictelt is right in that there are very occasionally scenarios that need physics models. But, I can't see needing more than one or two every few years. Is it worth practicing your art to be the physics model guy when a scenario needs one?

Even if you do, how do people tell you and your work apart from Crashinetors?

No, it's better just not to post it online. Test it privately. If you're working on a scenario, you'll have a team to test it with. There are enough (?willing) hosts on mariusnet to host it if you absolutely have to test it that way.

It's not like anybody here or especially on S7 can even give decent advice on how to make a good physics model.
Last edited by treellama on Mar 24th '11, 21:02, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar

treellama
Pittsburgh

Post Mar 24th '11, 23:50

Treellama wrote:No, it's better just not to post it online. Test it privately.


So let me get this straight: just because crashinetors makes awful physics, I (or anyone else who wants to make good physics models) shouldn't post them either?

And besides, you say "practicing your art" like it's a bad thing! I like making physics models, and I want to share them because I think they're good, not to make an inordinate amount of rockets.
AttilaGeek

Post Mar 25th '11, 00:23

Seriously, who cares. No one in this community has an opinion worth listening to, just do whatever you want.
Last edited by Wrkncacnter on Mar 25th '11, 00:25, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar

Wrkncacnter

Post Mar 25th '11, 01:21

AttilaGeek wrote:So let me get this straight: just because crashinetors makes awful physics, I (or anyone else who wants to make good physics models) shouldn't post them either?

There is an implicit assumption in your statement: that there exist good physics models.

And besides, you say "practicing your art" like it's a bad thing! I like making physics models, and I want to share them because I think they're good, not to make an inordinate amount of rockets.

People who make inordinate amounts of rockets physics models think they're good, too.
Last edited by treellama on Mar 25th '11, 01:22, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar

treellama
Pittsburgh

Post Mar 25th '11, 02:31

Treellama wrote:There is an implicit assumption in your statement: that there exist good physics models.

People who make inordinate amounts of rockets physics models think they're good, too.


If you actually downloaded my physics model, you'd see that it's as balanced as I can make it- I know that a good physics model has weapons created equal but different, and what I'm trying to say is it's NOT a bunch of rockets.

And I don't see why you wouldn't assume physics can be done well-there's a difference between hasn't and can't. Again, it might suck, but just because I'm new to the pfhorums doesn't mean I'm going to leave it that way after I get some advice.
AttilaGeek

Post Mar 25th '11, 02:45

Protip: An SMG that shoots PNV grenades is not balanced.
Image
function rate() { x = document.getElementsByClassName('current-rating'); for (var i in x) { x[i].style.cssText = "width: 25px"; x[i].innerHTML = "Currently 1/5 Stars."; } }

if (document.URL != "http://www.simplici7y.com/reviews") window.onload = rate;
Dis

Post Mar 25th '11, 02:46

You asked why you got the reaction you got, and I tried to answer diplomatically, which just made the thread longer.

If you want to make the first good physics model, be my guest. By now, you know what you're up against on S7.
Last edited by treellama on Mar 25th '11, 02:47, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar

treellama
Pittsburgh

Post Mar 25th '11, 02:53

Dis wrote:Protip: An SMG that shoots PNV grenades is not balanced.


Alright, I had that coming, but now I know to make the SMG weaker (or something different altogether). That's the kind of advice I'm looking for, because making "the first good physics model" is what i'm trying to do.

@Dis: Some other changes i'm planning on making in the next version are making the rocket less broken (weaker, smaller) and the flamethrower stronger and maybe the projectile faster. I'm also thinking about changing the AR sound. Any other suggestions?
AttilaGeek

Post Mar 25th '11, 03:03

You said the shotguns shoot flame rounds, do they have the same range as those of the flamethrower? If they do that's a mistake, as it'll basically make it useless.
Also, if you want these to be played in multiplayer you should make a version that functions without custom shapes.
Image
function rate() { x = document.getElementsByClassName('current-rating'); for (var i in x) { x[i].style.cssText = "width: 25px"; x[i].innerHTML = "Currently 1/5 Stars."; } }

if (document.URL != "http://www.simplici7y.com/reviews") window.onload = rate;
Dis

Next

Return to Projects



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users