Jaguar vs. 3DO?

[A Sprite]

Draw distance can't be defined. If you want an idea of what's possible, take a polygon count per frame with textures, effects, and Ai enabled, then decide where you want those polygons to be, and how you intend to cover up the parts of the level you don't show.

 

For example, fog can increase draw distance; it simplifies some of the models. There are other tricks - software z-buffers tell the program to ignore whatever polygons aren't displayed.

[Gorf]

i couldn't mention a game because i wouldn't even know how to compare them and prove it. i'm not knowledgeable. i admit that. even if a game on the ps1 had more "AI" or "game logic" than the jag, i wouldn't have a clue on how to claim that.

 

Obviously. Yet you still sit here arguing with someone who does.

 

 

you say how better the jag in your own terms is better than the 3DO, PS1, and how "battlesSphere has out classed every systems games until Xbox Halo in terms of AI and game logic."

 

 

How am I supposed to prove that to you? Why would I waste my time? You dont belive me

now. You wont even believe Thguy who coded BS and has coded for PS1 and all systems

afterward.

 

You look at game graphics, determine that the Graphics = Game logic.

AI and GAME logic haev ZERO to do with a games apperance...ZERO!

 

 

you keep going up on generations of how the jag can out class each system one way

or another....what's next? ps2 or ps3? xbox360? :-)

 

Lying to bolster your argument never works...never ever. I never once said

what you claim above. I said the PS1...show me in any post otherwise.

[phuzaxeman]

Gorf says, "BattlesSphere has out classed every systems games until Xbox Halo in terms

of AI and game logic."

 

phuzaxeman asks, "prove to me (and everyone else reading) then how battlesphere AI/game logic is better than goldeneye and rogue squadron N64, madden05 playstation, powerstone 2/shenmue/skies of arcadia (dreamcast) since all of them are games from systems released before the Xbox Halo."

 

 

Gorf responds, "how am I supposed to prove that to you? Why would I waste my time? You dont belive me

now. You wont even believe Thguy who coded BS and has coded for PS1 and all systems

afterward."

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

you've backed up every thing you've said in every topic in this jaguar forum from what i've read so please explain to all of us (even us computer challenged people) how battlesphere AI/game logic has outclassed all games like goldeneye and rogue squadron N64, madden05 playstation, powerstone 2/shenmue/skies of arcadia (dreamcast) since all of them are games from systems released before the Xbox Halo.

 

i've learned a lot from your posts and want to understand your claim (especially system games on the n64 and dreamcast).

[Gorf]

Draw distance can't be defined. If you want an idea of what's possible, take a polygon count per frame with textures, effects, and Ai enabled, then decide where you want those polygons to be, and how you intend to cover up the parts of the level you don't show.

 

For example, fog can increase draw distance; it simplifies some of the models. There are other tricks - software z-buffers tell the program to ignore whatever polygons aren't displayed.

 

 

Draw distance is a reall silly way to determine sysetm power. I means a lot less than you think

and it is really more an engine issue.

[Gorf]

you've backed up every thing you've said in every topic in this jaguar forum from what i've read so please explain to all of us (even us computer challenged people) how battlesphere AI/game logic has outclassed all games like goldeneye and rogue squadron N64, madden05 playstation, powerstone 2/shenmue/skies of arcadia (dreamcast) since all of them are games from systems released before the Xbox Halo.

 

i've learned a lot from your posts and want to understand your claim (especially system games on the n64 and dreamcast).

 

 

I just told you that Scott Legrand, the coder of the BS said so. If that is not proff enough and

playing the games is not enough then Im out of options.

 

Look, I can understand that when you LOOK at a game and see all the pretty stuff going on

and more polies and all you might think it is smarter...its not. Graphics and game content

do not lend themselves well to measuring AI and game logic. They might help but not much.

 

How do you want me to prove it to you if you can't see for yourself. You have all these games

go and play them. The only way I could prove it tangebly out side of this is to show you the

code. I doubt very much anyone is going to cough up their IP info to me just so I can prove it

to you .

 

The only other way is to write test benchmark software and run and tests. How can I do any of

that? I can not legally show you source form something that is

 

A ) not mine

B ) I dont have

C ) would not really 'prove ' it anyway if you don't understand code.

 

Artificial intellegence is shown through game play. None of the games you mention even come close

to the computations going on in BattleSphere. It's not something I can easily prove like you are asking.

 

I can tell you the Pilots alone are doing more than any character in any of those games.

If you really took the time to play these games along side BS, I bet you will eventualy

see just how incredibly intellegent BS is compared to any of them. Asking me to prove AI

levels is like asking me to prove God's exsistance. There is no post sized answer.. You think

some of my posts are long winded now...sheesh!

 

I trying to think of a way to prove it to you other than obsevance as that is the only wy I can

think of out side of showing the code to both. It's like asking me to show you my intellegence

against someone elses...not something a post of a single event could fairly do.

 

FootBall is a set of predetermined rules....IT's look up tables with decision making.

Fighters are a little closer as some of them do 'learn' as you play but not on the fly

as Battle Sphere does.

 

I wish there were something tangible come up with something to show you.

 

Give me time. Im not saying these things to condesend or put down but to educate.

 

What game is higher in AI......

 

 

A ) Pac Man or Lady Bug

 

Hard to say...probably close.

 

B ) Phoenix or Gyruss

 

Phoenix...Gyruss with all those patters, are just that patterninzed movement.

Phoenix is completely random and based of the movement of the player.

 

C ) CyberMorph or BattleMorph

 

BattleMorph...you can see it in the way the enemies attack you .

 

Ai is the smartness of the enemies. I have yet to see enemies as smart as those

in BS on any system before the DC or Xbox. The DC can easily out class

but what games show it.

[Willard]

I just told you that Scott Legrand, the coder of the BS said so. If that is not proff enough and

playing the games is not enough then Im out of options.

 

I don't believe it (unless he spends all of his free time analyzing source code), but it's not too difficult to consider. Battlesphere is an incredibly simple game (it's basically space war 3D), I imagine they spent their time doing something instead of a mission mode.

Edited July 22, 2007 by Willard

[phuzaxeman]

you've backed up every thing you've said in every topic in this jaguar forum from what i've read so please explain to all of us (even us computer challenged people) how battlesphere AI/game logic has outclassed all games like goldeneye and rogue squadron N64, madden05 playstation, powerstone 2/shenmue/skies of arcadia (dreamcast) since all of them are games from systems released before the Xbox Halo.

 

i've learned a lot from your posts and want to understand your claim (especially system games on the n64 and dreamcast).

 

 

I just told you that Scott Legrand, the coder of the BS said so. If that is not proff enough and

playing the games is not enough then Im out of options.

 

Look, I can understand that when you LOOK at a game and see all the pretty stuff going on

and more polies and all you might think it is smarter...its not. Graphics and game content

do not lend themselves well to measuring AI and game logic. They might help but not much.

 

How do you want me to prove it to you if you can't see for yourself. You have all these games

go and play them. The only way I could prove it tangebly out side of this is to show you the

code. I doubt very much anyone is going to cough up their IP info to me just so I can prove it

to you .

 

The only other way is to write test benchmark software and run and tests. How can I do any of

that? I can not legally show you source form something that is

 

A ) not mine

B ) I dont have

C ) would not really 'prove ' it anyway if you don't understand code.

 

Artificial intellegence is shown through game play. None of the games you mention even come close

to the computations going on in BattleSphere. It's not something I can easily prove like you are asking.

 

I can tell you the Pilots alone are doing more than any character in any of those games.

If you really took the time to play these games along side BS, I bet you will eventualy

see just how incredibly intellegent BS is compared to any of them. Asking me to prove AI

levels is like asking me to prove God's exsistance. There is no post sized answer.. You think

some of my posts are long winded now...sheesh!

 

I trying to think of a way to prove it to you other than obsevance as that is the only wy I can

think of out side of showing the code to both. It's like asking me to show you my intellegence

against someone elses...not something a post of a single event could fairly do.

 

FootBall is a set of predetermined rules....IT's look up tables with decision making.

Fighters are a little closer as some of them do 'learn' as you play but not on the fly

as Battle Sphere does.

 

I wish there were something tangible come up with something to show you.

 

Give me time. Im not saying these things to condesend or put down but to educate.

 

What game is higher in AI......

 

 

A ) Pac Man or Lady Bug

 

Hard to say...probably close.

 

B ) Phoenix or Gyruss

 

Phoenix...Gyruss with all those patters, are just that patterninzed movement.

Phoenix is completely random and based of the movement of the player.

 

C ) CyberMorph or BattleMorph

 

BattleMorph...you can see it in the way the enemies attack you .

 

Ai is the smartness of the enemies. I have yet to see enemies as smart as those

in BS on any system before the DC or Xbox. The DC can easily out class

but what games show it.

 

it still doesn't concretely answer the question (respectively you said you'd explain later). one of the great things about the sega DC sport games was that the AI was smarter (than previos consoles) so you couldn't do the same moves. also, you could add to the list all the PS2 games released in 2001 that were released before halo on the xbox (red faction {geo mod technology}, final fantasy X {japan version release}, silent hill 2, etc).

 

i still don't see how a n64 (goldeneye) , dreamcast (unreal tournament for example), and a ps2 (early 2001 titles prior to halo) would be outclassed by battlesphere's AI/game logic. saying scott said so isn't really concrete info.

[A Sprite]

skies of arcadia

 

Random percentage based, with a few attacks set to specific turns. AI wise, not much is happening - the real show is the work of the art and writing teams, both of whom knock themselves out to add a little color to a familiar story.

 

rogue squadron

 

Shooting ties is like microwaving popcorn - just like the programmers intended.

Madden

 

Invented the phrase "money play."

 

Gran Turismo

 

CPU cars are unaware of the player.

 

GoldenEye

 

'A lot of people talk about the AI in GoldenEye. In my view, the AI is not all that intelligent. There’s a guard. He’d see you. Either he’d attack you, or maybe run to activate an alarm. Some had patrol routes, some didn’t, just stood still. It was revolutionary for the time, but still not very clever.'

 

-Martin Hollis

Edited July 22, 2007 by A Sprite

[EmOneGarand]

How come nobody has mentioned the original Medal of Honor for the PSX? The AI in that game was really good for it's time, the enemies reacted to you in different ways depending on the situation, throw a grenade and the enemie reacts in a number of ways, runs for cover, picks it up and throws it back or jumps on to save his comrades. That isn't just some unintelligent pattern.

[Gregory DG]

Actually, I'd like to see someone prove that Battlesphere doesn't have the best AI since Halo.

[Gorf]

I just told you that Scott Legrand, the coder of the BS said so. If that is not proff enough and

playing the games is not enough then Im out of options.

 

I don't believe it (unless he spends all of his free time analyzing source code), but it's not too difficult to consider. Battlesphere is an incredibly simple game (it's basically space war 3D), I imagine they spent their time doing something instead of a mission mode.

 

"it's basically space war 3D"

 

I'd like to see what happens to you if you said that to Doug or Scott.

 

uh...er..um..sorry...

 

This is easily the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Space War 3D is NOTHING like BS other

than the space part.

 

You really ought to open your eyes when you play that TRIO version you got

Willard. That is a hell of a price to pay for a 'simple' space war 3d.

 

Edited July 22, 2007 by Gorf

[Gorf]

Actually, I'd like to see someone prove that Battlesphere doesn't have the best AI since Halo.

 

 

I hope you have a lot of time my friend....space war 3D he says...indeed!

[Gorf]

How come nobody has mentioned the original Medal of Honor for the PSX? The AI in that game was really good for it's time, the enemies reacted to you in different ways depending on the situation, throw a grenade and the enemie reacts in a number of ways, runs for cover, picks it up and throws it back or jumps on to save his comrades. That isn't just some unintelligent pattern.

 

 

No it is not at all unintellegent nor are most of the PSX games. They are just not AS intellegent

as thr AI in BS....because.....

 

...let me see if this works this time.....

 

One processor can not out do the AI and game logic of 3 processors running in parallel

at roughly the same speed. It 's not even close to physically possible.

 

 

The AI you mention for MOH is no slouch but it's no Battle Sphere either.

[Gorf]

skies of arcadia

 

Random percentage based, with a few attacks set to specific turns. AI wise, not much is happening - the real show is the work of the art and writing teams, both of whom knock themselves out to add a little color to a familiar story.

 

rogue squadron

 

Shooting ties is like microwaving popcorn - just like the programmers intended.

Madden

 

Invented the phrase "money play."

 

Gran Turismo

 

CPU cars are unaware of the player.

 

GoldenEye

 

'A lot of people talk about the AI in GoldenEye. In my view, the AI is not all that intelligent. There’s a guard. He’d see you. Either he’d attack you, or maybe run to activate an alarm. Some had patrol routes, some didn’t, just stood still. It was revolutionary for the time, but still not very clever.'

 

-Martin Hollis

 

 

Bless you my son bless you...you put it into words better than I can and you are dead on.

Don't let the look(or simplicity) or a game fool you into thinking there is not serious AI going on.

 

You guys have to understand, the PS1 has weakneses just like the Jaguar does...this is one of them.

 

The Saturn can out do it becasue it is physically able...Good luck trying though.

 

Look at it from a physics standpoint

 

Space Flight battle that reacts and re-learns EVERY time you improve.

 

vs Kenetics(movement of humanoid figures in 3d, fighters sports, fps)

 

These guys react pretty much the asme way eevry time as that is how

it would happen in real life. There is not any heavy thinking going on

here but instead a lot of data look up and some decision making

on the fly. Hardly AI and game logic intensive. This is something all

computers do in their sleep.

 

Racers...unless the car is KITT you said it better than I could.

 

All the genre's mentioned are not on the same level of space flight battles.

The physical in outer space alone, for get the battle is more than enough

to out do the physics of an entire subject. Ask NASA if you dont belive me.

 

http://www.nasa.gov/ Go do some research on space flight ad its physics.

 

Then come back here and tell me foot ball or racers or fighters aer anything close.

[Gorf]

you've backed up every thing you've said in every topic in this jaguar forum from what i've read so please explain to all of us (even us computer challenged people) how battlesphere AI/game logic has outclassed all games like goldeneye and rogue squadron N64, madden05 playstation, powerstone 2/shenmue/skies of arcadia (dreamcast) since all of them are games from systems released before the Xbox Halo.

 

i've learned a lot from your posts and want to understand your claim (especially system games on the n64 and dreamcast).

 

 

I just told you that Scott Legrand, the coder of the BS said so. If that is not proff enough and

playing the games is not enough then Im out of options.

 

Look, I can understand that when you LOOK at a game and see all the pretty stuff going on

and more polies and all you might think it is smarter...its not. Graphics and game content

do not lend themselves well to measuring AI and game logic. They might help but not much.

 

How do you want me to prove it to you if you can't see for yourself. You have all these games

go and play them. The only way I could prove it tangebly out side of this is to show you the

code. I doubt very much anyone is going to cough up their IP info to me just so I can prove it

to you .

 

The only other way is to write test benchmark software and run and tests. How can I do any of

that? I can not legally show you source form something that is

 

A ) not mine

B ) I dont have

C ) would not really 'prove ' it anyway if you don't understand code.

 

Artificial intellegence is shown through game play. None of the games you mention even come close

to the computations going on in BattleSphere. It's not something I can easily prove like you are asking.

 

I can tell you the Pilots alone are doing more than any character in any of those games.

If you really took the time to play these games along side BS, I bet you will eventualy

see just how incredibly intellegent BS is compared to any of them. Asking me to prove AI

levels is like asking me to prove God's exsistance. There is no post sized answer.. You think

some of my posts are long winded now...sheesh!

 

I trying to think of a way to prove it to you other than obsevance as that is the only wy I can

think of out side of showing the code to both. It's like asking me to show you my intellegence

against someone elses...not something a post of a single event could fairly do.

 

FootBall is a set of predetermined rules....IT's look up tables with decision making.

Fighters are a little closer as some of them do 'learn' as you play but not on the fly

as Battle Sphere does.

 

I wish there were something tangible come up with something to show you.

 

Give me time. Im not saying these things to condesend or put down but to educate.

 

What game is higher in AI......

 

 

A ) Pac Man or Lady Bug

 

Hard to say...probably close.

 

B ) Phoenix or Gyruss

 

Phoenix...Gyruss with all those patters, are just that patterninzed movement.

Phoenix is completely random and based of the movement of the player.

 

C ) CyberMorph or BattleMorph

 

BattleMorph...you can see it in the way the enemies attack you .

 

Ai is the smartness of the enemies. I have yet to see enemies as smart as those

in BS on any system before the DC or Xbox. The DC can easily out class

but what games show it.

 

it still doesn't concretely answer the question (respectively you said you'd explain later). one of the great things about the sega DC sport games was that the AI was smarter (than previos consoles) so you couldn't do the same moves. also, you could add to the list all the PS2 games released in 2001 that were released before halo on the xbox (red faction {geo mod technology}, final fantasy X {japan version release}, silent hill 2, etc).

 

i still don't see how a n64 (goldeneye) , dreamcast (unreal tournament for example), and a ps2 (early 2001 titles prior to halo) would be outclassed by battlesphere's AI/game logic. saying scott said so isn't really concrete info.

 

 

Just go look up the physics of each and you will see you are wrong.

 

Humanoid movement is not AI....it is a set of directions to move the

fighter or footbal player a certain animation....The desicions making

before the nonthinking part is miniscule.

 

Football......vs....Outer space Physics

 

Karate/boxing vs Outer space Physics

 

Care racing vs Outer space Physics

 

Outer space Physics blow them all away in complexity. It's only a google search away.

Im not going to do your homework for you.

[phuzaxeman]

i think (correct me if i'm wrong) that when you get to some of the newer generation systems then, it's the programmers/designers rather than the hardware that limits AI.

 

i get what you're saying about battlesphere and it's AI and difficulty/smartness. you also have explained to me how AI plays into gameplay in a game, as opposed to graphics/sound....

 

to me, though, a game like half life (import) on my dreamcast is pretty amazing. when you attack an enemy, it would run or take cover and not walk at you....it would actually react to your playing and do things to adapt to your strategy like halo. halo and half life are actually similar in some ways....

 

conflict zone also uses a great scheme in which each commander has his own personality and skill level...some commanders are respected by their troops and some are shunned by them. there's a lot of AI smartness in the game and also was ahead of its time when it was released because of its AI capabilties.

 

also, there's a strange but unique AI simulation called seaman on the dreamcast which uses AI and voice recognition technology...you talk to this virtual fish and it ask you questions back. there's a part when the fish looks randomly at your memory card and says, "i see you like to play sport games" or "shoot em up games." you have to nurture and make the fish comfortable so it gets to know you. the creature needs to be nurtured even when your dreamcast is off....so you need to check back every so often......really ground breaking for a 99 release. you need to use a mic attachment to interact too...i think the sim is creepy but interesting.

 

the AI use in the grand theft auto world is also amazing.... for example, if you try stealing a taxi, the guy in the car talks to you and you may take the job or not. the AI in GTA can give you a lot of tension with AI in the characters in the game interacting and adpating to what you're doing in the game.

 

i won't deny the AI in battlespere (free for all is still my fav) but these games i mentioned seem to me more advanced and could never be done on a jaguar in terms of strictly AI.

[Gorf]

i think (correct me if i'm wrong) that when you get to some of the newer generation systems then, it's the programmers/designers rather than the hardware that limits AI.

 

Again a one processor system must be running at least faster than a parallel processing system.

The saturn Might be able to handle it if the rest of the sysetm was not so difficult to code for.

IT has 2 SH2's ans one SH1 that they use for the CDrom...but I am not sure if that chip

can be used outside of that task...it may be hardwired to that function only.

 

 

i get what you're saying about battlesphere and it's AI and difficulty/smartness. you also have explained to me how AI plays into gameplay in a game, as opposed to graphics/sound....

 

Yes you just acnt look at a game and expect to 'see' the AI.. you have to 'see the smartness'

of animated charaters. And don't let kenetics fool you either. They are als data based and the only thinking required is how is if the charachter kicks...the cpu calls a kenetics sub that make the palyer kick...no biggie

on the brain.

 

to me, though, a game like half life (import) on my dreamcast is pretty amazing. when you attack an enemy, it would run or take cover and not walk at you....it would actually react to your playing and do things to adapt to your strategy like halo. halo and half life are actually similar in some ways....

 

Yes but Halo is definitely a smater AI all around. HAlf life is not a slouch by any means but

even that which you point out in it is not at all complicated. I could code that in little time

at least that particular part you talk about. I'd shake in fear if some one told me to meet

or excede the AI in BS. Trust me...I do not envy what Scott wnet through having to do it

all by hand in assembly, (another reason why it took so long beside the fact they had lives

and livings to make as no one was paying them anything...and of all everything they did

make on BS went to charity and they got nothing but kicks in the teeth from some really

ignorant people around the Atari community.)

 

 

 

conflict zone also uses a great scheme in which each commander has his own personality and skill level...some commanders are respected by their troops and some are shunned by them. there's a lot of AI smartness in the game and also was ahead of its time when it was released because of its AI capabilties.

 

Yes but its stil not anywher near the level of Space travel/no gravity/battle ships that track and adjust to your every move. I'd much rather code that then BS.

 

also, there's a strange but unique AI simulation called seaman on the dreamcast which uses AI and voice recognition technology...you talk to this virtual fish and it ask you questions back. there's a part when the fish looks randomly at your memory card and says, "i see you like to play sport games" or "shoot em up games." you have to nurture and make the fish comfortable so it gets to know you. the creature needs to be nurtured even when your dreamcast is off....so you need to check back every so often......really ground breaking for a 99 release. you need to use a mic attachment to interact too...i think the sim is creepy but interesting.

 

No, it is interesting but still primitive. Again we are talking physics of vehicles in outerspace.

Just ask any one at NASA how 'easy' space travel is. I hope you have a few years of time for

the answer. Now granted, Scott did not add everything space physics but niether has anyone

else in what ever other physics you want to talk about. It would take tera bytes!!!

 

 

the AI use in the grand theft auto world is also amazing.... for example, if you try stealing a taxi, the guy in the car talks to you and you may take the job or not. the AI in GTA can give you a lot of tension with AI in the characters in the game interacting and adpating to what you're doing in the game.

 

i won't deny the AI in battlespere (free for all is still my fav) but these games i mentioned seem to me more advanced and could never be done on a jaguar in terms of strictly AI.

 

 

They are more advance in a lot of ways but not the AI...they may come close but I dout it.

I have played a good deal of the DC games having renetd jsut about all of them and they are

all very impressive but they dont even need the kind of level of AI that BS is pulling off.

 

 

Again...I'd glady code those other games and run in fear of BS's AI if asked to do it on todays

platforms(well it would be a lot easier in C/C++ and no longer all hand assembly.)

 

Just so you understand the complexity of that code....its not even big...its just ingeniously complex

and very thorough. Other games just dont require it on that level. A fighter opponent that smart

would so totally hand you your toosh and you'd not easily beat him. BattleSpere is on the fly

adjustment where those other games aer predifined with some decisions making going on.

 

 

Im kinda loving Alone against the empire my self.

Edited July 22, 2007 by Gorf

[Atari_Owl]

Outer space Physics blow them all away in complexity. It's only a google search away.

Im not going to do your homework for you.

 

Actually I don't think i'd entirelu agree here.. the very fact that there are very few constraints on the movement of spaceships CAN (butrt not neccessarily will) make control of objects easier than in a problematic land based or indoor environment, in which there are complex paths and obstacles to take into account.

 

These kind of environments provide not only considerably greater concerns for rendering and collision detection but can also require complex AI to not only affect the player but also handle a much more complex environment than empty space.

 

(Edit:And i'm not meaning this as a judgement call on any specific game's AI.)

Obviously the cases vary very greatly from game to game.. so whilst a land based 3d engine is significantly more complicated.. i'd say that the AI can't be conclusively stated to be universally harder in one type of game.

Edited July 22, 2007 by Atari_Owl

[phuzaxeman]

"...They (dreamcast/ps2 games) are more advance in a lot of ways but not the AI...they may come close but I dout it.

I have played a good deal of the DC games having renetd jsut about all of them and they are

all very impressive but they dont even need the kind of level of AI that BS is pulling off..."

 

i don't know...i'm still not sold about AI in battlespere taking the AI in grand theft auto, half life, and conflict zone to name a few. saying they (dreamcast and early ps2 games) "come close" and that you "doubt" it still doesn't provide ample ground....those games i mentioned seemed just way more complexed in terms of AI on a dreamcast and ps2 (early titles). but hey, that's my (noncomputer literate) opinion....

Edited July 23, 2007 by phuzaxeman

[phuzaxeman]

Outer space Physics blow them all away in complexity. It's only a google search away.

Im not going to do your homework for you.

 

Actually I don't think i'd entirelu agree here.. the very fact that there are very few constraints on the movement of spaceships CAN (butrt not neccessarily will) make control of objects easier than in a problematic land based or indoor environment, in which there are complex paths and obstacles to take into account.

 

These kind of environments provide not only considerably greater concerns for rendering and collision detection but can also require complex AI to not only affect the player but also handle a much more complex environment than empty space.

 

(Edit:And i'm not meaning this as a judgement call on any specific game's AI.)

Obviously the cases vary very greatly from game to game.. so whilst a land based 3d engine is significantly more complicated.. i'd say that the AI can't be conclusively stated to be universally harder in one type of game.

 

that's actually a great point that makes a lot of sense. there are actually more variables when you start adding a more complex environment than just outer space....

[A Sprite]

Outer space Physics blow them all away in complexity. It's only a google search away.

Im not going to do your homework for you.

 

Actually I don't think i'd entirelu agree here.. the very fact that there are very few constraints on the movement of spaceships CAN (butrt not neccessarily will) make control of objects easier than in a problematic land based or indoor environment, in which there are complex paths and obstacles to take into account.

 

These kind of environments provide not only considerably greater concerns for rendering and collision detection but can also require complex AI to not only affect the player but also handle a much more complex environment than empty space.

 

(Edit:And i'm not meaning this as a judgement call on any specific game's AI.)

Obviously the cases vary very greatly from game to game.. so whilst a land based 3d engine is significantly more complicated.. i'd say that the AI can't be conclusively stated to be universally harder in one type of game.

 

that's actually a great point that makes a lot of sense. there are actually more variables when you start adding a more complex environment than just outer space....

 

You do if the cars are reacting to and planning for the surface of the track, rather than following a predetermined set of behaviors.

 

Also, space allows more possible movement options - think about Chess, programming a computer to play it like an expert. Now imagine every piece has a full sphere of motion...

[A Sprite]

Easy IQ test for racing games.

 

Turn around, drive into the pack.

 

See who loves life.

Edited July 23, 2007 by A Sprite

[Gorf]

Outer space Physics blow them all away in complexity. It's only a google search away.

Im not going to do your homework for you.

 

Actually I don't think i'd entirelu agree here.. the very fact that there are very few constraints on the movement of spaceships CAN (butrt not neccessarily will) make control of objects easier than in a problematic land based or indoor environment, in which there are complex paths and obstacles to take into account.

 

These kind of environments provide not only considerably greater concerns for rendering and collision detection but can also require complex AI to not only affect the player but also handle a much more complex environment than empty space.

 

(Edit:And i'm not meaning this as a judgement call on any specific game's AI.)

Obviously the cases vary very greatly from game to game.. so whilst a land based 3d engine is significantly more complicated.. i'd say that the AI can't be conclusively stated to be universally harder in one type of game.

 

that's actually a great point that makes a lot of sense. there are actually more variables when you start adding a more complex environment than just outer space....

 

 

No becaue land is land and it is what it is.. You can easily set up mapping tables for all that information...it's not so simple........emptiness is not nothingness...We are talking not just

outer space but outer space vehicles and those physics and then just those pilots alone are

friggin incredible. I'll take a landscape anyday over space flight as far as coding is concerned.

Edited July 23, 2007 by Gorf

[phuzaxeman]

Outer space Physics blow them all away in complexity. It's only a google search away.

Im not going to do your homework for you.

 

Actually I don't think i'd entirelu agree here.. the very fact that there are very few constraints on the movement of spaceships CAN (butrt not neccessarily will) make control of objects easier than in a problematic land based or indoor environment, in which there are complex paths and obstacles to take into account.

 

These kind of environments provide not only considerably greater concerns for rendering and collision detection but can also require complex AI to not only affect the player but also handle a much more complex environment than empty space.

 

(Edit:And i'm not meaning this as a judgement call on any specific game's AI.)

Obviously the cases vary very greatly from game to game.. so whilst a land based 3d engine is significantly more complicated.. i'd say that the AI can't be conclusively stated to be universally harder in one type of game.

 

that's actually a great point that makes a lot of sense. there are actually more variables when you start adding a more complex environment than just outer space....

 

 

No becaue land is land and it is what it is.. You can easily set up mapping tables for all that information...it's not so simple........emptiness is not nothingness...We are talking not just

outer space but outer space vehicles and those physics and then just those pilots alone are

friggin incredible. I'll take a landscape anyday over space flight as far as coding is concerned.

 

wouldn't outer space vehicles, those physics, pilots, above a landscape that includes both air and land battles would seem more complex that just an outer space battle alone?

[Gorf]

Outer space Physics blow them all away in complexity. It's only a google search away.

Im not going to do your homework for you.

 

Actually I don't think i'd entirelu agree here.. the very fact that there are very few constraints on the movement of spaceships CAN (butrt not neccessarily will) make control of objects easier than in a problematic land based or indoor environment, in which there are complex paths and obstacles to take into account.

 

These kind of environments provide not only considerably greater concerns for rendering and collision detection but can also require complex AI to not only affect the player but also handle a much more complex environment than empty space.

 

(Edit:And i'm not meaning this as a judgement call on any specific game's AI.)

Obviously the cases vary very greatly from game to game.. so whilst a land based 3d engine is significantly more complicated.. i'd say that the AI can't be conclusively stated to be universally harder in one type of game.

 

that's actually a great point that makes a lot of sense. there are actually more variables when you start adding a more complex environment than just outer space....

 

 

No becaue land is land and it is what it is.. You can easily set up mapping tables for all that information...it's not so simple........emptiness is not nothingness...We are talking not just

outer space but outer space vehicles and those physics and then just those pilots alone are

friggin incredible. I'll take a landscape anyday over space flight as far as coding is concerned.

 

wouldn't outer space vehicles, those physics, pilots, above a landscape that includes both air and land battles would seem more complex that just an outer space battle alone?

 

 

 

You can use maps to track all that easily. We aer also talking to very different types

of interaction. Landscapes actually give the coder an advantage in this respect.