That is an excessively sensationalist headline. Portal, physics and graphics-wise, does way more than that graphing calculator.
To imply that they are equivalent is shameful and ignorant.
Portal’s physics engine rebuilt in 25KB—on a graphing calculator
11–20 of 51 posts
Re: Portal’s physics engine rebuilt in 25KB—on a graphing calculator
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would not be so sure. It really all depends on how much physics you want your "physics engine" to have. Rag-dolls? Not likely. Quake 1? Sure, you could do physics to that extent on an 89. The 89's are more powerful than you may suspect, unlike the 84 (seen in the article), they have Motorola 68k's. Here is an idea of what you can do with a 84's Zilog z80 (warning: long animated gif): http://benryves.com/images/nost…
>> http://benryves.com/images/nostromo/bsp/2010.11.28/Walkthrou... . Not bad but it is not a 3D Physics engine. Just a renderer. Not the same thing. Still pretty impressive.
Certainly, I didn't mean to imply it is, just use it as a benchmark against which you can get an idea about what the 84 is actually capable of (the Portal thing isn't really a great demonstration of that).
(It is not in fact even a 3d engine, but rather a vector BSP 2.5D one that is technically similar to Doom. To the extent with Doom has physics (pretty much only momentum (seen prominently in how explosion knock back effects entities) and gravity, so not really) that demo kind of has physics. Actually I don't think he actually does momentum, and his gravity is primitive. He's pushing the calculator pretty hard, I'm not sure how much more you could add, but the 89 can do much better.)
Basically I think you could get something close to this on an 89 (with dramatically worse graphics/graphical abilities): https://github.com/id-Software/Quake/blob/master/QW/client/p...
Re: Portal’s physics engine rebuilt in 25KB—on a graphing calculator
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would not be that hard to write a 3D physics engine for a TI-89 calculator (Assuming you already know how to write a 3D physics engine, which I do). Problem is, it would be useless since it will probably take tens of seconds (if not more) to calculate each frame.
I would not be so sure. It really all depends on how much physics you want your "physics engine" to have. Rag-dolls? Not likely. Quake 1? Sure, you could do physics to that extent on an 89. The 89's are more powerful than you may suspect, unlike the 84 (seen in the article), they have Motorola 68k's. Here is an idea of what you can do with a 84's Zilog z80 (warning: long animated gif): http://benryves.com/images/nost…
I remember playing a lot with my old TI-83. One of the most impressive games was DOOM: http://www.ticalc.org/archives/files/fileinfo/238/23843.html Best video I can find: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuupoxmeQ6U
Unfortunately I never had a TI-89. Would've been awesome if I had one back in the day, and then test these games: http://www.ticalc.org/archives/files/fileinfo/405/40593.html and http://www.ticalc.org/archives/files/fileinfo/323/32318.html
Re: Portal’s physics engine rebuilt in 25KB—on a graphing calculator
#14Re: Portal’s physics engine rebuilt in 25KB—on a graphing calculator
#15That is an excessively sensationalist headline. Portal, physics and graphics-wise, does way more than that graphing calculator. To imply that they are equivalent is shameful and ignorant.
I don't see any claims of recreating Portal's graphics. I think yours is an excessively sensationalist criticism.
Re: Portal’s physics engine rebuilt in 25KB—on a graphing calculator
#16That is an excessively sensationalist headline. Portal, physics and graphics-wise, does way more than that graphing calculator. To imply that they are equivalent is shameful and ignorant.
I don't see any claims of recreating Portal's graphics. I think yours is an excessively sensationalist criticism.
Claiming to recreate the physics engine implies that somebody remade the Source engine on a calculator. This is a massive exaggeration.
Re: Portal’s physics engine rebuilt in 25KB—on a graphing calculator
#17Re: Portal’s physics engine rebuilt in 25KB—on a graphing calculator
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would not be so sure. It really all depends on how much physics you want your "physics engine" to have. Rag-dolls? Not likely. Quake 1? Sure, you could do physics to that extent on an 89. The 89's are more powerful than you may suspect, unlike the 84 (seen in the article), they have Motorola 68k's. Here is an idea of what you can do with a 84's Zilog z80 (warning: long animated gif): http://benryves.com/images/nost…
I remember playing a lot with my old TI-83. One of the most impressive games was DOOM: http://www.ticalc.org/archives/files/fileinfo/238/23843.html Best video I can find: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuupoxmeQ6U Unfortunately I never had a TI-89. Would've been awesome if I had one back in the day, and then test these games: http://www.ticalc.org/archives/files/fileinfo/405/40593.html and http://www.ticalc.org/arch…
Ah yeah, good stuff. I was always partial to Gemini and Wolf on the 83+ (http://www.ticalc.org/archives/files/fileinfo/247/24742.html, http://www.ticalc.org/archives/files/fileinfo/277/27767.html). Wolf even had an on-calculator level editor!
Re: Portal’s physics engine rebuilt in 25KB—on a graphing calculator
#19Not quite--this is more a recreation of the Flash Portal clone. i.e. it's all 2D graphics and 2D physics. I got my hopes up for a moment, preparing to be awestruck. Since I have a TI-89, that's what I think of when I hear "graphing calculator". My TI-89 can do 3D stuff (for instance this fun maze generator game http://www.ticalc.org/pub/89/asm/games/amaz89.zip ), it would blow my mind to have anything close to a Port…
It would not be that hard to write a 3D physics engine for a TI-89 calculator (Assuming you already know how to write a 3D physics engine, which I do). Problem is, it would be useless since it will probably take tens of seconds (if not more) to calculate each frame.
That's the thing, though. I'd be awestruck to see a Portal 3D physics-like thing on the 89 and be playable, because I'd have no idea how the person pulled it off and as I said above it'd be mindblowing. If you're familiar with physics engines, perhaps you're familiar with how the GBA works at the hardware level and how a game for it is typically made? Super Monkey Ball Jr. is an example of a game that blew me away and I'm still not really sure how they pulled it off.
Re: Portal’s physics engine rebuilt in 25KB—on a graphing calculator
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see any claims of recreating Portal's graphics. I think yours is an excessively sensationalist criticism.
Claiming to recreate the physics engine implies that somebody remade the Source engine on a calculator. This is a massive exaggeration.
You don't think that ionforce is over-egging the criticism pudding by throwing in inferred claims about graphics, too?
I find it ironic that such a tactic should be used in a criticism that strongly applies the 'shameful' label.