Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Fly By – retro biplane flying game

michaelteter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 68 posts

Re: Show HN: Fly By – retro biplane flying game

#21

Post by krapp »

MRPockets wrote: post #20
krapp wrote: post #12

The fake scanlines and position of the UI elements make them difficult to read. The plane is too slow and its turn radius is too tight, the physics (if there are any) need to be improved to give a sense of weight and velocity to the plane IMO, and that probably necessitates a bigger playfield. Also it feels like it really needs a gun (edit: OK it does.) Overall it feels like an OK prototype but I agree it needs more…

> Also it feels like it really needs a gun. It took me less than 10 seconds into gameplay to pick up bullets for the (already existing) gun. Your comment reads as if you didn't try to play the game for more than a few seconds. It's a fun little game; no need to be so smugly dismissive.

>Your comment reads as if you didn't try to play the game for more than a few seconds.

I made it a few minutes, I admit it was boring. That isn't my fault. In a better designed games these things would be more obvious.

edit: OK I tried it again, got the gun, it autofires which still isn't fun. If I actually got to control it and had less ammo it would be more challenging. If that's a possible mechanic I couldn't see how to activate it. Still boring.

Re: Show HN: Fly By – retro biplane flying game

#22

Post by krapp »

amazingamazing wrote: post #19
krapp wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literature is written by human beings, and if the author was in the class I expect they would be able to discuss their process and methodologies. But the entire point of using an AI to generate code is not to pay attention to any of that. The author of AI generated code did not write said code and cannot therefore provide any insight into the process or methodology beyond "here is the prompt and model I used." Nothin…

Most literature classes discuss works where the author is unavailable. The point of AI is not to generate code and not pay attention…

>Most literature classes discuss works where the author is unavailable.

This is not actually a literature class, and the author, as such, is available. And the purpose of Show HN is to have a conversation with the author.

>The point of AI is not to generate code and not pay attention…

Yes it is. That's what "vibe coding" is. That's what all AI workflows converge towards. That's how most people use it. And that's what makes discussing AI generated posts so limiting.

Re: Show HN: Fly By – retro biplane flying game

#23

Post by amazingamazing »

krapp wrote: post #22
amazingamazing wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most literature classes discuss works where the author is unavailable. The point of AI is not to generate code and not pay attention…

>Most literature classes discuss works where the author is unavailable. This is not actually a literature class, and the author, as such, is available. And the purpose of Show HN is to have a conversation with the author. >The point of AI is not to generate code and not pay attention… Yes it is. That's what "vibe coding" is. That's what all AI workflows converge towards. That's how most people use it. And that's what…

The author did not claim to have “vibe coded” anything.

> My concept, my guidance, and Gemini Flash doing the work. Took about 4 hours and 50+ conversations with Gemini.

You are right though. It is exhausting since some people just can’t get it through their head that you can use AI and still understand the output.

Re: Show HN: Fly By – retro biplane flying game

#25

Post by krapp »

amazingamazing wrote: post #23
krapp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Most literature classes discuss works where the author is unavailable. This is not actually a literature class, and the author, as such, is available. And the purpose of Show HN is to have a conversation with the author. >The point of AI is not to generate code and not pay attention… Yes it is. That's what "vibe coding" is. That's what all AI workflows converge towards. That's how most people use it. And that's what…

The author did not claim to have “vibe coded” anything. > My concept, my guidance, and Gemini Flash doing the work. Took about 4 hours and 50+ conversations with Gemini. You are right though. It is exhausting since some people just can’t get it through their head that you can use AI and still understand the output.

Nobody's generating this in four hours and understanding anything, but if I'm wrong I welcome the author's replies. It would make more interesting conversation than usual for these threads, which I guess are just supposed to be for kudos now.

Re: Show HN: Fly By – retro biplane flying game

#26

Post by tclancy »

krapp wrote: post #12

The fake scanlines and position of the UI elements make them difficult to read. The plane is too slow and its turn radius is too tight, the physics (if there are any) need to be improved to give a sense of weight and velocity to the plane IMO, and that probably necessitates a bigger playfield. Also it feels like it really needs a gun (edit: OK it does.) Overall it feels like an OK prototype but I agree it needs more…

I think it might be interesting to know age ranges for posters, because this made me smile as it reminded me of hours spent trying to perfect Barnstorming by Activision on my Atari, right down to the scan lines and flight dynamics. Not sure it’s supposed to be an actual flight simulator, so your point (if there was one) just seems like being a prick for no particular reason. Did skin come off your nose while playing?

Re: Show HN: Fly By – retro biplane flying game

#27

Post by cynicalkane »

krapp wrote: post #12

The fake scanlines and position of the UI elements make them difficult to read. The plane is too slow and its turn radius is too tight, the physics (if there are any) need to be improved to give a sense of weight and velocity to the plane IMO, and that probably necessitates a bigger playfield. Also it feels like it really needs a gun (edit: OK it does.) Overall it feels like an OK prototype but I agree it needs more…

Yeah, this feels like a vibe-coded game that people who played it for 1 minute are upvoting, but it just really lacks the feel of how even a mildly solid and entertaining game feels. I got bored very quickly.

I flagged it because of HN's AI content policy. I know it technically doesn't apply to submissions, but I think game submissions (or any others) should show more humanity, instead of being like "look at this momentarily pleasing thing Gemini coded for me".

Re: Show HN: Fly By – retro biplane flying game

#29

Post by krapp »

tclancy wrote: post #26
krapp wrote: post #12

The fake scanlines and position of the UI elements make them difficult to read. The plane is too slow and its turn radius is too tight, the physics (if there are any) need to be improved to give a sense of weight and velocity to the plane IMO, and that probably necessitates a bigger playfield. Also it feels like it really needs a gun (edit: OK it does.) Overall it feels like an OK prototype but I agree it needs more…

I think it might be interesting to know age ranges for posters, because this made me smile as it reminded me of hours spent trying to perfect Barnstorming by Activision on my Atari, right down to the scan lines and flight dynamics. Not sure it’s supposed to be an actual flight simulator, so your point (if there was one) just seems like being a prick for no particular reason. Did skin come off your nose while playing?

I'm giving my honest impressions from playing the game and suggesting ways that I think it could be improved. If I ever posted anything here I'd expect the same treatment.

Re: Show HN: Fly By – retro biplane flying game

#30

Post by karthink »

tom_ wrote: post #14
Kuyawa wrote: post #9

Loved it. That's exactly what AI should be used for. Something that would take us one month at least, full of bugs, AI now delivers in less than a day, ready to ship This is the essence, AI is a super power, the world is ours

Well I dunno, man, this looks like the sort of amusing prototype I'd expect to take a couple of days - though not to understate the value of getting it in 4 hours (and probably with less than 4 hours' continuous effort from the human). Iteration time is an important factor! (Regarding the parting shot, I find myself once again, for the numerousth time, reminded of this curious lobsters comment that I'm having difficu…

> Once the user is sufficiently (l)ionized, they're no longer receptive to neutral positions.

Every step in this argument (particularly this one) seems tenuous at best, and in need of citations.

Post reply on HN