341–344 of 344 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's easy to fall into the trap of doing things the simple way or the unity way. To avoid it you have to go out of your way a bit and apply the same rigour as if you were writing your own engine.
Not making heap allocations in loops/Update and favoring object reuse really isn't comparable to writing your own engine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's unspoken, but I assume the staged rocket was used to conserve the antimatter the ship was carrying for its rocket-less launches. I wouldn't be surprised if that's in the script somewhere but ended up on the cutting room floor.
Except if the antimatter engines were so reliable, why risk blowing up your last hope to conserve the obvious surplus of antimatter you had for the mission anyway?
And in case of "blowing up" they could use those am engines as LAS (they apparently had enough thrust), so what risk are you speaking about?
Seriously, bitching about science stuff in Interstellar, very large but actually very well crafted scifi is kind of dumb. It's big enough that you find SOME mistakes, but most of the time you'll be wrong (or blaming them for not explaining every detail), and it has pretty correct science overall. Just hating for sake of hating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's so weird, looking at a perfectly normal movie and the only thing you can think about is "What? It doesn't work that way!" like if everything started falling up with no explanation and the characters found that perfectly normal. But I'll disagree on Gravity and Interstellar getting spaceflight right. Unless you are going for very basic.
Why did they need a 2 stage rocket to get from earth to LEO and yet they had a lander that could both descend and ascend from an earth-similar gravity well in a single stage?
Why everybody brings up this honestly stupidest ctiticism about the movie is beyond me. It's like you lack both imagination and understanding how space missions work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is most definitely possible to achieve great results, including performance, with Unity. It requires creating the game from the ground up with code, though -- and that does not seem to be the audience that Unity markets towards the most. That said, it's not easy though it is certainly doable; it basically means you're using Unity largely as a "rendering pipeline" which may or may not be overkill, depending on the…
Finding any information on "Pure Code" setups for unity is impossible. As in, I think http://jacksondunstan.com/ has the only article on the internet.
You're right -- there's very little written on the topic. Though Unity has a fantastic community, and a large swath of information & user help to be found, a lot of it is directed at the newer/simpler developer (or mobile specifically).
Much of our work, and findings, has been derived from running our own tests & benchmarks as well as reading research/white-papers. In general, we've kind of found that many [advanced] game dev related topics are not well publicized or are fairly tightly-held. Our best source of information for things like highly advanced pathfinding, or low-level & high-volume multi-agent modeling/simulation strategies, have come directly from published academic research which has also been a treasure-trove of information.
We've read more research the last year or two than we did through all of school and the first ~10-15 years of our careers combined! =)