Maybe it's some combination of bad luck & pessimism on my part, but it feels like a fair number of entries in the codeplex problem listing are link salad type answers
Or older era requests for XYZ library do do LMNOP thing.
I think I cast closed votes on the first few questions that I found like that. In the interests of sticking with a thing & not getting too side tracked, I've been trying to prioritize fixing decent looking stuff w/ codeplex links.
I figure that the off-topic questions will still be off-topic when codeplex closes. In contrast, the on-topic stuff might be a lot harder to fix when codeplex is gone as sometimes there are "we've moved the project" links or keywords that can be used to find current repos, etc.
And some of the questions can probably be salvaged with an edit from "what tools will do X" to "how can I do X".
Okay; tbh I don't review the close votes queue often, so if you find some that really should be closed and/or deleted, might want to flag for mod, or find another way to let us know about it.
A miscommunication. Back during the dating chapters, my long distance, then to be spouse told me about a new foodie place tried w/ a bunch of friends during a phone call.
I like physics, It always interests me. I have quite a few fat books on physics. The part I really like is how all of the questions in physics can almost always be answered with an equation.
Hmm. Oh, I'm not sure if anyone here knows, But I am looking for a question that frustratingly, no Biology book tells me. They all say "the cell controls it's chemicals to create reactions to make something happen using enzymes" but they never go deep enough to answer my question My question, is "What makes the cell "control" the enzyme? I don't get it how you can just take a bunch of basic elements, mash them together an then you have the equivalent of a computer AI.
And to emphasize on that, that would be a thing that makes decisions based on it's environment, like an AI, but it is made out of just some freaking basic chemicals
I mean, carbon can't think for itself. So there are a bit more stages until the thinking comes along in cells. I'm assuming it is multiple chemicals that... No, wait, just a carbon chain isn't enough to think. Like, how in the world did chemicals get advanced enough to make something as smart as a human?? It makes no sense to me. A Human thinks so many things, math, everything. And yet, the brain just uses chemicals to do that. That is like some chemicals thinking for themselves.
Oh, right! Those things work together to make something. Great way to put it! Like, if one zero is a one, which happens when a chemical, representing that value, changes because of temperature, it's state becomes a 1. Other chemicals react to this change, which causes an output of enzymes changing. And these enzymes and all are perfectly in place because they were made that way from the DNA. Then the enzymes case a chemical change in another chemical which causes it to heat up.
So when you put Trillions of these chemicals together into an enormous thinking machine, you get something so smart, like a Human.
Yes, that's one way to think about it. It's not the only way & since it's based on metaphor, it will break down in places, but the concepts have parallel as you pointed out.
Life is all very interesting. I could be sad about how come I only get 100 years of life at maximum unless I'm really lucky; But then I get more grateful rather than sad when I consider the fact that Humans are only designed to life for up to 30 years. It is our intelligence that allows us to live as long as we do. So, I guess the key to living longer really comes from our Intelligence. But we'll need to be far more intelligent to live longer than 100.
Oh, @Pikalek just wondering, how come you're so interested in Shaders? I guess it is cool to make some nice pattern, but I may not be aware of all the things shaders can do.
I'd be focusing on the collective. We as humans invented medicine. But the people who invented hand sanitizer and the people who invented the first vaccines for dysentery were two different humans. It is when we take the collective intelligence that humans will invent new things together. No single human is responsible for our maximum age.
I'm working on some procedural texture generation stuff. Real time results aren't likely (at least not right now) but I want the tool to be fast enough to be usable.
Huh? Science. It'd be an idiot to leave it at "Science" so allow me to explain: Early Humans in the time of the ice age didn't live longer than 30 years. I look at these early humans as the way humans were built to be. We weren't exactly built to change the world in the ways we have. You wouldn't ever encounter a gray-haired early human because they would die well before then.
I am also not sure that 'ice age people' is an accurate representation of humans and that ignoring our cognitive complexity is somehow a purer form of 'natural' humans.
Also, a citation means you give the details of the book and those insisting on citations can read for themselves.
@DMGregory No. It is because the way they are built humans start out with less years on the calendar than some of those turtles. It is our intelligence that allows us to live as long as we do, whereas those turtles get that number from the start.
Well, back when I did UAV stuff, it was pointed out that just because an aircraft could take any # of maneuvers at some point, there were usually only a few that it should take.
The perfectly difficult timeline in which all the vehicles and planes I want are so old that we hardly have any records on them at all. Literally, out of over 3,000 produced, only 2 B-29s still fly today. And that is only because we fixed them, after they had crashed during the war.
The MiG-15s are NOT manned, that's the problem. They're pretending to be manned planes, when they're actually a bunch of polygons being moved around by an AI program.
Yeah. But the difficulty in this is that there aren't just Left Right Forward, Back. There's those 4 + up and down, and then that means a whole bunch of pitch, yaw, and roll factors.
@DMGregory Oh. I thought you meant IRL. So in the game, yeah, they're not actually manned.
Do you need to control every one of those individually, or could you have a collection of maneuver splines and just select one to follow from that list?
Like if it wants to follow a target and that target zips the other way, it needs to pick a maneuver to realistically turn around based on its position. Then, it goes and follows it.
Instead of your code saying "change roll by 1 degree, change yaw by 2 degrees..." it could say "Select manuever 'shallow bank left' and follow that path until instructed otherwise"
You could make a library of animations that cover all the manuevers you need, and record the change in position and orientation from the start to the end of each. Then your code can snap-together these segments like pieces of pipe to build a path that reaches your goal.
Interesting, but confusing. So you mean, it'll detect what position and rotation it wants, and then choose an animation that best-suits what it wants to do?
Yep. You can also blend in additional position and orientation nudges while the animation is playing, to shift it slightly beyond the fixed destinations the animations cover.
Oh, but there's another factor. It needs to detect a possible collision that might occur and apply that to the animation it chooses. Like, the tail of the B-29 is beautiful and big, but also a collision hazard for other planes like the MiG-15.
But I would say you should design your AI to fly conservatively and try to maintain enough spacing that they won't have to do fine maneuvering to avoid collisions. That helps reduce the opportunity for ugly bugs.
As for, "is this what you would do", it depends on the goal, and the team's skill sets/budget. If you want realism without implementing and running whole aerodynamic physics model and expert pilot AI, it's a good way to get the right look at low complexity cost.
I do not recommend using Unity to author your animations. It has some features that can be used for it, but it's not as full-featured as a dedicated 3D content creation tool.
In particular, you probably want to set up your planes as skinned meshes with a rig of bones, so it's one logical object as far as the runtime is concerned. Your animation would move bones in the rig to control the flaps, instead of positioning individual game objects.
@DMGregory lmao I just proved with my brother that SupBruh isn't my brother. Lol. what a strange coincidence. I had him show me his computer screen as SupBruh posted a few messages, proving that SupBruh couldn't have been my brother because my brother couldn't have been posting messages when I was staring at his screen the entire time.
That is a very, very strange coincidence. I also don't think SupBruh is my brother because my brother and I are both in our 20s, and SupBruh may not be that old. I don't know that, though, and it isn't something I need to know. The point is, that was a really strange coincidence, and that no interpersonal drama should be happening, since it turns out my brother doesn't even know what SE is. 😂
I am interested in creating a 3D physics engine for learning purposes, but I don't know if this will be useful learning experience or just a waste of time
since everyone uses existing physics engines anyway and I want to make indie games
