 |
Quote: |
 |
|
|
 |
Originally Posted by nomo17k |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In games like this, physics-based means certain parts of the game are dictated by very well understood (and reasonably simple) physics. Computing ball physics *in the air* can be well approximated given all the knowns... and that's why I presume the devs can now do a very good job of replicating how it travels with the new engine.
I think computing how the bat contact leads to the initial condition of the ball flight is an entirely different matter, because there are a lot more unknowns you need to deal with (e.g., angle at which the ball hits certain part of round bat, how the wood/ball compresses, etc., etc.).... so I wouldn't be surprised figuring out how to realistically simulate (lack of) opposite field power was a more difficult problem
I actually like to play all my game using the gameplay engine and simulate franchise, haha. It can certainly run within 20 - 25 min per game on Vita, but that's with presentation. If you just run a game without presentation (with presentation, the game needs to *slow down* at 30 - 60 frames per sec), then each game should finish much faster under the hood. I can surely wait a minute or so to finish one game if I have the option....
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Thanks for that. I can understand how difficult it must be to replicate actually physics when there are no physics in the game. There is no ball traveling at 95 miles per hour and there is no bat to meet it. Rather, we have pixelated versions of each that make us fall into the illusion, and very well done if we can have these physics debates like we do. I don't quite understand what you mean with your last paragraph, but that is probably because it is a bit too technical for me.
Knight, I would assume that in the sim engines the results would be 100% attribute driven wouldn't it? I mean with game play you get user imput to some extent, but not in sim so what else would it be that determines the outcomes? Maybe I am not fully understanding your statement.