Comments on: Gamers are taking over the word “Physics” and I hate it – last warning to Gamers

By: FabriceN

FabriceN — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:32:42 +0000

The author seems to simply don’t understand what the claim is about. A “physics engine” (either software or hardware accelerated) has responsability to simulate some physics law, most often linked to Newtonian dynamics (e.g. deformable models, fluid dynamics, articulated solid, or collisions). Ok, this is applied math algorithms to solve systems of differential equation (or subtools for that), and not artificial brain to design new physics as you might restrein the meaning of the world. Bu then, I guess *you* are taking over the word “physics”.

By: Jay Fraser

Jay Fraser — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:04:10 +0000

Oh, and furthermore, the graphics engine programming and physics engine programming are entirely separate things. Perhaps if you wish to criticise the talent involved in games programming you should at least know the first thing about it.

By: Jay Fraser

Jay Fraser — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:02:48 +0000

Whilst I understand your annoyance at your search results being diluted with hits which do not interest you, I entirely disagree with what you say in this article.

From the dictionary:
Physics:
1. The branch of science concerned with the study of properties and interactions of space, time, matter and energy.
2. Of or pertaining to the physical aspects of a phenomena or a system, especially those studied in physics.

A physics engine models what the physical aspects of the real world or a subsystem of the real world. Hence, by the second definition, the word physics is perfectly relevant for this usage.

You have an elitist attitude in this article, which is unpleasant. Your condescension towards people from different disciplines to yourself is arrogant. Please, don’t highlight how you say you have a ‘great deal of respect for their skill’ as some sort of defence in the same article as you suggest they rename their work ‘McPhysics’ and say they have as much right to call what they’re doing physics as Super Mario does to claim he is the best cosmologist – such a defence would just be painfully transparent.

By: rms

rms — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 22:12:45 +0000

clearly the author of this post is just jealous because he or she would like to be a senior computer programmer. author: take some computer science classes and do a lot of coding. also, you might need to get laid ^^

By: chuko

chuko — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 14:48:29 +0000

Boo! Hiss! I’m a former physics grad student and game programmer. It is a perfectly good application of physics, and yes, you do actually have to understand your physics to do it right. For example, you often have to do collision calculations for arbitrarily shaped rigid bodies with friction, which means deriving those equations for the particular shape rather than using a general formula (because of course, you want to calculate it quickly.) The idea that it’s silly graphics tricks, when it’s essentially the same thing that’s done with any kind of physical modeling, just displays some ignorance of what’s involved. Maybe you should try reading those links on car physics….

By: Cyril Verness

Cyril Verness — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 16:23:14 +0000

“Architect” has also been appropriated by the programming community. Search online job listings for architects and you’ll find most are for people who work with computer systems and not buildings.

By: Phaet

Phaet — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:32:22 +0000

You guys are jelaous because games do better stuff relating physics than physicists do. I mean it’s more real than in the real world.
Real world sux. I hope CERN succeeds in destroying it.

By: Frank Noschese

Frank Noschese — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:49:31 +0000

Based on your definition, this wouldn’t be physics, it’d be computer science:

“A model approach to climate change

The Earth is warming up, with potentially disastrous consequences. Computer climate models based on physics are our best hope of predicting and managing climate change, as Adam Scaife, Chris Folland and John Mitchell explain”

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/26946

Or am I misinterpreting?

By: Sunny Kalara

Sunny Kalara — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:57:04 +0000

@Rhett: I don’t disagree that they do science; I am just ranting that the science they practice is the science of “computer programming” not science of physics.

>and they try to make their computer models >match these observations (make it look more >real)

No argument there – they make models of their code to match observations.

Gamers (including the game players) are equally guilty because I have heard too many of them talk about the “physics” of the game referring to the code of the game or the hardware acceleration of the graphic rendering.

By: Rhett

Rhett — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:41:44 +0000

I completely agree that the use of the word “physics” by gamers completely messes with our otherwise useful google searches.

However – I don’t think it is completely unjustified. You claim that physics is a science that involves observations. Gamers make observations – and they try to make their computer models match these observations (make it look more real). Oh, and by gamers, I really mean computer game programmers.

To me, science is all about making models. Game programmers make models.