The key is probably physics. But the hard physics (the good stuff) requires integrals and derivatives. So you''re gonna need calculus. Of course, there''s a lot of linear algebra in the 3D equations, so you better not skip that.

Basic trig is important, but not all the fancy stuff. You''ve gotta know angles in both degrees and radians -- especially radians.

Summary: Take solid-body physics (not the electricity or quantum mechanics stuff), one or two calculus courses (1-dimensional integration is probably enough), and at least one linear algebra course.




John
Fifty1 Software

One more thing. Whatever you take, make sure you understand it well enough to know what''s important and what isn''t. You can''t make a perfect model in a game. The real skill is making a FAST physics model that LOOKS like a real physics model.



John
Fifty1 Software

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster

Wtf, why is it maths?? Do you end everything with an "s"? Maybe I should go brush up on my chemistries, or my histories, or perhaps my biologies. Well, you have a point though, if we call the maths math, why dont we call physics physic? It''s all a mystery.

---

I wish you used a name so I can refer to you personally, but since you''re complaining {blatant generalisation} you''re probably American and therefore clinically stupid {/blatant generalisation} And dont tell me that ''generalisation'' is spelt with a z.

Maths is a perfectly acceptable contraction of mathematics, as is math. However to be fair, it is the American version which is etymologically and therefore grammatically incorrect. Mathematics is a science, and as such is a body of things (ideas/knowledge/etc) - i.e. a collective noun. It''s plural.
It has an ''s'' on the end. Your example of chemistries or histories are particularly flawed, since they describe an abstract idea of a type of knowledge, and *not* a collection of knowledge, and are as such singular.

And like you pointed out, physics is another example where the noun is plural, yet you still persist in calling it physics. Whenever I question an American on the nature of their version of English, I get one of two answers:

1. The language mutated because it was being taught to very many uneducated people all from different backgrounds at the same time. (This is a historical reason and is reasonable explanation).

2. To rectify the idiocy of traditional English. (This is patriotic bullshit).

Fine, spell ''colour'' like ''color''. Even write your APIs like that to force us Englanders to change typing habits. Use a ''z'' instead of an ''s'' where it sounds like it should be. But dont tell me that math is a logical contraction of mathematics, and it''s we who are wrong.

PS: I realise you didn''t actually try to tell me that anonymous dude. But the number of people who try to tell me it''s correcting a problem in traditional English makes me rather irate, especially as I am a self-professed linguaphile .

At least I hope it cleared the mystery .

r.

"The mere thought hadn''t even begun to speculate about the slightest possibility of traversing the eternal wasteland that is my mind..."

To Fresh:

I''m American. Are you calling me stupid?

-----------------------
Hail to the king, baby.

I''ve had a bad day - code failing all over the place .
I wasn''t calling you stupid, merely those people who pupport things such as I mentioned above, which happen to be a large proportion of your average joe americans. But to answer your question - just take the maths course

(I think I did put a disclaimer at the bottom of that last reply
r.

"The mere thought hadn''t even begun to speculate about the slightest possibility of traversing the eternal wasteland that is my mind..."

I do believe that "math" (as well as "maths") is (are), pathologically, grammatically incorrect. It''s like arguing that "ain''t" is some how misspelled.

The "ess" sound might be dropped because it aesthetically conflicts with the "th" sound.

...
2 dimensioanl (rigid body) physics is governed by ordinary calculous (Calc 1 & Calc2). 3 dimensional physics is governed by differential equations (special cases are handled by vector calculous, typically Calc 3). 4 dimensional physics is governed by partial differential calculous (time or temperature, for instance).

Thankfully, you''re usually interested in a very special case, that often trickles down to algebra But if you''re not interested in a special case, but the general case (as we often are in comp sci), the ''higher'' math may be necessary, or at least useful.

Magmai Kai Holmlor
- The disgruntled & disillusioned

quote:

---

Original post by Fresh

Maths is a perfectly acceptable contraction of mathematics, as is math.

---

Surprisingly (to me), my dictionary actually has the word 'maths' in it, although the dictionary says it's 'cheifly British'.

quote:

---

However to be fair, it is the American version which is etymologically and therefore grammatically incorrect.

---

Actually, you are wrong. All of your problems lie in your assumption that language is static. In fact, language is extremely dynamic, and whatever the current definition of 'correct' is, is by definition correct. Look it up in an American dictionary or ask any American english teacher, and you will see this is so.

quote:

---

1. The language mutated because it was being taught to very many uneducated people all from different backgrounds at the same time. (This is a historical reason and is reasonable explanation).

---

This is complete bullshit. It has absolutly nothing to do with whether the 'teachers' are educated or not. Language is dynamic, period. Read stuff written merely 80 years ago, and you will see vast differences in writing style and grammer usage, and some spelling differences. Go back to when the US was being colonized, there are vast differences in spelling also.

Given the time we've been apart and the vast geological differences between our countries, I am shocked as to how similar our languages still are. We have almost as much variability in our own country as between the two.

Take Shakespeare as an example (I assume any linguaphile has read some). Is his spelling 'incorrect'?

quote:

---

2. To rectify the idiocy of traditional English. (This is patriotic bullshit).

---

You are looking at language in the completely wrong way. You cannot 'rectify' languages.

quote:

---

Use a 'z' instead of an 's' where it sounds like it should be.

---

Sounds like 'z' the way I pronounce it, and the way the dictionary says to pronounce generalization.

quote:

---

But dont tell me that math is a logical contraction of mathematics, and it's we who are wrong.

---

Language is not necessarily 'logical'. You should stop seeing things in terms of right/wrong.

quote:

---

But the number of people who try to tell me it's correcting a problem in traditional English makes me rather irate, especially as I am a self-professed linguaphile .

---

Then apparently they teach linguestics even more ethnocentrically over there than they do here. I didn't think it was possible.

I have never head the word 'maths' spoken aloud, and never seen it until I frequented these forums. Neither, I assume, have many other Americans. I am still appalled by it's ussage. Give the guy a break; it's called culture shock.


Mike

Edited by - Vetinari on February 16, 2001 1:02:14 AM

You should take Calculus for the joy of doing calculus, you don''t need it for game programming. Computers don''t understand calculus, so if you don''t want to take it just for the pleasure of it, learn in yourself from the ground up, concentrate on the why and try to derive and prove everything, if you can do that you will be a better game programmer than if you took calculus just becuase you heard game programmers need it. They don''t.

CONCEDE!

Hey, calculus will help. If anything, it''ll make the person think of the best (fastest, cheapest, most efficient) way to do complex things-- even if you don''t even have to apply a single line of calculus. Just the fact that I''ve covered such a subject like that would motivate me.

My brother recently told me that there are not that many good math teachers out there. If anything, you have learn math on your own (and it doesn''t matter if you say "math" or "mathematics"; it''s an abbreviation, sort of). You have to apply things in your own world to it. That is how you learn math.

I couldn''t agree more. Just look at how we learned addition back in kindergarten: pictures. They gave us simple problems like 1 + 1 = ? and a picture of two dots. We''d count the dots and decide what the answer is. Eventually it clicked and we thought, "If there is a dot here, and a dot here, then there are two dots, so 1+1 is 2." We figured out how to learn math at a very young age-- and didn''t even know it.

quote:

---

Actually, you are wrong. All of your problems lie in your assumption that language is static.

---

Vetinari, hold up. You dont study etymology and assume language is static. My point is that language is not static. It is obvious that the inconsistencies between the two dialects arose because of being separated. My angst is with the way certain Americans view this. As for being etymologically and grammatically incorrect, let me reiterate.

quote:

---

This is complete bullshit. It has absolutly nothing to do with whether the 'teachers' are educated or not.

---

Ok, read that line again: "The language mutated because it was being taught to very many uneducated people all from different backgrounds at the same time." There were very many uneducated people being taught, not uneducated teachers. During the early years of the country's history (as it pertains at least to western eyes), there was hardly the infrastructure to teach the vast number of immigrants. They taught each other; incorrect habits were learnt hard and fast. A lifetime's worth of education cannot remove these habits. They have gone from being bad to becoming the norm. This is fine - this is latter day etymology.

However, there are people who claim that the English are still wrong when it comes to the word 'maths'. You yourself said:

quote:

---

I have never head the word 'maths' spoken aloud, and never seen it until I frequented these forums. Neither, I assume, have many other Americans. I am still appalled by it's ussage.

---

This is hypocrisy to the nth degree. You give a livid reply to my diatribe berating my "ethnocentric" teaching of language, and the ideas this has instilled in me, and then in one statement give a sweeping opinion. I explained historically to Squeejee, who asked why we say certain words the way we do, but your argument seems to be personal, or at least the lack of rationality would indicate this to be the case.

In any case, I suggest you read my post more carefully. You quoted this line:

quote:

---

2. To rectify the idiocy of traditional English. (This is patriotic bullshit).

---

. I quite clearly state in my first post that this is one of the usual answers when I ask this of Americans. It does sound rather patriotic. It is with these people I have my gripe with. This reason is not, however, my personal belief, as should be clear by now. My personal belief is the reason given above, which was quite a large impetus to the process of diversification of the languages, and natural cultural and geological differences. Similarly with the 'logical contractions of mathematics' - this is stuff I hear from Americans, and if they will take the liberty of degrading language to bits, then for them I will too. And as argued before, if reduced to logical assumptions, it would seem maths is the logical contraction.

PS: You seem to have taken this rather personally. I dont wish to aggravate you, merely to have a rational debate. And by the way, there's no word 'grammer' even in my American dictionary. But I'll assume that's just a typo and not an American spelling.

Sorry for going off-topic guys .
r.

"The mere thought hadn't even begun to speculate about the slightest possibility of traversing the eternal wasteland that is my mind..."

Edited by - Fresh on February 16, 2001 3:54:17 PM