35 minutes ago, Scouting Ninja said:

If (collision.hit = "Player") {Player.Health -= 1); Not physics at all.

It approach good to 9th class schoollboy. Really i has used same on this age. It was clone a of microsoft's game with monkey that throw bumerangs with angle to horizont. I has made it at 16 on pure basic od Soviet PDP-11 clone.  And even into this game physic simulation was a key feature of gameplay.

But it really not good for AAA class games. For example World Of Warships modeling even fuse delay time. It why destroyers abd light cruiser recives a damdge from armore perching shells only on high incident  angle. and low damage on direct shoot tragectories.

46 minutes ago, Scouting Ninja said:

That is what I am saying about physics in games. When it comes to gameplay physics is rarely used for the gameplay; it's used to accurately simulate how smoke and fire moves; a visual element.

Did you seen a flight simulators like a DCS, LOCK-ON or IL-2 Shturmovik, or even WarThumder where atleast half of IL-2 physics has been cuted. Is gameplay of those games depends from anything else than phisics? 

53 minutes ago, Scouting Ninja said:

particles isn't used to calculate the damage or effect the damage in anyway.

Ok. Let consider situation when you have to burn something by fire under it. Simpliest approach to calculate energy of flame particles that hit it.

Also what is difference betwin bullet and particle? Realy it is no difference.

26 minutes ago, Fulcrum.013 said:

t approach good to 9th class schollboy. Really i has used same on this age.

It's common, because it's fast and efficient.

26 minutes ago, Fulcrum.013 said:

It why destroyers abd light cruiser recives a damdge from armore perching shells

"Damage dealt by each instance of fire on a ship is fixed as 0.3% of its total health pool per fire per second (0.4% for aircraft carriers). Each fire has a base duration of 60 seconds" This is from the wiki.

 Fire damage is just: Ship.Health -= (Ship.Health/100) *3 for 60 seconds. No physics.

5 hours ago, Scouting Ninja said:

Physics can even be considered a graphics element most of the time, only there to make things look more realistic or dynamic.

See what I mean? Fire particles use physics to emulate good looking fire.

Most of the time, physics is just used for visual effect. If you broke WOWS apart, you would see it uses more physics for graphics than for gameplay. Yet it is one of the exceptional games that tries to have realistic gameplay.

10 minutes ago, Fulcrum.013 said:

Did you seen a flight simulators like a DCS, LOCK-ON ...

Have you seen: Red Dead Redemption 2, Jurassic World, Vampyr, State of Decay 2, God Of War, Far Cry 5, Destiny 2?

For every game that has a above average focus on physics I can give you hundreds that don't. Physics is used as a graphics element most of the time.

2 hours ago, Scouting Ninja said:

Have you seen: Red Dead Redemption 2, Jurassic World, Vampyr, State of Decay 2, God Of War, Far Cry 5, Destiny 2?

Did you seen a spectrum game River Raider? It have same gameplay than this games. It can be interested on 10 year age. But it is to boring even at 15 age.

2 hours ago, Scouting Ninja said:

For every game that has a above average focus on physics I can give you hundreds that don't.

Any game that have whechies/wessels/planes e.t.c have to model it. Quality of approach is second questions. But at can not be out of model. For example at Quake  source code trajectories of all NPC is hardcoded together with firing. It is garbage approach of behavior, but it still approach. And than approach close to reality, than easely to adjust it work.

For example again world of warships. It is good for gameplay to have accelerations of ships looks realistic. It have two ways. First ask a level disigner to do some dance with tambourine , and make other black magic with curves until acceleration will be seems realistic by his look thru the crystal sphere, and do same for each ship after each it tweak.

And other  way. We know a power of ship engine and his maximal speed from table data.  Maximal speed mean that resistance force is equal to engine force. Engine power can be easely recalculated to force. Square area of front projection of underwater part can be easely calculated from geometric model too. So we easely calculate a Cx from just a two known digits.  Only than we need to do else, is to add some response time to engine power changes.  And its give really accurate aproach of ship acceleration for cost of nothing, that also automaticaly recalculable after tweeks of other parameters.

46 minutes ago, Fulcrum.013 said:

Square area of front projection of underwater part can be easely calculated from geometric model too. So we easely calculate a Cx from just a two known digits. 

Sounds very interesting. Do you have some example code or maybe a document to look at? Maybe a tutorial? I am a big fan of Sci-Fi games and this interests me; I use ship steering formulas when I can.

17 minutes ago, Scouting Ninja said:

Maybe a tutorial?

just a simplified approach of fluid drag law with neogatin of turbulence and difference in air and water resistance. this approach may still accurate for not so big speeds and  small waterline drift. all other is elementary computational geometry. It is many ways to obtain cross- section from model both raster and vector exists.   Raster way have example into DX SDK .  wiki paper about fluid drag  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)

8 hours ago, Scouting Ninja said:

8 hours ago, JoeJ said:

This almost degrades people working at physics, which is harder than graphics. Personally i think it is

Why? The art that you see on your screen in a game is the work of a 3D artist that had to spend 3-4 years learning art, A animator who spend 3-4 years learning animation and a graphics programmer who spend 3-4 years learning visual programming.

I believe most physics programmers also spend 3-4 years learning how to code physics. So why would you ever believe that comparing a dedicated professional to another degrades them?

Maybe i've used the term 'degrade' just to start a long standing argumentation leading to nowhere

What i mean is that solving for forces in multibody constrained dynamics is a much harder problem, than testing for visibility in graphics. Notice: Rendering a frame in a game does not require a single solve. (This changes if we start using realtime GI, but we're not there yet, and even then the problem is very easy to solve, just hard to solve fast enough. In Physics it is not just a performance issue.)

8 hours ago, Scouting Ninja said:

8 hours ago, JoeJ said:

physics need to be correct because otherwise they won't work or you can't do much with them.

This is not true at all.

We use dumbed down versions of physics all the time. The newton cradle simulation problem is a good example of this. Computers just don't have the power to simulate accurate physics.

Windows in games aren't liquids, we don't track internal forces, we don't even use accurate collisions shapes. 

It is true. When you say list some games utilizing physics, i answer Half Life 2, Portal, Limbo, Penumbra, racing simulations.

All of them try to do proper simulations based on correct equations of motion. This can't be faked in a way we can fake graphics by precalculated GI. You can do some fakes in physics like shock propagation, but this only exchanges limitations from one side to another. 

Collision shapes are always accurate. Using a different representation for graphics does not make physics inaccurate, wrong or faked. Actually it's the graphics that is faked, if you want so.

I don't know what you mean with internal forces or liquids.

Don't try to teach me about ragdolls. We've gone through this already

8 hours ago, Scouting Ninja said:

Games rarely use physics as part of calculations, it's too unpredictable and can lead to a very unbalanced game. Damage for example is calculated long before the "hit" is checked. That way you can let weapons decide.

 

I agree with a lot of what you say @JoeJ , but in most games physics is cheated for the purpose of gameplay.

I'm well aware we use a lot of illusions in our games, and calculating hitpoints is / can be game design not simulation.

But physics simulations is not faking stuff until it looks right most of the time. It has to work in any case because it is the USER that is unpredictable, not the MATH. This is one reason why we use simulations, because a simulation targets to work even if the user performs actions in the game we did not intend him to do.

I do not say games have to be realistic, it is still possible to use external forces on top of an accurate simulation, or to tune physical properties to serve game design.

But in my opinion an accurate and working physics simulation of a game world is a better starting point, and improvements in this field will lead to innovation in games. This is subjective, and contrary to your view of faking lots of things and using proper math only in certain situations when desired. But i am aware this is subjective and personal, while you seem not to be. Representing you personal view as general truth because you think that's 'state of the art' / that's 'how games do it because it's good enough' can have a negative influence to the view and progress of others, mainly newbies. This is what i criticize, not anything technical.

5 minutes ago, JoeJ said:

Notice: Rendering a frame in a game does not require a single solve.

For first rendering a frame in video game is equalent of cout<<Result; into console application. And for main - rendering is also involved physical optics. Really mechanical dynamic is only a little bit of physics. 

4 hours ago, Scouting Ninja said:

Fire damage is just: Ship.Health -= (Ship.Health/100) *3 for 60 seconds. No physics.

Fire famge it fire famage. And shells damage is shells damage. When HE shell hit a ship it affect a explosive damage and have chance to burn a fire. But HE shell explode instanttly at hit. AP shell explode with litle delay. On flat tragectory it makes entry and outer hole in non-armoured ship and explode outside. 

10 hours ago, JoeJ said:

I'm well aware we use a lot of illusions in our games, and calculating hitpoints is / can be game design not simulation.

It depends from game concepts. For example has seen a mmorg game where assualt carbines range has been cuted to 150 meters and snipper ridles range has been cuted to 250 meters by game concepts. After this range boolet just dissapeared. Also it have no fast mooving objects like car o plane. Only humans, bears, dogs, goblins etc. But for example AK-74 have direct shot range 440 meters and SVD rifle have direct short range  640 meters. Direct shot range mean that closer than it range it is no significant difference betwin straight line and real ballistical tragectory. So on concepted ranges shooting can be approached by line segments casting with enought to arcade gameplay accuracy. But it not is no simulation. It is bullet tragectories simulated by straight line segment

11 hours ago, JoeJ said:

It has to work in any case because it is the USER that is unpredictable, not the MATH.

Anithing into computing is a MATH, excluding layer betwin chair and keyboard only.  Phisical simulation is MATH too. Really task of physic as science - is to describe world by math. Really any science began when it involves math. Software is whole math and nothing  else. Really Rassion translation of "software" word can be translated back to English as a "computer mathematical fundations"