Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | Krutonium's commentslogin

I actually use a capture card on PCI but I'm well aware I'm unusual.

Tying physics to framerate at all is a mistake. Like, should be filed as a bug mistake.

There's no scenario in which that's desirable.

And yet even Rockstar gets it wrong. (GTA V has several framerate dependent bugs)


It's desirable for arcade games, which have fixed hardware including the display. There's no possibility of upgrading for better framerate, and the game can be designed so slowdown is rare or non-existent. Tying the physics to the framerate gives you very low and very consistent input latency with minimum developer effort.

Right, all valid points, but consider the scale of a game like those coming out of rockstar. I'd understand for indie games and arcade games, but a single player rpg that will likely never be seen in arcade settings? Seems odd to me to see it here. Rockstar has the resources to do it properly, one would think, no?

Suppose you don't care as much about replays, and you're willing to use other tricks to "cheat" on multiplayer sync instead (because most AAA titles seem to have multiplayer these days). Suppose, instead, your top priority is visual fidelity and being perceived as having cutting-edge graphics. You want maximum computational effort going into letting the gamers with a top-of-the-line GPU render on their 360FPS monitor. And you want lots of objects and realistic physics.

If you run physics on a global timer, you could run it at a slower rate and try to fake some of those frames (extrapolating intermediate positions of objects), which is complex. Or you could run it at a faster rate, and every frame has real physics updates, and then it's taking time you could be using for graphics or something else that you think sells better. And there are ways around that, too, but they're complicated and your team is busy and they aren't what your engine gives you for free...


I completely agree, but it's an easy mistake to make.

not framerate of rendering but physics running at (its own) fixed frame rate.

Every game logic update, not only physics, should run on a timer that's fully independent from the frame rate.

The only place where that doesn't matter is fixed hardware - i.e. old generation consoles, before they started to make "pro" upgrades.


> i.e. old generation consoles, before they started to make "pro" upgrades.

And before it was realistically possible to port a game to run on multiple consoles without a complete rewrite.


I think you mean timestep. The video frames get updated on one timestep (the so-called "frame rate" because it is the rate at which video frames get redrawn, the inverse of its timestep), physics gets updated on a separate timestep, and gameplay or input or network polling can be updated on its own timestep.

pretty much, over the dozen or so game and rendering engines I made over the decades name mutated from tick to timestep to frame (rate) to refresh rate (hz) to tick again.. it doesn't matter as long as every system is decoupled and rendering is unbounded (if hardware/display combo supports it). This needs thinking from day one. Cool stuff you can do then is determinism, you can do independent timers which go forward, halt, backward in time, different speed multipliers over those (so some things run slower, faster, everything goes slower / faster), etc.

The Vision Pro was a Development Kit; Just like the first generation Apple Watch. It's not meant for the consumers, it's meant for the developers among the consumers.

We will see if they ever release a new VisionOS device, but it's not the first time they did that; see also the Apple Watch.


You can explain away every failed product launch with "it's a developer product", not meant for consumers.

This wasn't like HoloLens or Google Glass. They marketed these devices to consumers and then sold these devices to consumers.


A development kit wouldn't have a dedicated section of sofas in Apple stores for demoing them.

It's also notably not the first time they switched. They did the Motorola (I think MIPS?) Archictecure, then IBM PowerPC, then Intel x86 (for a single generation, then x86_64) and now Apple M-Series.

Motorola chip was called 68000.

IIRC Sim City 2000 is one such piece of software.


It was SimCity Classic.


wdotool exists, and global hotkeys are a thing under wayland, but is desktop dependent. KDE allows it by default, Gnome can be made to do it as well with an extension.


Based on the website they're banking on people thinking they were always a brand, and thus a lot of artists use their speakers?


OpenTTD has had entirely their own assets for 15 years.


But OpenTTD itself isn't a clean-room implementation of the game, it's a branch off a decompilation of the original game.

If Atari was really out to copyright the project into oblivion, they're likely to succeed in a legal sense*.

Within the confines of the current laws and known history of the game, and being a fan of both works, I think this compromise is fair.

*NotALawyerClause


You're correct. It's part of the Steam Publisher Agreement that basically, you can't remove your game from users who have paid for it.

And if you push an update that deletes the files, Valve can, will, and has rolled back the update.

Of course, there's also situations where Valve has assisted in removing titles at developers request, but it was a situation Valve was involved in - Specifically, a game called "The Ship" had a Multiplayer version, and it was built on Source, but they could never quite get it to work correctly, even with Valve's help. Wouldn't sync.

Valve helped them remove the Multiplayer version. (but you still kept the single player.)


Steam deleted my perfectly working Arma3 2.x for Linux with no option to return it back, so I stopped to use Steam.


As someone who has been involved in OpenRCT2, which is another Chris Sawyer/Atari game, from what I can tell, Atari has a very hands off approach to these things.

We know they know about us - We saw their Head of PR giving away keys for RCT2 on Twitch while playing OpenRCT2, prior to the release of RCT World (What a terrible game sadly).

As far as we can tell, it's basically a "don't cause us problems and we won't bother you" situation.


> As far as we can tell, it's basically a "don't cause us problems and we won't bother you" situation.

In this case, the "problem" seems to be "we want to lazily cash in on an existing IP and you providing a better product for free on the same shelves as ours makes that difficult", with the "solution" being to agree to have the better (free) version bundled with the lesser (paid) version.

I suppose it's better than banning distribution of prebuilt executables outside Steam or suing the devs into bankruptcy (a lawsuit Atari would likely win), but at that point we're just comparing starting with a shakedown to starting with breaking kneecaps.


> In this case, the "problem" seems to be "we want to lazily cash in on an existing IP and you providing a better product for free on the same shelves as ours makes that difficult", with the "solution" being to agree to have the better (free) version bundled with the lesser (paid) version.

At least they want to "lazily cash in". A lot of gamers like to talk about preserving history, yet are critical the moment businesses preserve that history doing it the way businesses naturally do things (i.e. by selling a product).

Besides, we do not know what went on behind the scenes here. It could be anything from the open source developers voluntarily pulling their game from the store, to the publisher requesting they pull their game from the store, to the publisher threatening legal action. Heck, the publisher may have even paid the developers of OpenTTD to bundle their engine with TTD. While some scenarios are more likely than others, we are too quick to attribute actions and motivations based upon non-existent information.


I don't think anybody is blaming Atari for putting TTD on sale for money. Heck, I was even planning to buy it until they pulled the obnoxious stunt of removing OpenTTD.

And even that could've been okay if they actually explained what was going on, but it's all very hush hush, which does not instill trust and understanding. If they were transparent about motivations and reasoning, they'd likely catch a lot less flak for what's going on right now.


I think most people who still buy RTC only do so to get the assets for OpenRTC2.

Atari is in a really weird spot, the rights have changed hands so much.

It would be nice if they offered a paid version of OpenRTC with the assets bundled. Ohh well


You can just legally get the ones from the demo file in ZIP format.


Naw.

That's disrespectful to the spirit of Atari looking the other way.

I've own RC2 for a very very long time. Either way it's like 10$


The original one at home came with a PC gaming magazine, but sadly I lost that CD. Also if any I'd pay $5 for the OpenTTD authors and another $5 for the original creators.


> As far as we can tell, it's basically a "don't cause us problems and we won't bother you" situation.

Seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Respect for Atari.


I remember reading an interview some years ago where they basically said they wouldn't try to shut them down, but they also did not appreciate the projects existing.


If I recall that correctly, Atari didn't want to do anything about it because it drives sales for TTD and RCT (in the case of OpenRCT2, it drives sales for 2 games even, since you need the assets from 2, and can also import more assets from 1, and even further, you can also use Classic as your base, so like, many many options), while Chris Sawyer didn't particularly like their existence, but not enough to go and force Atari to do anything about it.


Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: