Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Proper interactive foliage that doesn't look fake. Insane technical breakdown by Soulflame Leaves + grass != physics. #gamedev #pixelart

26,904 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Have you ever wondered why some spring plants look so spectacular in flower? It’s a surprising answer… no leaves. These plants are flowering before the foliage appears — a clever botanical strategy known as hysteranthy. And it’s brilliant. With no leaves in the way, flowers are: More visible to pollinators when they’re scarce in early spring Easier for wind pollination in exposed conditions Visually striking — uninterrupted masses of pure colour It’s nature putting on a show… with purpose. And some of the most breathtaking spring performers use this technique: Magnolia — large, goblet-shaped blooms that create real drama before leafing out Flowering cherries (Prunus) — clouds of blossom that transform gardens into a spring spectacle Forsythia — vivid golden flowers lighting up bare stems Witch hazel (Hamamelis) — delicate, ribbon-like blooms in late winter to early spring 💡 Why this matters in your garden: ✨ You get maximum visual impact at a time when gardens are just waking up 🐝 You’re supporting early pollinators when food is limited 🌿 You create seasonal layering — flowers first, foliage later, extending interest Expert tip: Position these plants where they can be backlit by low spring sun — it enhances the translucency of the petals and elevates the entire display. It’s one of the most elegant tricks in horticulture… Flowers first. Leaves later. Maximum impact 🌿 Save this — and start noticing spring in a whole new way 👇 #springgarden #blossomtree #gardentips #ukgardening #naturemoments

David Domoney

10,111 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Katherine Boyle just named Elon Musk's greatest contribution to America, and it isn't sitting on a launchpad. Boyle, General Partner at a16z: "I think that Elon's most important contribution to this country is training two generations of engineers … on how to work with their hands again." For a decade, America's sharpest technical minds optimized ad clicks and shipped messaging apps. Software consumed ambition. The physical world became something you abstracted into an API, not something you touched. Building real things became what you did if you couldn't code. Elon didn't reverse that with inspiration. He reversed it by building companies where you either understood manufacturing or you failed. SpaceX and Tesla forced engineers to learn how metal fractures, how tolerances cascade, how one physical iteration costs months and millions. No hotfix. No rollback. Physics doesn't negotiate. Boyle: "Training two generations of engineers." The product was never the cars. It was the people. Look at who's founding America's hard-tech companies now. The common thread isn't Stanford or MIT. It's time on a factory floor at SpaceX or Tesla. They learned to weld. They learned that "impossible" means unsolved engineering, not violated physics. They learned that failure in the physical world compounds, because nothing reverts. Elon didn't just build companies. He rebuilt industrial knowledge that had been decaying for thirty years while the country's best minds chased digital scale. He made atoms matter again. Made manufacturing the hardest problem worth solving. Made physical engineering prestigious in a way it hadn't been since humans walked on the moon. Boyle: "Work with their hands again." Five words that sound quaint. They describe the moment America started building again. The blueprints for the Saturn V still exist. No one can build one from them. Knowledge that lives in hands doesn't survive on paper. It dies in a single generation of neglect, and no archive brings it back. That is how a civilization loses the ability to make things while still holding every document that explains how. America was one generation from that. It got the generation back instead. The best technical talent no longer asks which app to build. It asks what should exist that doesn't. From engagement metrics to launch cadence. From scaling users to scaling factories. That shift outlives every vehicle and spacecraft he delivered. Products obsolesce. Engineers who know how to make things do not. We stopped coding the future. We started machining it, welding it, breaking it until physics signs off. Those engineers are training the next wave now. The School of Elon doesn't need Elon anymore. It's self-sustaining, spreading through a generation that learned the higher calling is building real things. That isn't a business achievement. It's a civilization remembering how to make things. You can copy a design. You can't copy a generation that knows how to build one.

Dustin

46,511 Aufrufe • vor 5 Tagen

Why the character movement in my custom game engine felt janky and how I fixed it. In a game engine, most often, a character moves using the physics engine. Meaning, the player is not just a coordinate in space but a physical body. It has velocity, it handles collisions, and it interacts with the world. Now, as you might know, physics engines need stability. If you run them at variable framerates, things start breaking. Objects phase through walls or fly off into space because the math becomes unpredictable. This is why most game engines lock their physics loop to a 60Hz fixed rate. But here’s the problem: If you have a high-end system, you don't want to limit it at 60 FPS. That's a waste of good hardware. Now, that said, if the GPU is rendering at 144 FPS but the player's position (physics driven) only updates 60 times a second, it creates a micro-stutter that ruins the "smooth" feel of the game. A good way to fix this is to treat the character as two separate things: 1. The Physics Body (Invisible part): This is the "real" character. It lives in the 60Hz physics world, it moves the player and handles collisions. 2. The Visual Model and Camera (Visible part): This is what the player actually sees. It doesn't care about collisions, its only job is to look nice and smooth at whatever framerate the GPU is pushing. Once you have this separation, you can use interpolation to keep them in sync. Every time the physics clock ticks, you save the previous position of the invisible body before moving it to the new one. Between those ticks, calculate how far we are between the last physics update and the next one. By using this to drive the visible parts of the game, the stutters disappear. The physics loop stays fixed behind the scenes, while the visuals slide smoothly between the snapshots. Example: - Right after a tick: blend_weight= 0.0 (The visual model stays at the old physics position). - Halfway to the next: blend_weight= 0.5 (The visual model slides to the middle point). - Just before the next: blend_weight= 0.9 (The visual model is almost at the new physics position). Pro-Tip A critical mistake I made initially, and one many devs make, is parenting the camera and visible parts directly to the player body. If you do this, the camera inherits the discrete 60Hz physics movement by default. In that setup, interpolation won't work because the camera is "stuck" to the physics clock. For this fix to work you must decouple the camera and visuals from the body and move them separately. Player movement processing in Detis Engine: - fixed_process: Physics runs at 60Hz. Handles collisions and raw movement. - process: Variable rate. Mainly used for player input caching in the player case. - late_process: Variable rate. Handles interpolated camera movement after physics and everything else is done being processed. - render. Submits the final interpolated transforms to the GPU. The test environment in the video is running on an old 2070-based laptop. Hopefully the video compression won't introduce any stutter... I’m sharing this in hopes it helps a fellow dev. Cheers.

Ioannis Koukourakis

48,636 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

an MIT professor who taught both physics and finance told his class something none of them expected "finance is harder than physics" not as a joke. as a mathematical statement in physics, the laws don't change. gravity works the same today as it did a billion years ago you can run an experiment, get a result, and repeat it forever in finance, the moment you discover a law, the participants learn it too and their behavior changes the system you just measured in physics, electrons don't read your paper and start moving differently in finance, traders do. every published edge gets arbitraged away by the people who read it this is why quant models have a half-life and physics equations don't Newton's laws: 300+ years and counting Long-Term Capital Management's model: worked perfectly until it didn't, lost $4.6 billion in 4 months the system you're modeling is aware of you modeling it that's not a solvable problem. it's a permanent condition and the quants who survive are the ones who build for it instead of pretending it doesn't exist > this lecture: MIT finance series, free, public, 53 seconds > LTCM collapse: 1998, Nobel Prize winners, $4.6B loss > Renaissance's solution: never stop researching, replace signals before they decay > average lifespan of a quant signal: 2-5 years before it's crowded out retail builds one strategy and trades it until it breaks quant desks build a research engine that produces new strategies faster than old ones die that's not a difference in skill. it's a difference in understanding what game you're actually playing full breakdown in the video below

delost

18,961 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Take a moment to listen to the way Tucker argues his isolationist position It's all about being against "killing people"...an appeal to emotion, devoid of any other variables, because everyone is against killing people If you support any foreign policy that results in deaths of innocent people, then you are evil...period Later on he says "the power that people feel when they kill is the most alluring power there is" and goes on to attribute this motivation to anybody that thinks differently But worst is the other side of this argument which is the presumption that we have brought all this conflict upon ourselves...that, for examples, if we left Iran alone they would have no reason to hate us Look, I understand that we have made grave mistakes in our approach to foreign policy after 9/11. Nation building doesn't work...endless wars are bad. But it seems to me that 99% of us agree on this. First and foremost is Trump who has managed to thread the needle on his foreign policy by using the minimum amount of force necessary to establish deterrence...yet even supporting this doesn't seem to be enough Ultimately, this worldview is a a complete disconnect and misunderstanding of human nature. Much like the socialists believe that man is fundamentally good, so does Tucker. He doesn't understand that man is primarily self-interested and needs proper incentives to work towards common goals and not behave in destructive ways. And I'm not even going to go into his willful ignorance of the nature of Islamism...

Gummi

22,932 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr