You seem to assume I am inexperienced myself. I do know that whatever simulation you do, it is going to be far more computationally expensive than is necessary for a satisfactory system. When the game, as it stands, has trouble running smoothly, throwing on a complex system is not the proper response. It may be perfectly simulatable by itself, but I don't think it is on top of everything else the game needs to do. Even if you put aside the computational complexity, the additional coding complexity is not worth it. I'm not saying Notch can't code it; I would be surprised if that were the case. However, the complexity of the code is still a factor. A system like that needs strong, compelling reasons to be worth going through the effort of implementing.
More importantly, even if it is doable, I still don't think it is a good thing to do. If we wanted a simulation, we'd play a different game. It is agreed that that many elements of realism, ranging from our carrying capacity, to the ease of crafting, or better left by the wayside for approximations thereof that promote gameplay. Water should be a tool that players use, perhaps even a hazard at times, but it needs to be fun above all else. I fail to see how this enhances the player's perspective of water. You might get an intellectual kick out of knowing it has this complex, behind-the-scenes system for managing where water comes from, but from a players perspective, it does not matter.
I'm no expert in the field of simulations of any type, but I have "Created several" myself, and have no reason to assume that you are any better at it than me. I have not been trying to be arrogant in this thread, merely to dissagree with your proposal, and try to clarify points which you seemed to have been confused on. Your responses have struck me as far more arrogant than anything I have said.
I'm sorry my 'arrogance' offends you so much, but it seems like the only thing you're basing this accusation of character flaws on is the fact that I haven't simply given up and assumed that I'm wrong based on the fact that you told me I am.
Perhaps I shall attempt this again.
I'm sorry if my post above seems defensive, but currently you've accused me, through implication, of being bad at writing or understanding simulations, arrogant, and willfully ignorant. aside from the first one, which I personally don't think is true, these are rather hefty accusations. I think they are unwarranted, and I would like an apology.
As for what I have been saying, I get the impression that I've been misheard a bit. I'm not here saying that I don't believe in your system because I haven't seen your credentials. I'm only saying "I have concerns about your proposal. I invite you to convince me that these concerns are unjustified."
If you feel no need to convince me (and concequently, others who think like me) that this system is indeed as workable as you say, then I guess I have no need for a response in this matter, although I do wonder why you would post this here and not just email it directly to Notch if you have that much confidence in yourself.
I am willing to discuss this further, or leave you alone if that's your preference, but I do request that you talk to me with more civility in the future.
You should consider that others may have more experience than you in certain fields. I hate to come off as a jerk, but I despise arrogance. It's a pet peeve of mine when somebody is wrong, they refuse to admit it, and bafflingly are grossly determined to remain ignorant. It enrages me.
lole irony
so many problems with this technique
The biggest issue though imo is that there will always be parts of the map that aren't generated effecting parts that are.
Kinda kills the whole realism factor =P
And there are solutions, one of which I already provided for that particular problem.
As I said, give me some time and I'll write a demonstration. It really is not all that complex of a system, you must understand. It involves what is about the least costly fluid simulation possible, and some simple calculations to determine where and when the rain should fall. The only thing I haven't quite figured yet is the best way to include faux pressure without having to perform a costly floodfill algorithm.
I apologize, my accusation wasn't pointed at you.
...
As I said, give me some time and I'll write a demonstration. It really is not all that complex of a system, you must understand. It involves what is about the least costly fluid simulation possible, and some simple calculations to determine where and when the rain should fall. The only thing I haven't quite figured yet is the best way to include faux pressure without having to perform a costly floodfill algorithm.
Alright. Thank you. I'm glad this was so easily sorted out; intelligent posters can be hard enough to come across, I'd hate to be stuck arguing with one once I've found one.
I look forward to seeing the concepts you talk about in action. I'm sure it'll be much easier to see what you're saying when I can see it myself.
More importantly, even if it is doable, I still don't think it is a good thing to do. If we wanted a simulation, we'd play a different game. It is agreed that that many elements of realism, ranging from our carrying capacity, to the ease of crafting, or better left by the wayside for approximations thereof that promote gameplay. Water should be a tool that players use, perhaps even a hazard at times, but it needs to be fun above all else. I fail to see how this enhances the player's perspective of water. You might get an intellectual kick out of knowing it has this complex, behind-the-scenes system for managing where water comes from, but from a players perspective, it does not matter.
I'm sorry my 'arrogance' offends you so much, but it seems like the only thing you're basing this accusation of character flaws on is the fact that I haven't simply given up and assumed that I'm wrong based on the fact that you told me I am.
I'm sorry if my post above seems defensive, but currently you've accused me, through implication, of being bad at writing or understanding simulations, arrogant, and willfully ignorant. aside from the first one, which I personally don't think is true, these are rather hefty accusations. I think they are unwarranted, and I would like an apology.
As for what I have been saying, I get the impression that I've been misheard a bit. I'm not here saying that I don't believe in your system because I haven't seen your credentials. I'm only saying "I have concerns about your proposal. I invite you to convince me that these concerns are unjustified."
If you feel no need to convince me (and concequently, others who think like me) that this system is indeed as workable as you say, then I guess I have no need for a response in this matter, although I do wonder why you would post this here and not just email it directly to Notch if you have that much confidence in yourself.
I am willing to discuss this further, or leave you alone if that's your preference, but I do request that you talk to me with more civility in the future.
lole irony
so many problems with this technique
The biggest issue though imo is that there will always be parts of the map that aren't generated effecting parts that are.
Kinda kills the whole realism factor =P
edit
sorry didn't notice old topic
I apologize, my accusation wasn't pointed at you.
@Skati
And there are solutions, one of which I already provided for that particular problem.
As I said, give me some time and I'll write a demonstration. It really is not all that complex of a system, you must understand. It involves what is about the least costly fluid simulation possible, and some simple calculations to determine where and when the rain should fall. The only thing I haven't quite figured yet is the best way to include faux pressure without having to perform a costly floodfill algorithm.
maybe I'm high
@madk
it didn't sound like it solved the problem as much as it just made the unaffected [by the problem] area larger
Alright. Thank you. I'm glad this was so easily sorted out; intelligent posters can be hard enough to come across, I'd hate to be stuck arguing with one once I've found one.
I look forward to seeing the concepts you talk about in action. I'm sure it'll be much easier to see what you're saying when I can see it myself.