Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8678653" data-attributes="member: 82106">Yes, you have to have SOME SORT of model of the fire. That is, suppose the firemen choose to do X, that will change how the fire spreads or doesn't spread (IE opening a door can RAPIDLY change what happens next! Trust me, or take a firefighting course). Now, obviously you may just assume the fire and the firemen do X, Y, Z and only build a simulation of ER operations and triage, OK. Nobody said that you have to simulate the whole world, but you will surely still have models of the things that are part of your simulated domain. If I give a guy blood, my blood inventory goes down, etc. There will be a stepwise through time progression where the state at each step will be output of the previous one, plus perhaps external inputs, modelling, and generation of the next state.But that is exactly what I mean. He doesn't, NOBODY DOES melee with a grizzly bear! It would be insane, you would die. No human can survive that (except by sheer luck) because a 1500+ lb grizzly is multiple times stronger and faster than us. Grizzly is about the size of an ogre in most systems. Think about it.Well, it does have a model of your 'engine', and it can even be told to simulate things like engine failure. Sure, those models are not literal physics engines that implement all the laws of physics to produce perfectly realistic engine behavior, nobody said THAT. However, if you input different commands to your 747's engines, they will react in a realistic fashion, which requires some fairly complex logic, it isn't just a single number or lookup table or something. Trust me on this, jet engines are complicated and the complicated aspects of them are highly relevant to flight. I worked on 747 avionics system design back in the day. I doubt MSFS handles ALL the variables, but it is known to be reasonably authentic and detailed. Obviously you can do something that 'feels like flying' which is MUCH simpler. I am not sure I would call it meaningfully a simulation though. Certainly there is some sort of dividing line.No, but I don't think that makes it a simulation! Again, there has to be a system you are building a model of, and without any actual system, no model is possible. I would agree that, if you could build a REALISTIC model, then you have a simulation. KSP is realistic enough that it can model some actual behaviors of real spacecraft in an emergent kind of way (IE you build something using modeled components and it exhibits behavior that is not coded into the thing from the start and which closely resembles things that real-world spacecraft do). THAT I would call a simulation, even if the specific rocket you build in KSP never existed. For example someone built a model of SpaceX Starship and illustrated how its aerodynamics implemented the 'belly flop' maneuver (although the KSP version looked a good bit different from the actual thing, so obviously the sim is not perfectly accurate).I think it stops being a sim if it simulates something that is entirely fictional, but I don't think we really disagree there. I just think that it is not useful to use words like 'simulation' when talking about most RPG mechanics. They are vastly far from even the level of MSFS or KSP, which are themselves not good enough to be really useful beyond illustrating what something "might be like" to a degree.</blockquote>

Verification