TestTubeGames Forums

A Random Player wrote:For a GR game, I think a sequel to Velocity Raptor might be cool instead. (It's already relativity!)

How about... Higgs Gravity ShocktoRaptor?

19683 wrote:I'm thinking about being a playtester...

I'll send an email when I decide.

What do you mean decide? What's there to decide?

Pros:
Help create epic games
Help who is possibly the most awesome person on the observable universe(You never know!)
Bragging rights.

Cons:
A new addiction.

General relativity? Please? Hahaha... no. You keep asking nicely, though. Honestly, though, I do want to make a sim/game about General Relativity. It'll probably zap my brain worse than Velocity Raptor did, but it'd be so damn cool! https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTsqOL4IdA1cm...

I was planning to make a topic about this as well :) I had thought of an enemy-evolution game before I saw the blog post, but in my idea, I had the enemies following an evolved path. Like it would start off straight up/down, but if you put towers near the path, they evolve to not go that way. After...

Huh. That's kind of cool. Is there any "opposite" to that? A law to the power of a positive number that is also unstable? Is this like positive and negative, having a border where below that everything is stable and above is unstable; or is it just numbers between something and -3 that cre...

And Robly, the inverse-cube force is indeed the dividing line between stable and unstable orbits. So while circular orbits are possible, they're highly unstable. If you try to make a circular orbit with r^-3.1, it lasts for a bit, then veers off. (In theory, it should so the same for r^-3, but I go...

Well, if the problem is lack of complexity, here are a few ideas: Ability to grow more than one limb, the number of these being evolve-able. Less would mean less speed, and more would lead to more surface area to hit. Friction of limbs. Less friction would lead to creatures being more dodgy and less...

testtubegames wrote:If I'm on here too much, chastise me and tell me to go make some games, okay?

Don't say that. Trust me.

If we could, we'd make ten clones of you and put you all working on games. And maybe take one of you to lecture us about science stuff.

19683 wrote:Because forces would follow an inverse cube (r^-3) force, there would be no stable orbits.

How come? It sounds easy to me, to make an orbit with an inverse cube force...

Also, why would electrons fall into their nuclei?

I suppose we could add gravitational or effective potentials, to show things like Lagrange points. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Lagrange_points2.svg/400px-Lagrange_points2.svg.png Would be cool, but might slow down rendering a bit. What is a Lagrange point? Is it just a ...