As few courses as there are I wonder how I could learn some of this more advanced stuff.

    Some linear algebra and you're set. With vectors, matrices, quaternions, transforms under the hood there should be no problems.

        Pixophir Not always. Most of games are, until you want to dabble in the wonderful/terribly confusing world of game physics. Not just vectors, how do you calculate how a character must plant its feet as it goes up a mountain? Or, how do you use only three animations to fully create a character that trips, falls over, jumps, and other things with inverse kinematics?

          Megalomaniak I was hoping that I didn't have to learn about procedural animations. I just assumed that it was relevant as I think that's what I think Rockstar Games uses but, I'm not sure if they use it to make characters get up after falling( though they look like they're ragdolling when they fall). I think Saints Row the Third has a system where they have characters ragdoll when they fall, yet they have animations for getting.

          I'll try to figure out if it's as easy as using blend on the animations in Godot but, I just want to know what you guys think.

            Something sort of like this character on the Asset Store in Unity, correct? I would seriously do a lot to figure something out like this.

            I guess it gets used a lot, but I think robots are a pretty good answer to a graphics problem for an individual. It's perfectly all right to clone them. You can make them very unique style wise. The animations can look robotic. They go well with simplified scenery.

            Audiobellum
            That last video makes me think of the rather cool Crocotile 3D.
            A 3D mesh editor in the style of a 2D tile editor.

              Off topic, but maybe somebody is interested.

              Artemis I launch live stream starting aboouuut .... now Edit: The swines have started a new countdown for the stream just when it was supposed to begin 😠

              I'll be as unreachable as a lost block of memory until the can is in orbit.

                Looks like issues.

                Yeah, rumours of issues with a bleeding hydrogen line and rumours of rumours that launch remains an option. On another life video I see no ice around the rocket, looks like it is not fuelled atm.

                I may have dropped my pointers too early 🙄

                Pixophir Artemis I launch live stream starting aboouuut .... now

                In Russia, few people believe that Americans have actually been to the moon. Technically educated people know they have, but it is impossible to convince the masses. The Russians can't admit that the Americans beat them so technically — it hurts them.

                    Tomcat Quite a few Americans don't think America actually went to the moon. The trouble is they don't know the number of third party witnesses that verify it.
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings.
                    It's like the youtube guy that went to trial because he thought Sandy Hook was faked. You can't do that. There are too many people that are directly involved that would have to be in on it. If it's a closed event like an alien abduction or something, but not a public event. Apparently they don't think of all the possibilities, like the ambulance drivers, the hospitals, the school administration, police, passers by. Everyone would have to be in on it. You can say well, the guy is nuts, but I know perfectly rational people that believe it.

                        fire7side I do believe that even perfectly rational people can end up believing things that are false. If "garbage ,in garbage out" is true for computers( that are supposedly smarter than us humans when it comes to somethings), then it's also true for humans as well. Things get even more hopeless, when disagreements stem from a difference in first principles. That said, it's rare for me to meet any perfectly rational people who are also wrong face to face; especially when it comes to the issues of conspiracy theories. At the same time, I'm uncomfortable with dismissing people who I disagree with as just being crazy, as even crazy people can get away with doing that( and they will if they've got more influence and power). Somethings it just feels that discourse is just broken. Heck, somethings it feels like it's more advantage to make the emotional argument than the logical one.

                            Well, I've seen UAPs (the new word for UFOs). I saw 2 ships the first time, and then 1 ship a year later (this was around the year 2000). I was with other people, and they saw them too. But no one believes me. Am I saying they were aliens? I'm not sure. It could have been secret military technology, could be time travelers, astral beings, who knows? But that was over 20 years ago, and we still don't have planes that can fly like what I saw. And I'm pretty rational and I believe in science. But I saw what I saw, and no one has an explanation.

                              Audiobellum I do believe that even perfectly rational people can end up believing things that are false. If "garbage ,in garbage out" is true for computers [..], then it's also true for humans as well [..]

                              And this is even exploited to rouse people, or to calm them. Even to present them with an alternative reality. Social media algorithms play a big role here. They can spread fake news, but could also be used to spot and eliminate them.

                              Audiobellum [..] somethings it feels like it's more advantage to make the emotional argument than the logical one.

                              Motivated reasoning. If messaging lacks accuracy, then that can be a sign of a distracting or biassed argument. Motivating people to add accuracy (aka more cognitive effort) can reduces the bias.

                              Evolutionary principles were part of my study (geoscience, pre-history), and at that time, quite frequently, scientologists and the likes had their booths in pedestrian area of the city. One can learn a few things from those, I mean, how to lure people into believing :-)

                              Must carry on with my stuff, a lot to do today. And we're straying again ...

                                  cybereality Yeah, that's what I meant. Your experience is at least credible to some degree because there aren't any third parties that would have to be in on it for it to be a hoax. I've had experiences that people don't believe because it's too incredible, but I know it happened. I didn't imagine it or hallucinate it. But, believing Sandy Hook was faked, or the moon landing was faked, that has to be immediately discounted. Like with the moon landing, it would actually be easier to do the real thing than to fake it at that public level by far. There are all those amateur astronomers with telescopes actually powerful enough to view it. You can see satellites in the night sky with the naked eye. The rockets took off at a public landing with thousands of viewers. All the news agencies would have to be in on it. And then there is just motive. All they would get out of it was that they were the first on the moon. No money or anything.