Thank you so much for this project. I've been trying to learn more about building "stuff that moves", and 99% of what's out there teaches either beginner-level fundamentals or how to assemble something that's already designed. The whole process is exactly what I wanted.
At this point i'm starting to get into programming the servos and figuring out leg kinematics. Unfortunately i'm not an expert but I left in all of my mistakes (no video edits) so hopefully others can learn from them. Or do you think I should just edit mistakes and only show the path that worked?
The interpolator for the current value is generic. It could represent any function, including curves like parabolas. I don't remember whether or not we actually used that capability though.
I encourage you to consider why you would put programming in a separate category from "art". You seem just as output focused about code as those who motivated you to create a HN account.
Baskets, glass, code, photography, painting, they can all be art. Or a commodity. Or both.
This is a fair response but I do address it when I say we can automate the tedious and boilerplate parts of programming so we can focus on the aspects we enjoy i.e. the big picture stuff that intellectually stimulates us and allows us to be artistic when writing software.
An analogy would be that I would appreciate a tool that could mix paints and give me any hue to paint with on demand, but I don't want that tool to take the paintbrush away from me completely.
Having been a developer of multiple custom engines (including but not limited to engines intended for external licensing in AAA game development), I can confirm that the problems that must be solved for small scale projects are dramatically different from the problems encountered at medium and large scale.
If Amethyst is intended to be a tool for single-developer, small game development, that's great. Carry on with what you are doing.
If you want it to be used for bigger projects, you won't know what you don't know until you actually try to make that big project.
(I assume that Forrest is posting here because he sees potential in your technology, and wants to encourage you to reach that potential. The internet is littered with the remains of game engines with big potential that didn't survive because they didn't take this lesson into account.)
Yup, this is true. There are a few of us on the team who work/have worked on some very well known engines (and their ecosystems) meant for AAA game development. =)
The more challenging thing at the moment is developing or improving fundamental libraries/tools in Rust, which is a fairly young language. Being able to leverage existing C/C++ libraries helps, but in general isn't what we prefer to do.
>I assume that Forrest is posting here because he sees potential in your technology, and wants to encourage you to reach that potential.
Any and all feedback is welcome, as are contributions.
Life is all about trade-offs. There’s no such thing as average. (https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-...) If you try to build an engine for the general use case then you’re likely to make an engine that isn’t good enough for anyone.
My fear with Amethyst is that in 5 years it still won’t be good enough to make a commercial game of any genre. That’s the trajectory I see.
But I don’t think it has to be that way! And I think dogfooding would go a long ways towards building an engine that is both useable and extendable.
The fundamental statement of this article is wrong. General use of the term "wealthy" in our society includes investment bankers. By the definition in this article, they should only be considered "rich", because they increase the amount of money they have, but other people provide the wealth.
The definition therefore doesn't match common vernacular, leading to a number of incorrect conclusions. This is merely a game of alternate vocabulary, not analysis of reality.
