According to Hans-Kristian Arntzen, a prominent open-source developer working on Vkd3d, a DirectX 12 to Vulkan translation layer, Starfield is not interacting properly with graphics card drivers.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] SwampYankee@mander.xyz -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

clipping through collision boxes and falling through maps

These are famously common bugs across games in all genres running on all kinds of different engines. I'd go so far as to not even call them bugs because computers simply don't have the power to calculate collision down to the picosecond/picometer. Every game that's ever been made has sacrificed precision in physics for performance.

Perhaps the reason it's more noticeable in Bethesda games is because they typically have way more persistent, physics-enabled objects. That's actually a strength of the engine, and something no other developer really even attempts.

[–] TheOnlyMego@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

These are famously common bugs across games in all genres running on all kinds of different engines.

Correct, but we aren't talking about them. Whataboutism isn't constructive.

I’d go so far as to not even call them bugs because computers simply don’t have the power to calculate collision down to the picosecond/picometer.

Actually, a large proportion of OoB clips in games are due to some combination of lacking speed caps and having acute angles in collision boxes.

Every game that’s ever been made has sacrificed precision in physics for performance.

Correct, and I'm not disputing this.

Perhaps the reason it’s more noticeable in Bethesda games is because they typically have way more persistent, physics-enabled objects.

This definitely contributes to the issues common in Bethesda games, but it's not the only reason. Take Skyrim for example: some of its best-known glitches (such as restoration bonuses buffing enchantments, the various duplication glitches, and basically everything involving horses) have nothing to do with the number of dynamic objects loaded.

That’s actually a strength of the engine, and something no other developer really even attempts.

Not really - plenty of other games use Havok physics and don't suffer from the same issues, or at least not to the same degree. Perhaps there's a reason other developers using the Havok physics engine don't make games with huge quantities of dynamic objects loaded at once.

[–] SwampYankee@mander.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

Correct, but we aren’t talking about them.

Uh... you were talking about them. Those are the two examples of bugs that you provided. I literally wouldn't have made the comment if you hadn't brought them up.

such as restoration bonuses buffing enchantments, the various duplication glitches, and basically everything involving horses

Like if you had said these originally, I wouldn't have even argued with you. I never personally experienced those bugs, probably because I don't play games like I'm a QA tester, but I know many people did.

Not really - plenty of other games use Havok physics and don’t suffer from the same issues, or at least not to the same degree. Perhaps there’s a reason other developers using the Havok physics engine don’t make games with huge quantities of dynamic objects loaded at once.

I've definitely fallen through the world in several of the games listed there. But anyway, specifically, I said persistent physics objects. You can drop a cabbage in Whiterun, walk to Solitude and back, and the cabbage is right where you left it. In, say, GTA, you get out of your car and look away for 5 seconds, turn around, and it's gone. Most games work more like GTA, where a limited number of objects even have full physics simulation, and those that do are only in memory if you've looked at them in the last x seconds. Otherwise, they unload and are lost forever.

Now, whether it's even worth having so much physics-enabled clutter is another question. It certainly contributes to immersion, but is it more trouble than it's worth?