9
$\begingroup$

As someone interested in physics and creating theories for games, I tend to develop realistic physical models that might explain them out of curiosity. However, I do not know if it fits the Physics Stack Exchange website sharing them for others to check it, that is, for others to verify if the line of reasoning is correct (and also for recreational reasons as a secondary purpose).

One example is a model I created for the famous game Agar.io to describe the radius of the sphere (player) as a function of time, considering conservation of momentum, energy gains and losses, etc.

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

11
$\begingroup$

Whether the origin of your question is "recreational" or "professional" doesn't really matter to us - what matters is that it is an on-topic question about physics.

Unfortunately, if you're just asking us to check your models for correctness, these questions will likely run afoul of our policy on check-my-work questions. If you have more specific questions about your models, they would likely be on-topic.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ By far the highest upvoted answer there John Rennie's at +76 does not advocate an ironclad policy. Your answer at +28 does, and one user chose to accept it, but it clearly does not speak for everyone. A single SE answer coming in at a weak 2nd place does not by itself a site policy make. That said, your second paragraph does offer helpful and actionable guidance. $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 29 at 2:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @uhoh John isn't going against site policy there though. He is just warning of closing when the question/answer is actually conceptual. It happens a lot; a post that contains an exercise is closed even though the OP is asking about a concept from the given exercise. But if John's post was against policy, up votes don't determine new policy on their own anyway $\endgroup$ May 29 at 11:09
  • $\begingroup$ @BioPhysicist I think that I'm questioning where and how the "site policy" is articulated. I'm seeing two answers to the question with +28 and +76 votes. Is there some other place where the "site policy" is announced as such, perhaps preceding these answers? Or is it pretty much these two answers what is begin called "site policy"? $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 29 at 12:08
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @uhoh Site policy is articulated on meta, in particular in questions tagged faq. The accepted answers to faq posts are the closest we have to formalized policies. We've linked to that meta post as policy in our closing notice for homework-and-exercise questions for years now. Also, at the time when DavidZ accepted the answer, he was a moderator (and I was not). In short: Yes, it is pretty much my and John's answers there that are what we call "policy". $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind Mod
    May 29 at 14:33
  • $\begingroup$ @ACuriousMind okay so the answer to "(is) it pretty much these two answers what is begin called 'site policy'?" is yes, and it's sort-of a tradition and exists in group consciousness as well. Has the site for years honored John Rennie's +76 "but I would urge site members to consider whether the mistake is conceptual rather than arithmetical" or just insta-closed anything that asked for help with a mistake as "homework" without honoring the well-received "If it's a conceptual mistake I think there is some justification for answering the question"? $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 29 at 21:08
  • $\begingroup$ @ACuriousMind in other words, the two answers really do not agree with each other in significant ways, and the 3:1 winner in terms of votes asks to allow conceptual mistake questions to stay open. Is leaving those open part of "site policy"? And in my opinion former moderator DavidZ's approach was perhaps a bit overly aggressive about closing and deleting and lacked sufficient nuance to understand what was good for the site. $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 29 at 21:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @uhoh I don't know how to answer your question whether "the site" has honored John's request for leniency: I'm sure some close voters do so very much, while others perhaps not. There is little about the end result of closure/no closure that would tell us whether the close voter actively considered that or not. $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind Mod
    May 29 at 21:29
  • $\begingroup$ @ACuriousMind In my opinion (can't prove it) one of the many problems for an SE site with so many Q/day i.stack.imgur.com/quOdx.png (highest for non-computer) is a loss of cohesion, subtlety, group collective memory and a real community; it can become more like 24/7 triage. In my opinion Physics SE is too big and too much good stuff falls through the cracks as an inevitable result of the high Q rate. $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 29 at 22:12
1
$\begingroup$

That's applied mathematics, not physics.

You are making models of how games work, but that is not what physics is about. Physics attempts to model the real world. So I would say that what you are doing is not physics. Games sometimes have what they call a "physics engine", but this is simply an internal model for the game's own rules.

Even if you were modeling real world objects you'd also be breaking (IMO) the "personal theories" and "check my work" policies which are both off-topic anyway.

What you are doing is probably best described as applied mathematics rather than physics.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think the OP ever claimed that they are "doing physics". I agree that a question asking to check a model is off topic, but I agree with ACM that if the OP had "more specific questions about your models, they would likely be on-topic." If the OP still has questions about actual physical models, then why discourage posting on PSE? This answer seems like unnecessary gatekeeping to me. $\endgroup$ May 26 at 11:53
  • $\begingroup$ Games internal rules do not relate to physical models and that's my issue. I did not suggest they could not ask about real physical problems. What I don't accept is that game behaviors are relevant to this site. They would be a needless distraction fro physics as we would be asked a lot of questions about the mahcnaics of space games and fps games and so on. Note there is Arqade where these things might be more appropriate to discuss but I've no idea if what the OP wants to do would be on-topic there. $\endgroup$ May 26 at 11:58
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I think we're reading different things into the idea of a "physical model for games". I took this to mean that OP is trying to model specific physical situations accurately - with the ultimate goal of implementing such a model as part of a game - and that the question would be about the model, not the implementation. However, you seem to think that the question would involve details of the implementation (and I agree such questions would be off-topic). (Also, questions about game development should go to Game Development, not Arqade - Arqade is about playing games, not developing them) $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind Mod
    May 27 at 11:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .