問題描述
2D 平台遊戲：為什麼讓物理依賴於幀率？ (2D platformers: why make the physics dependent on the framerate?)
"Super Meat Boy" is a difficult platformer that recently came out for PC, requiring exceptional control and pixel‑perfect jumping. The physics code in the game is dependent on the framerate, which is locked to 60fps; this means that if your computer can't run the game at full speed, the physics will go insane, causing (among other things) your character to run slower and fall through the ground. Furthermore, if vsync is off, the game runs extremely fast.
Could those experienced with 2D game programming help explain why the game was coded this way? Wouldn't a physics loop running at a constant rate be a better solution? (Actually, I think a physics loop is used for parts of the game, since some of the entities continue to move normally regardless of the framerate. Your character, on the other hand, runs exactly [fps/60] as fast.)
What bothers me about this implementation is the loss of abstraction between the game engine and the graphics rendering, which depends on system‑specific things like the monitor, graphics card, and CPU. If, for whatever reason, your computer can't handle vsync, or can't run the game at exactly 60fps, it'll break spectacularly. Why should the rendering step in any way influence the physics calculations? (Most games nowadays would either slow down the game or skip frames.) On the other hand, I understand that old‑school platformers on the NES and SNES depended on a fixed framerate for much of their control and physics. Why is this, and would it be possible to create a patformer in that vein without having the framerate dependency? Is there necessarily a loss of precision if you separate the graphics rendering from the rest of the engine?
Thank you, and sorry if the question was confusing.
‑‑‑‑‑
參考解法
方法 1:
There are no reasons why physics should depend on the framerate and this is clearly a bad design.
I've once tried to understand why people do this. I did a code review for a game written by another team in the company, and I didn't see it from the beginning but they used a lot of hardcoded value of 17 in their code. When I ran the game on debug mode with the FPS shown, I saw it, FPS was exactly 17! I look over the code again and now it's clear: the programmers assumed that the game will always have a 17 FPS constant frame rate. If the FPS was greater than 17, they did a sleep to make the FPS be exactly 17. Of course, they did nothing if the FPS was smaller than 17 the game just went crazy (like when played at 2 FPS and driving a car in the game, the game system alerted me: "Too Fast! Too Fast!").
So I write an email asking why they hardcoded this value and use it their physics engine and they replied that this way they keep the engine simpler. And i replied again, Ok, but if we run the game on a device that is incapable of 17 FPS, your game engine runs very funny but not as expected. And they said that will fix the issue until the next code review.
After 3 or 4 weeks I get a new version of the source code so I was really curious to find out what they did with the FPS constant so first thing i do is search through code after 17 and there are only a couple matches, but one of them was not something i wanted to see:
final static int FPS = 17;
So they removed all the hardcoded 17 value from all the code and used the FPS constant instead. And their motivation: now if I need to put the game on a device that can only do 10 FPS, all i need to do is to set that FPS constant to 10 and the game will work smooth.
In conclusion, sorry for writing such a long message, but I wanted to emphasize that the only reason why anyone will do such a thing is the bad design.
方法 2:
Here's a good explanation on why your timestep should be kept constant: http://gafferongames.com/game‑physics/fix‑your‑timestep/
Additionally, depending on the physics engine, the system may get unstable when the timestep changes. This is because some of the data that is cached between frames is timestep‑dependant. For example, the starting guess for an iterative solver (which is how constraints are solved) may be far off from the answer. I know this is true for Havok (the physics engine used by many commericial games), but I'm not sure which engine SMB uses.
There was also an article in Game Developer Magazine a few months ago, illustrating how a jump with the same initial velocity but different timesteps was achieved different max heights with different frame rates. There was a supporting anecdote from a game (Tony Hawk?) where a certain jump could be made when running on the NTSC version of the game but not the PAL version (since the framerates are different). Sorry I can't find the issue at the moment, but I can try to dig it up later if you want.
方法 3:
They probably needed to get the game done quickly enough and decided that they would cover sufficient user base with the current implementation.
Now, it's not really that hard to retrofit independence, if you think about it during development, but I suppose they could go down some steep holes.
I think it's unnecessary, and I've seen it before (some early 3d‑hw game used the same thing, where the game went faster if you looked at the sky, and slower if you looked at the ground).
It just sucks. Bug the developers about it and hope that they patch it, if they can.
(by Archagon、Andrei Pana、celion、Macke)