My dad and my physics teacher have (independently) advised me, as a CS major, to minor or double-major, in physics.
Do you think this will really help me get ahead? I want to end up doing something with computer/video games, not writing scientific software, so I think basic general college physics (required for CS major already) is enough.
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-12 4:26
An interesting tale I have to tell:
I used to work in a research division of a large networking company. Well, it was not just research, we were also working on a product that won several major industry awards.
The interesting thing was that only one of the programmers there was a CS major. Every single other guy was a physicist (there two EE's as well).
What does that mean? I don't know. That's just the way it was...
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-12 5:32
EE majors are nutcases... double physics and EE major is just trying to kill yourself
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-12 6:42
EE and physics do share one significant thing in common: they're heavy on the math. Most CS majors know little beyond 1st year calculus and 2nd year discrete math.
Point a: if you're going into gaming, you'll need all the math you can get. Game engines continue to require an increased understanding of mathematics, whether it be for pushing polygons, developing AI, physics, audio, etc.
Point b: only people who hate life work in the game industry. There are only a few lucky ones, and you won't be one of them (the fact you ask such a question is proof enough of that).
Name:
DarkPenguin2005-03-26 23:16
The game industry is VERY unstable and VERY untrustworthy. One week your working on a game for Sony, after it's done you're fired and working on a game at EA being over worked and under paid. If you want to make games you have to know how to do it really REALLY well and get a really early start.
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-28 12:18
let's discuss the uselessness of a cs degree
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-28 12:22
what do cs majors study anyway
because if it is just a new language, then it seems pretty useless because anyone can learn a new language in a week or two
to me it seems like the cs field is too young to be of any use (but what do i know)
Anyway, I tried for a CS minor but I couldn't take the utter boringness of the first-year class.
All it was was learning C++ and making linked lists of employee structs with them. Apparently ODU has a shitty CS department.
Name:
Christy McJesus!DcbLlAZi7U2005-03-30 3:42
>> Apparently ODU has a shitty CS department.
So shitty they apparently think C++ is both Lisp and a good first language. It is of course neither.
My first year was mostly high school maths and a Java module. I learned the language by reading the course text book in a week and didn't bother turning up to lectures for the rest of the year. Good times.
Name:
Anonymous2005-04-01 13:26
If you're going to study physics, you might as well study electrical engineering. They go hand in hand, especially graduate work. At my school we have a joint major called Computer Engineering, its a combination of CS and EE. Go for that if you dare :)
Name:
7600!u4gC.dTYAE2005-04-08 1:41
>>10
When I was first learning Something Other Than BASIC in the early 1990s, my HS was still teaching *Pascal*. (They did have a decent program, though; we learned linked lists and such first thing. And I loved the APCS test problems, especially the ones where you have to work with what was basically a file system API.) VA Tech was teaching C++ back in 1995 or so as well...C pointers and references confused the hell out of me in that class! I eventually ended up learning C from the FreeBSD sources, and from just playing with it on my own.
As for maths, I onl;y got as far as pre-calc on paper, but I'd been dabbling in calc and other high on my own since grade school (rly!), and I'd been programming in some form (started off with Applesoft BASIC and, briefly, Atari Logo) since I was 7, so I was perfectly okay with it.
I think the computer gaming industry is just like the entertainment industry (Hollywood). As every other poster says, its very unstable because it follows the trends.
Name:
abez!XWEgiX8ArQ2005-06-20 22:00
Your undergraduate degree is what you make of it. It really doesn't matter what you do as long as you do something which interests you. Don't waste your time and everyone elses time becoming something mediocre just for the money because there is not a lot to be made.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-21 3:28
>>1
WhyTF is everybody thinking Physics is like CS? I wouldn't waste my time, there's little in common. Even if you're up for a gaming engine, you'd be better off learning what you need by yourself (because, if you're doing IT, you should be able to learn stuff by yourself already ^_^).
>>6-7 are right, I recommend you to just hack your way through uni, get something you can get started on, then work on something you like and learnt for yourself - because you will have to, don't count on going to "xxx classes" to learn "xxx" which you will use in real life.
I find picking up Physics in my spare time fairly easy, since more complex theorys is in the "I agree with what you say since I can't disprove it" ballot box. The math is second grade best to pure algebra and calculus.
I would stick with some math.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-22 5:20 ID:gVRBukP7
>>29
Vector calculus, differential equations, and linear algebra are the basic fields you should be competent in to study physics beyond freshman lecture stuff. Some fields are also heavy in statistics.
Also, real physical theories are falsifiable by experiment... it sounds like what you are studying is not Physics.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-22 6:29 ID:h4rx/9OQ
Once you become a big enough geek, learning anything geeky (science, math, computers) is doable by yourself whenever you need it. Taking some advanced math courses is probably the best way to develop an analytic mind, and it is going to serve you much more than anything you actually learn in school.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-22 11:23 ID:leVSGJrb
Taking some advanced math courses is probably the best way to develop an analytic mind, and it is going to serve you much more than anything you actually learn in school.
Truth.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-22 12:25 ID:qlv1Brqp
Do you Americans say "Physic" instead of "Physics"?
Then why do you say "Math" instead of "Maths"?
That really wouldn't help you much unless you're planning on getting into a field where you put maths to good use, like research and development in physics or even physics that requires you to create simulations.
Physics make heavy use of mathmatical concepts and methods, but studying math forms the basis. Physical applications is a subset of all mathmatical applications since they are restricted to real world situations and experiments. Then the rest is all theory.
I'm not taking Physics, only Calculus and Linear Math.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-23 14:59 ID:od//gVF1
Study Lambda Calculus then write your own Lisp to work with it!
Theory is not required for programming, that's what I meant. Because abstract concepts does not apply to the real world.
OP said he would like something to do with computer games, so he doesn't need to know advanced Physics theory as most doesn't apply to real-world situations because of over complex variables, he just need the basics and advanced math.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-24 2:31 ID:2uqYqMTn
>>43
Oh. Yeah, knowing the difference between a boson and a fermion is not going to be all that useful to a game programmer. I agree.
However, many common devices and natural phenomena are fundamentally based in quantum mechanics, esp. anything involving optics or semiconductors. Read Feynman's QED, he talks about this stuff in detail without hardly employing any math at all. Very awesome book.
Basically I don't understand how you can say advanced physics does not apply to the real world, because that is against the very definition of physics! TaoZenElegantWuLiUniverse "physics" notwithstanding.
Any attempt to model real life situations with Physics results in over complicated methods and formulas which no average students would hope to understand because of mere factors.
Advanced Physical theorem is explained in an "assumed" state where multiple influenced is eliminated.
Example? We would never see the blue shift with normal objects since they cannot travel near the speed of light, even though relativity applies to them, we cannot notice a change.
What I mean by Physics do not apply to the real world is because it is merely an explaination of the natural universe according to our point of view.
where multiple influenced is eliminated. What I mean by Physics do not apply to the real world is because it is merely an explaination of the natural universe according to our point of view.
please to learn the english language.
normal objects ... cannot travel near the speed of light
wrong.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-24 10:48 ID:2uqYqMTn
>>45
Those "over complicated methods" exist because they work. Transistors, lasers, MRI, solar panels, electron microscopes etc... try designing any of those without knowledge of modern physics!
Feynman has a few examples of "everyday" phenomenon in the book I mention. The one that I remember most is the diffraction grating. It cannot be explained without quantum mechanics, and microscopic diffraction-grating-like structures are responsible for the reflective properties of many everyday objects. Loads of stuff about glass and lenses, too.
Relativity is not as obviously useful as other things - it is an important correction to Newtonian mechanics that is essential for getting the right numbers in some cases. Although pime taradoxes are fun too.
You worry about real life situations being too complex to model mathematically because of many interactions happening simultaneously. In that case I recommend you study thermodynamics, where you learn to build up sophisticated statistical models from basic Newtonian mechanics. If you are instead complaining that physicists tend to disregard realistic factors sometimes to narrow the discussion... well, if they didn't do that nothing could get figured out! Fields of engineering are spawned out of advancements in physics, and in those fields people can concern themselves with how to make the models most practically useful. Physicists are mostly only concerned that they are correct.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-24 12:30 ID:AnkFewkX
>>1
It'll probably be a waste of time. You've wasted enough time already at uni: unless you went to a really good one, like MIT, chances are that what they told you was not spectacular, not deep, not bleeding edge, and not even SICP. As a CS graduate, I advise you to study what you need for yourself. I recommend:
1. Read SICP. Then deal with languages, grammar and automata. Play with the stuff.
2. Be sure you have the right tools for the right job. This means C (standard base, low-level stuff, lots of open sauce), either Python, Ruby, Lisp or Haskell (for actual work, to get things done), and some shell or Perl scripting (for everyday stuff).
3. Lunix. Hack your way with it, it's worth knowing your OS.
4. Porn. Lots. You'll need this.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-24 19:55 ID:2uqYqMTn
>>48
Standard American computer science curriculum is fucking depressing. You have some good advice, but the average student will reject it because all they want to do is learn PHP/Java/C# to get a dead-end job writing crappy web code. (or gamez lol) They can't entertain abstract concepts and view their professors as spacey incompetents who simply couldn't hack it in The Industry. So their professors simply don't give a fuck about them.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-25 5:43 ID:5Y8v7YKp
>>48
That was my way to say I've read SICP, though.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-25 5:53 ID:Q9GrRFe8
Implementing physics in programs is fuck easy. Let me illustrate:
Each object has an x, y, and z coordinate. Per frame it exists in a particular x,y,z coordinate. To model forces acting on that object, we need two attributes for each coordinate: current velocity (v), and change in velocity per frame aka acceleration (a).
For each frame, using x as an example, do this:
x.v = x.v + x.a
x = x + x.v
When forces act on an object, you have to modify a and v accordingly. Velocites are reduced by division, and directions are reversed by a sign change. So, say object A and B collide, you can model that like this:
A.[coordinate].v = - (A.[coordinate].v / 1.5)
and same for B
You might want to divide by a factor dependent on the objects weight or mass, so you could define that as well, a w or whatever.
Gravity is easy too. Just do something like this per frame
[object].y.v = [object].y.v + .05
for .05 substitue a weight factored value or other value that works depending on the types of objects
I missed a word and mis-spelt one, whoopy fuckin do.
>>47
Whilst I agree with everything that you say, my main point is that advanced Physics isn't in play at the moment due to limitation of processing power. But maybe soon, these concepts can be implemented. Classic Physics is "realistic" enough to be used in current games without a performance hit.
I'm directing the argument towards basis of whether these concepts are useful for games.
>>51
Another OpenGL noob... go back and read your tutorials.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-25 11:26 ID:G9ZMuSVa
>>53
It ain't got shit to do with how the shit is rendered. I'm just talking about object interaction, shitface.
I missed a word and mis-spelt one, whoopy fuckin do.
i'm wondering what word it is that you missed that could fix What I mean by Physics do not apply to the real world is because it is merely an explaination of the natural universe according to our point of view.
that sentence made my brain have to switch to quirks mode in the middle of parsing your post. you wasted about 30 milliseconds of my life. that is unforgivable.
you also claimed that normal objects cannot travel near the speed of light.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-26 1:22 ID:l9D/pwpD
I currently doing a physics/comp sci double major in college and have found so far that recruiters of all sorts are very impressed when you tell them what you're studying.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-26 2:07 ID:KuEnsUVz
If you want to get a head, surely biology would be more suitable. unless you want like a robot head.
sure, if you want to do physics programming for games. but if not, no sense in specializing in it.
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-01 0:14
A post got deleted on /prog/ ? I don't habeeb it
What could it have possibly been?
Name:
mario developer2008-11-01 11:14
u need a physics degree and a maths degree in order to program mario brothers. yes, mario brothers is _that_ complicated. very advanced physics engine.. i mean think when marrio hits his head on a block ... thta takes a lot of processing power, most likely prrocessing power harnessed by using haskell.
so, to sum it all up, learn haskell and opengl in haskell and _remember_, the goal of gfx is to minimize the # of triangles that u draw to the screen. if youre drawin 5000 triangles, then thats not good.... you need to draw less.. thats why 2d games are so fast, but 3d games are slow...
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-01 13:38
listen to >>70, drawing 3d graphics is basically a minimization problem of triangles. haskell really helps here because it can perform the computations in paralel automatically
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-01 16:24
but what if I want to use squares instead.
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-01 17:05
>>70 i mean think when marrio hits his head on a block ... thta takes a lot of processing power, most likely prrocessing power harnessed by using haskell.
Make games in your free time if you must. Become a proper software engineer, that knows how to write good software and not just games.
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-30 16:44
2005 I want to end up doing something with computer/video games instead of physics
lel, i did exactly the same mistake that year. now i am in this kind of situation: >>1356466641/59
I think basic general college physics (required for CS major already) is enough.
that's obviously true. because physics of ``realistic'' games will never expand beyond fields of theoretical mechanics (which was formalized like three hundred years ago) and classical optics (rarely).