(In reality, under compression a long beam is prone to buckling, and under tension a beam can break under it's own weight if it's absurdly long, in Poly Bridge the beams are short enough to make these mostly non-factors). This closely approximates reality at least for beams of moderate length. Beam strength is independent of length.It would make steel arch bridges less extremely featherweight though. How different would the game be if the weights model matched reality? It is hard to say, because most of the weight which breaks a bridge is the roads and vehicles. In Poly Bridge, the more densely inter-linked a bridge is, the stronger it is. This does not apply to Poly Bridge, where you can add more beams without adding any weight at all. One of the challenges of the classic BridgeBuilder game, was that it was hard to make a bridge stronger by adding more metal, adding more iron made the bridge heavier. Curiously, the cost model is completely opposite, you don't pay anything for nodes, and pay by the inch for beams. We could call this a "heavyweight bolts and areogel beams" model, where the only heavy component is the "bolts" which join two beams. It's a simple and reasonably effective model. This also makes suspension cable heavy if you don't use the nodes.Įssentially the fundamental design of the physics engine, is that each node has a weight of "1" (lets call it "1"), the nodes are joined with "springs" of various strength, these "springs" don't have any weight. What I mean, is if you add a new beam between two existing nodes, it wont add any weight at all, only creating a new node will add weight to the bridge. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |