[epimenide]

Ivy Matt wrote: So this is going to be an iPhone/iPad game?

Not necessarily: I’m available for that kind of coding, plus this initial phase that’s independent from the actual platform, but if a Flash developer gets on board, things can go on in parallel.

Well, I know people who have iPhones, and at least one person who has an iPad.

Yes, there are a few millions of them around (including iPod Touch)… 🙂
What’s best for our purpose is also that the typical iPhone user likes to experiment and explore, and show others what he’s able to achieve!

If you go the cocos2d route, the new Particle Designer looks like it may come in handy.

I’ve already played (and extended for my own purposes) that part: it’s very nice, however I wouldn’t use it for more than visual effects… What I expect from the output power formula is an approximate and empirical result, calculated in discrete steps with not much computing power: after all, we have no supercomputer at hand to do the real work, and we don’t want the player to wait forever!

What’s the next step? Settling on the 4-5 technologies?

Yes, of course, and possibly ideas for the components and factors for each of them. No need to think about levels right now, let’s get to the point where we have a running reactor of each type to test the game.

That would probably be another good topic for a poll, once the current poll has run its course.

I’m not sure about the poll… While the name is definitely something that has to appeal to as many players as possible, and therefore a poll is useful, the technologies need a bit more thought: there must be enough public knowledge available in order to build the pseudo-simulation, be intuitive enough for the player to understand them with no physics degree, and so on.

Yes, I can run the poll, but I wouldn’t rely too much on it for the final choice…

[epimenide]

vansig wrote: the poll-taking script on http://www.paolomanna.com/ appears to be broken (on both chrome 5.0 browser, and IE 6.0).

Sorry for the inconvenience, I haven’t much experience with WordPress, still learning…

I’ve corrected the theme script to play nicely with the poll plugin, it should work now! :red:

[epimenide]

As promised, I’ve posted two new documents:
First, a draft analysis over the several issues that the project has to face, with some thoughts.

Second, a related Excel sheet that, in theory, should help in configuring the simulation: the data contained there is described in the first document, there are no formulas yet, it was just a convenient way to build up the form.

Last but not least, I’ve activated the poll on my site (you’ll find it in the sidebar): I’ve also posted an entry in the blog about it.

Waiting for comments and suggestions!

[epimenide]

Ivy Matt wrote: Heh, I didn’t intend for my name suggestion to be taken all that seriously, but if other people like it…

Eye-catching, remember? 😉

Another idea I had for a name was “Plasmania”. … The company that developed the game is long gone, so I think there wouldn’t be any trademark conflicts.

Apparently, there aren’t, at least TESS says so.

I’ll throw out a third idea: “Energy Quest”.

Noted.

And, not to speak for other members, but Breakable was referring to this idea, informally at least, as “Fusion Wars” on the first page.

Yes, however that was referred more to a FarmVille-like game than the pseudo-simulation we’re talking now… No problem in including that too, but it wouldn’t be my choice.

This is the “Social Marketing” forum.

That takes me to another consideration: the discussion is already getting too complex for a single thread, maybe we should ask for a special argument in the forum?

Keep the interface separate from the functionality is the programming philosophy I’ve learned.

Absolutely: and I’d add, keep the data separated from the other two…

Incidentally, does anyone know what sorts of programming and graphic design tools are used to design Facebook games?

For programming, Flash is the usual choice: it’s an Adobe technology, so their graphics tools are likely to be used too. MS Silverlight could be an alternative, but doesn’t have the same support and ubiquity.

As for myself and the iThings, my choice would be cocos2d, as it’s free, well maintained and with a great community. Another possibility is Gamesalad, simpler on the programming side, but probably not enough customizable for our needs.

If 3D is a requirement, Unity3D is a good choice: however, it requires a paid license, and it would be an overkill for our needs…

Anyway, what I’ll do now is noting down all the next steps, including the ones that we haven’t touched yet but IMHO will come up soon, so we’ll have another draft to look at shortly…

[epimenide]

Aeronaut wrote: But I wouldn’t necessarily begin with polished graphics. Too easy to have a change in art direction in mid-development. The point in my mind is to proceed using what we have in hand right now, which is good enough graphics to test game design and play.

Of course: pages 1 & 3 of my sketch are easily constructed with approximate graphics, the bulk of it will be in page 2…

On a side note, you should consider that many casual games (i.e. mobile or FB/web) nowadays are born in ad agencies, as part of ad campaigns or specifically directed by the customer to promote the brand: things change when there’s an actual company behind, of course, that wants to sell the game and can afford the funding, but that’s not our case right now.
With such a workflow, all the graphics is defined well before any line of code is written, because it has to be approved in mock-ups, and the developer is called late in the process, so the “change in art direction” just doesn’t happen as often! Subsequently, many of the possible tools (see my next post) require the actual graphics to be there, or suffer later to reorganize all…

The best bet would probably be to proceed in parallel, if at all possible…

[epimenide]

Aeronaut wrote: Professional graphics can come later, and perhaps should. I can rough out moderately detailed flow chart style graphics in CS2.

Later, could be, but assume that good graphics is a given if you want to catch any attention… Unless it’s a deliberate choice (an example is the “stick wars” genre), nice and detailed graphics and animation will be the first impact, and most of the time will determine if the user is captured enough to come back and explore further.
I’m also able to do some drafts, but would never pretend to publish a game on that basis…

Perhaps the “piece of the action” would be a credit/ live, followed link to the contributors’ sites on the splash page?

Possible, yes, but not easy to find… Wouldn’t be possible to check with the illustrator(s) that already have material over the site (Torulf)? At least, it wouldn’t be a big issue to explain him/them what we’re talking about…

Another catchy name could be Power Play so it could grab attention as a robber baron game built over power plant assets.

That brings the total to 4: I’ll wait for another, or perhaps think out one myself, and then launch the poll…

[epimenide]

Ivy Matt wrote: The parts that interest me most are the input parameters and the bill of materials.

Agreed for all you write in that paragraph.

Ivy Matt wrote: The only exception I would leave to this rule is the tokamak, just because it seems widely assumed to be the future of fusion energy, and pretty much every alternative approach to fusion compares itself against it.

Again, I agree: tokamak is also the only one that’s likely to be heard about by the public, and I expect most people will try that before anything else, and would probably ditch the game altogether if it wasn’t there…

Ivy Matt wrote: It would probably be easier just to make a basic mathematical model of each device that avoids dealing directly with plasma dynamics.

Yes, that’s probably the way to start: as I’ve stated multiple times, if general public is the target, and awareness the reward we look after, entertainment should have priority over realism (I know, pushing this here sounds heretic!)
After all, no one expects real world spaceships (whenever they’ll come) will look and work even remotely like the ones we enjoy in our videogames…
Basic math will probably be unsatisfactory for scientists, but I’m sure even they would enjoy showing something “almost real” like that to kids to experiment with the concepts (I know I would!)

Ivy Matt wrote: Oh, and, since I’m going on as if some unspecified person (or perhaps epimenide) is going to be doing all the work

Well, not all of it, but I’m certainly available as a programmer for the platforms I work on for a living (namely iPhone / iPod and obviously iPad for the future)

An unfilled requirement is still the graphics: does anyone know a good illustrator that would work for the beauty of it (or perhaps a share, if we decide to go for anything that can generate revenue of a sort)?

[epimenide]

Pocket Plasma

Nuclear Meltdown

OK, we have three now! I’m thinking to set up a poll on my site, let’s get one or two more and I’ll run it for a couple of weeks right after…

[epimenide]

Aeronaut wrote:

… and a eye-catching name, of course!

Glad you asked. This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius
Good candidate! 🙂 Any other takers?

[epimenide]

epimenide wrote: On more practical issues, we still need:
– A good designer / illustrator, would be perfect if with game experience
– A skilled physicist to work out the math behind the simulations (not a problem on this forum, I suppose?)

… and a eye-catching name, of course!

[epimenide]

Aeronaut wrote: How would player(s) fund their first reactor(s)?

I wouldn’t worry for the first release (that I’d try to keep as simple as possible, awareness is the target): if the actual score is a ratio between output power and costs, spending billions in the BOM list will probably get you higher in absolute wattage, but far lower in the leaderboard!
For the future (release 2?), we could add cost management, starting with bank loans and competing price per kW (taken from the other players in the leaderboard? That would be “social gaming” at its best, and add that “risk factor”), that assumes you’ll have to repay in a given time or bust, and resource management, that brings back to the “wilt” factor mentioned before: fuel gets burned in all cases, but, while pB is cheap and ready in no time, fission fuel would need difficult mining, enrichment, waste processing, thus is far more expensive and time consuming to get (leading to the need for careful planning to keep the plant running), and D-T would get in between the two.

Aeronaut wrote: I’m also thinking that we should weave Next Generation Fission into the options, since in some aspects their operations resemble tokamak operations.

Absolutely: I wouldn’t go to the full “hundreds of devices”, but focus on the few (4? 5? We definitely want DPF there, of course) that are actually being developed with some chances to get somewhere…

On more practical issues, we still need:
– A good designer / illustrator, would be perfect if with game experience
– A skilled physicist to work out the math behind the simulations (not a problem on this forum, I suppose?)

[epimenide]

Hi All,
I’ve finally found enough time to draft something down, based on the simulation hypothesis that came out a few days ago.

You can find my basic ideas in this PDF sketch: it’s just a general overview and it definitely needs some work, but could be something we can start on building, assuming the simulation approach is worth pursuing. The risk, as it happens far too often, is to talk a lot and get nothing done: feel free to add / remove / modify any of the concepts in there, the faster we get to a defined outline, the better it is…

[epimenide]

Aeronaut wrote: The math and graphics can come after a flow chart details their requirements in better detail.

Well, what I can try to do then is drafting out some simple schema & chart, so we can start thinking over a common base: it’ll take a few days, as I have a day-to-day work to do, but of course if someone else has ideas related to this approach, they’re more than welcome!

[epimenide]

Breakable wrote: Matt’s example seems to be pretty good.

I agree: this is the sort of simulation I was talking about. Issue is, can someone work out the variables and the math involved?

Aeronaut wrote: Only 3 variables. Maybe an “Experts” tab with as many as 10 variables if so desired…

I see this as secondary, it can even be left out for the first version (KISS, you know?): what we want (always IMHO, of course) is making something easy to understand for people that don’t even know what fusion is…

If this could be done at all (I don’t worry about programming it, obviously, more about the math), what I envision for something like that could be:

Overview
Present the different types of proposed fusion device (Tokamak, Polywell, DPF, …): maybe it’s even worth to throw a classical fission device in, to outline the differences. The purpose is getting as much efficiency and lower cost per watt, given the different fuels and taking in account the initial cost for the plant and processing of the waste.

Detail Level
I’d keep it very simple, maybe sample plants with all the necessary gear that can be customized in a limited and controlled way: of course, better points for good shielding (when needed), lower for unnecessary waste, and so on.
I think this would show very well the advantages of DPF over the other devices, especially when geared for aneutronic: it would be stupid not to notice the elegance of the principle and lack of complex ancillary systems that would make the solution cheap and secure at the same time…

Education
Each simulation should be completed by a brief description and history (animation, maybe?), with links to relevant sites: this would generate interest and traffic, and of course awareness in turn. In my experience, I’d also make possible to have an online scoring system.

Graphics
Yes, it could be started simple, but I wouldn’t make it too simple! People is used to get astounding graphics for games, even on mobiles, something that doesn’t catch the eye, as well as the mind, is unlikely to get much attention…
This, together with the math, is my main concern (as I have horrible graphic skills myself): could some good illustrator be involved? On the site we’ve nice animations, could something similar be planned for the game?

Entertainment
That’s difficult to define, and I’d appreciate any contribution in this direction. Maybe we don’t want to build up a community, as we’re not living out of it, a casual game has less stringent criteria but should still be intriguing enough to last more than a few seconds on the user device… Looking at users’ reviews is a telltale sign!

[epimenide]

Phil’s Dad wrote: though I hope you do not fulfill the Cretan criteria yourself.

Well, that’s my usual disclaimer… 😉

Henning wrote: Maybe something like “Civilization” can be used too. It simulates an civilization from 4000 BC until 2100 AD. Fusion Energy is part of the achievable technology advances you can develop whilst playing.

There is an open source implementation called FreeCiv.

That’s a possibility, and it shouldn’t be too hard either: here you can find some info, and as it is community driven it’s no problem to add a new mod, having the skills… In the standard game, though, fusion comes at the end, after 6000 years, don’t know if and how the timeline could be redesigned as much… There is also a FB-available app for it (I don’t find it exceptionally involving, though), I’d be curious on how many players it has…

What I had in mind, OTOH, is more on the line of this, but energy-driven instead of farm-driven.

[Author]

Posts