Which is harder? To program a rocket or a AAA game?

Which is harder? To program a rocket or a AAA game?

Attached: 7A66A69C-C073-4ECD-A811-4361A46BB038.jpg (270x365, 12K)

Other urls found in this thread:

jaxenter.com/power-ten-nasas-coding-commandments-114124.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Benis :DDDDD

JP morgan trading bots

kek
fpbp

Programming ain't difficult but propper QA is.

A game is more complex, but a rocket is much more difficult to test - sure, you can test a simulation, but you may not even fuck up once on the real thing. No patches. No debugging. If it explodes, you're done.

rocket takes more experience, AAA game takes more code monkeys.

rockets.
by a large margin.
and that's ignoring the volumes of coding standards in place for producing control software.

Rockets
much much more at stake, a decimal error will not be "oh no my game crashed" but
"oh fuck my mars rover that took billions to develop over the past 10 years just impacted at 3000m/s"

a rocket is on or off, thats easy

crysis was a picaso

whats the maximum damage a game can do ?

it only took 4 or 5 game studios to totally destroy a nation

>he actually believes this.
No faggot. They use private electrical network to convey information before the rest of the market (ie plebs) and thus, make cents off every dollar made by """""""investors""""""

you're a retard, look into high trading frequency and fbi protected electrical tunnels and kys.

Attached: reading files name.jpg (700x787, 62K)

Install GNU Rocket System.

you're wrong idiot, stop talking out of your ass

a game is not more complex, its just more dense...

Hmm. I know a fair bit about flight software on satellites and instrument payloads, I suspect it's similar with 'rockets'.

What do you consider harder? I'd say a game is harder. Game engines are written by hacks, employing crazy-ass tricks to make things work, to make things fast. Same goes for game code, it's made to give an illusion of something. Bugtesting? You're writing a piece of software whose users (the players) can be hell-bent on breaking, exploiting, trying out weird things for the sake of fun. Your game has to cover all those.

Now switch to rockets. There are shitloads of procedures to follow - but they're all documented. If you want to write a function that does a specific thing, here's the handbook and checklist. They are written for OSs that have native error catches. Mandatory unit-tests for every fucking bit of code. There are flight rules, well-defined inputs and interfaces, proper simulators that let you test your software.

It's probably less 'opaque', but it's not harder per se. You obviously need more education to get started, though.

Making a game is not rocket science

The difference being that patching a rocket after it has launched is generally frowned upon.
>inb4 yeah but space probes have been patched in-flight muh lisp hurr durr

A modern AAA game engine is far, far more complex. Rocket software isn't nearly as complex but the testing process and code review is extremely rigorous and time consuming.

Space travel is just basic mathematics. Even female nogs can do that. Games require an army of CIS white males.

>Almost every post argues in favor of the rocket because of the higher risk although OP's question has nothing to do with risk.

Fuck you niggers!

As an engineer who works with flight software, exactly this.

It actually gets to be kinda mundane. you can't really exploit any cool new hip algorithms, because software standards so strict (granted, they're there to make sure you don't fuck up.) My job kinda turns from "how can I use this cool probabilistic data structure to maximize performance without giving up robustness?" into "I can't use anything but industry standards because my program has to follow specifications to the tea; any uncertainty would be unlikely to pass design reviews." It's more brute-force engineering than game design, which I feel makes it easier.

>easily scared
Yeah, I scare people with one curly boi with no friend
{

>electrical network to convey information
lol

Attached: PoE.jpg (559x282, 28K)

>fbi protected electrical tunnels
huh?

still not banned wtf is happening with this board jesus

what nation was that?

Attached: 99176874.jpg (628x441, 108K)

They should've said power line Ethernet then.

#rekt

thousands of sensors and devices
real time statistical analysis of sensors with associated measurement error
sensor fusion
flight planning
open- or closed-loop control
the simulator for testing rocket control tuning
management of time dilation
kalman filtering
multiple computer decision voting

each of these is more complex than a game engine alone, and rockets use every one.
only the most absolutely complex of games that attempts real world simulation in real time come close to some of these.

I think its a brandname that people adopted, but Powerline ethernet is called "DLan" here

>Which is harder? To program a rocket or a AAA game?
AAA game

>192.186

You are from NSW, Australia?

A game. The complexity of a rocket doesn't lie on the code it runs.

Stop spewing buzzwords fag half that shit is fixed with like 10 lines of code muh time dilation go dilate your anus

fucking up a rocket will cost you millions

okay, show me your 10 line consensus protocol faggot.
how about that simulator?
no? didn't think so. guess you're just a game dev

Rocket.
When you write a video game, you can do all kinds of hacks and workarounds to make it run (the GPU driver developers will if you don't) while NASA will break your fucking knees if you get a compiler warning.
jaxenter.com/power-ten-nasas-coding-commandments-114124.html

Attached: 1561928618481.jpg (540x450, 37K)

Kek

That depends. What are we starting out with?

>Nasa programs a rocket without using any of their previously developed hardware or software
Many, many years.

>A game studio with competent employees wants to write their own engine instead of using an existing one
Would tack quite some time on it, but not nearly as much as a fucking rocket.

eh, i've heard of really bad bugs like destroying peoples GPUs and shit like that. definitely not lives on the line tier, though.

Either this is bait or youre retarded

What's so hard about rocket software? Newton already figured it all out. The hardware is the impressive part. You could program a rocket in shittiest language ever and it would still work.

Your list very simple in programming terms, you can implement a kalman filter in less that 100 loc. The same with sensor fusion, wich is just data fitting in linear algebra terms(3 lines of matlab) and everthing in your list take approximately the same order of magnitude of loc

Rockets require a bunch of CGI work.
Outer space is fake and gay.