Java-Gaming.org    
Featured games (79)
games approved by the League of Dukes
Games in Showcase (475)
Games in Android Showcase (106)
games submitted by our members
Games in WIP (530)
games currently in development
News: Read the Java Gaming Resources, or peek at the official Java tutorials
 
    Home     Help   Search   Login   Register   
Pages: [1] 2
  ignore  |  Print  
  [Math] Kinetic energy of impact between two moving objects  (Read 2412 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Offline theagentd
« Posted 2014-05-09 04:47:51 »

Hello.

I am having some trouble calculating the kinetic energy of an impact between two objects. The formula is simple:


I am confused as to how to convert this energy into a damage value when both objects are moving. If one object is stationary and the other is moving at 20 meters per second, the formula above gives
    1/2*mass*20^2 = 200*mass joules
but if we simply change the frame of reference we get new values for the kinetic energy. For example, if both objects are instead traveling at 10 meters per second towards each other, they'd each have a kinetic energy of
    1/2*mass*10^2 = 50*mass joules
for a total of 100*mass joules when added together. I cannot wrap my head around why this happens. There shouldn't be a difference in the impact between two cars crashing head-on while going at 50km/h each, and a stationary car being hit by another car moving at 100km/h. How can kinetic energy depend on the square of the velocity? How do I define 0 velocity?


Is there some better way of calculating the "damage" caused by an impact? This is obviously for a game, so I'm looking for plausibility, not 100% realism here.

Myomyomyo.
Offline BurntPizza
« Reply #1 - Posted 2014-05-09 04:55:23 »

You might try using (and be confusing) momentum instead of kinetic energy.

p = mv


Mass m1 stationary, m2 moving at 20 m/s: (both are 1kg)

m1 * v1 + m2 * v2 = m1(0) + m2(20) = 20 Ns

Both moving at 10 m/s:

m1(10) + m2(10) = 20 Ns (the same)


Depending on what the calculations affect gameplay wise, I expect momentum might be better suited.
Momentum is what is used to calculate post-collision velocities as well, if that is what is you are solving for.

AP Physics was probably my favorite class in high school.  Pointing
Offline theagentd
« Reply #2 - Posted 2014-05-09 05:15:26 »

I'm not sure. From a game balance perspective it might make more sense to use something that depends linearly on the velocity difference between the objects. However, from what I know the actual "damage" of an impact at a certain velocity should depend on the square of the velocity. Random Wikipedia quote:
Quote
By dropping weights from different heights into a block of clay, Willem's Gravesande determined that their penetration depth was proportional to the square of their impact speed.
I also think I remember this as a motivation to why you shouldn't speed when I got my drivers license. Raising the velocity just slightly is enough to go from 100% survival chance to 0% in the event of an accident. Now that I think about it, that should mean that the damage should depend on the velocity difference squared.

Myomyomyo.
Games published by our own members! Check 'em out!
Legends of Yore - The Casual Retro Roguelike
Offline DrZoidberg

Senior Member


Medals: 15



« Reply #3 - Posted 2014-05-09 05:49:36 »

If you look at this from the point of view of one of the objects you are dealing with an accelerated frame of reference which behaves in a more complex way than a normal unaccelerated frame of reference. So I suggest you always use absolute velocities (i.e. velocities relativ to your game coordinate system).
Also after the collision the two objects might still be moving. You have to calculate the difference of the total energy before and after the collision.
Offline theagentd
« Reply #4 - Posted 2014-05-09 05:58:10 »

This isn't for collision response, it's for calculating the damage caused by a collision. Also, why do things get more complicated if I look at it from the viewpoint of one of the objects?

Myomyomyo.
Offline DrZoidberg

Senior Member


Medals: 15



« Reply #5 - Posted 2014-05-09 06:24:22 »

Here is a more detailed explanation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-inertial_reference_frame

In short, just don't use an accelerated object as your reference.

The damage caused by a collision depends on the energy dissipated which is the kinetic energy befrore the collision minus the energy after the collision.
Offline HeroesGraveDev

JGO Kernel


Medals: 238
Projects: 11
Exp: 2 years


┬─┬ノ(ಠ_ಠノ)(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻


« Reply #6 - Posted 2014-05-09 06:46:56 »

(I'm using my small knowledge of physics (because we haven't been taught it properly at school yet), so I could be quite wrong)

It looks like you should be using force to calculate damage rather than energy.
In that case, it's simply
F = ma
.

If we're assuming instant deceleration of both objects, then
a = velocity
.
The resulting value is the force required to stop this object, which means it's the amount of force put upon the other object in the collision.

So the damage multiplier for object1 would be
object2.mass * (object1.speed + object2.speed)/2

And the damage multiplier for object2 would be
object1.mass * (object1.speed + object2.speed)/2


If we're not assuming instant deceleration, and that one object will push another if it is heavier, things get more complicated, and I don't have the time to go into that at this point. If this is the scenario you're looking for, maybe someone else could work it out or I could write more another time.

Edit: After thinking about this a bit more I'm not so sure if it does make a difference. Maybe the first situation works regardless?

Offline Cero
« Reply #7 - Posted 2014-05-09 07:02:31 »

Usually I use one of use math graph tools. make it so that it has a beginning, curve and end like the one I am expecting and than taking that formula... x)

Online Longarmx
« Reply #8 - Posted 2014-05-09 07:06:07 »

Have you tried doing something like adding the velocities before you square them and taking the average of the masses?

Something like:
Quote
Ek = 1/2 (m1+m2)/2 (v1+v2)2

I don't know if this will solve your problem, but I plugged a few numbers into it and got back desired results  Smiley

Offline BurntPizza
« Reply #9 - Posted 2014-05-09 07:43:30 »

@Heroes: Wait, why would a = velocity?

If you can say that the collision resolved in 1 frame, then a would equal the velocity prior to collision divided by the time for 1 frame. To be more accurate you would have to subdivide each collision into more time slices than 1 per frame.

Assuming 60 FPS and a 1kg object moving at 1 m/s, which comes to a complete stop in 1 frame:

F = 1 * 1 * 60 = 60 N



Another interesting method regarding impact damage that incorporates kinetic energy could be to find the change in energy over the collision.
With a couple examples, I'll show why energy might not be desirable:

ΔE = 1/2m(vf2 - vi2)

To get the post-collision velocities (vf) you use momentum:

m1vi1 + m2vi2 = m1vf1 + m2vf2


In the two 1kg masses stopping each other at 10 m/s scenario:

10 + -10 = 0 + 0      Both vf's are 0

Then, for each mass, the change in energy:
ΔE = 1/2(0 - 102) = -50 J   (as expected, they each lost 50 joules)

For the stationary vs. 20 m/s: (still 1kg each)

0 + 20 = 10 + 10    (equal masses, equal momentum transfer)

ΔE1 = 1/2(102 - 0) = +50 J (stationary gained 50 joules)
ΔE2 = 1/2(102 - 202) = -150 J (moving one lost 150 joules)

That result may seem strange, but I'd say this is about right. It gets more interesting if the masses are unequal:

Let:
m1 = 1kg,  0 m/s
m2 = 3kg, 20 m/s

Assuming an elastic collision:
vf1 = (1 - 3)/(1 + 3) * 0 + 2 * 3/1 + 3 * 20 = 30 m/s
vf2 = (3 - 1)/(1 + 3) * 20 + 2 * 0/1 + 3 * 0 = 10 m/s

ΔE1 = 1/2(302 - 0) = +450 J
ΔE2 = 1/2 * 3(102 - 202) = -450 J

The two masses transferred the same amount of energy to/from each other, even though the small one was completely bowled over by a mass 3 times larger!
That would probably not make sense, gameplay wise.

I think force is probably a much better idea, although it's more tricky because time is involved.
Remarkably similar talk on physics.stackexchange: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18423/conservation-of-momentum-leading-to-damage
Games published by our own members! Check 'em out!
Legends of Yore - The Casual Retro Roguelike
Online CommanderKeith
« Reply #10 - Posted 2014-05-09 09:06:30 »

What an interesting problem, I never thought about that.
Half way down this article it explains your problem, see the "frame of reference" sub heading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy#Frame_of_reference

As it applies to your game, why not just always use the game landscape as the frame of reference to calc the damage which is a function of kinetic energy?

Offline jonjava
« Reply #11 - Posted 2014-05-09 14:32:47 »

I'm not sure. From a game balance perspective it might make more sense to use something that depends linearly on the velocity difference between the objects. However, from what I know the actual "damage" of an impact at a certain velocity should depend on the square of the velocity.

In a collision the difference in velocity doesn't mean anything by itself. It's all about momentum. Especially if you want to calculate damage.

Offline theagentd
« Reply #12 - Posted 2014-05-10 02:38:44 »

TL;DR: I mainly wanted to calculate the kinetic energy to be able to relate and compare it to the explosive energy of the warhead of a missile for game balance purposes.



I've been Googling all day about this. I'm surprised by how little information I could find about this and my other related questions.

First let me take a step back and explain why I'm asking about this. I'm trying to figure out what would happen if two objects collide in space. The reason why I'm interested in kinetic energy is simply because many times space ships are going at extremely high speeds relative to each other, so kinetic projectiles will most likely be the main weapon of many ships. This includes both cannons firing unguided projectiles at extremely high speeds (Gauss cannons or rail guns) and missiles that contain a kinetic penetrator instead of a conventional or nuclear warhead. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHbf-Eb3xak&feature=youtu.be&t=41s My reasoning for kinetic missiles is simply that at some point, the amount of kinetic energy the missile has after accelerating towards the target be so high that the kinetic energy the missile has is higher than the energy released by its explosive warhead, at which point it would be better to optimize the missile as a penetrator and get rid of the explosive warhead altogether. This was the main reason I was interested in calculating the kinetic energy of a projectile; to be able to compare the difference in efficiency.

For small Gauss cannon projectiles, rail gun projectiles and kinetic missiles we can assume that the projectile will simply penetrate into the ship it hits and either exit the ship on the other side at a lower speed or come to a complete stop inside the ship. Therefore I need to figure out how much a projectile is slowed down by passing through X meters of a certain material. This would be a function of the width, mass and speed of the projectile and the density of the material being penetrated. I've reached the conclusion that there's no real reason to go for a realistic approach here so just go with something that works well in the game. The only actual formula I've been able to find was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_depth which I think makes no sense since it claims that impact depth is not dependent on the speed of the projectile (it does however assume a "high" velocity).

However, things get an awful lot more complicated when the missile has a conventional warhead and is not made to penetrate the armor of the object it hits. In this case we can assume that the projectile will not significantly penetrate the object regardless of speed since the missile will essentially crumble and fragment into millions of pieces almost instantly, which significantly reduces the penetration depth. However, we still need to take the warhead's explosion into consideration. This gets weird once you realize that the projectile may actually be traveling at a higher speed than the actual explosion of the projectile. To work around this, I've decided to only allow a certain type of warhead, namely shaped charges. A shaped charge is essentially a shotgun facing forward that fires a jet of metal particles when it's triggered. This jet is also optimized to penetrate armor by applying as much energy as possible to a small area of the object hit, but the jet disperses quickly at longer distances. That should allow me to essentially use the same approach as for kinetic projectiles but with some quirks like the damage caused by the jet quickly falling off with distance and the fact that resulting speed of the jet is the speed of the missile when it hits plus the produces by the shaped charge's detonation.

In the end this is more of a game balance problem than anything else, so I consider the problem solved for now. I'll just have to experiment until I get it right I guess.

Myomyomyo.
Offline BurntPizza
« Reply #13 - Posted 2014-05-10 02:49:06 »

snip
snip
snip

Yeah, not the most cut-and-dry problem. Hardcoded values for weapon properties is probably the most practical route.

That said I'm quite interested in what this project of yours is and how it contains all these things I know and love...   Pointing
I'll stay tuned!
Offline theagentd
« Reply #14 - Posted 2014-05-10 03:51:51 »

I'm trying to sort out the fundamental problems I have before posting much more, but I'll eventually post about it here. ^^

Myomyomyo.
Offline Riven
« League of Dukes »

JGO Overlord


Medals: 742
Projects: 4
Exp: 16 years


Hand over your head.


« Reply #15 - Posted 2014-05-10 11:52:48 »

Regarding the original question: when 2 objects collide, all that is important are the mass and the relative velocities. (obviously)

The question was: what is the reference frame, as this determines the relative velocity of each object.

The issue was that 2 objects traveling at +10m/s and -10m/s would yield different results than one moving at 0m/s and the other one at 20m/s. It is obvious that in reality, the damage to each object would be exactly the same in either situation, because the universe does not take into account our observer's reference frame for Newtonian physics. (!)

When we want to determine the impact/damage to object A, we set the reference frame to A (making it stationary), and let B hit it.
When we want to determine the impact/damage to object B, we set the reference frame to B (making it stationary), and let A hit it.

Now we can safely say that both objects had the same impact (loss of kinetic energy) on eachother if their masses were equal, regardless of where the observer's reference frame was.

Observer P may say that object A lost way more kinetic energy than object B gained, while observer Q may say the opposite, but object A and B couldn't care less about P and Q. Therefore most calculations in this thread should be discarded, because they reason from such irrelevant observers. Setting the reference frame to 'the game world' would be such an arbitrary observer, leading all impact analysis to be plain wrong.

Hi, appreciate more people! Σ ♥ = ¾
Learn how to award medals... and work your way up the social rankings
Offline ags1

JGO Ninja


Medals: 46
Projects: 2
Exp: 5 years


Make code not war!


« Reply #16 - Posted 2014-05-10 13:22:06 »

Unless you are travelling at relativistic speeds, a nuclear warhead will definitely deliver more energy to the target than any realistic impactor....

Offline delt0r

JGO Knight


Medals: 26
Exp: 18 years


Computers can do that?


« Reply #17 - Posted 2014-05-10 15:15:27 »

Physics results are will be the same no matter what frame of reference you use. So "cheat" and use the one that is the easiest. You can all sorts of math to prove that physics is the same in difference reference frames and that's all fun. but if you don't' really care, just use the simplest frame of reference.

I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious.--Albert Einstein
Offline Riven
« League of Dukes »

JGO Overlord


Medals: 742
Projects: 4
Exp: 16 years


Hand over your head.


« Reply #18 - Posted 2014-05-10 17:06:18 »

Sure, but people are trying to use kinetic energy to calculate impact/damage, and in that case the reference frame must be the object that was impacted.

Any calculation of an observer that is moving at a arbitrary velocity will vastly complicate the calculations, which, as this thread proves, easily results in plain wrong results. We're all familiar with the conservation of energy, so if your calculations show that object A gains more energy from a collision that object B loses, it's a red flag.

Hi, appreciate more people! Σ ♥ = ¾
Learn how to award medals... and work your way up the social rankings
Offline DrZoidberg

Senior Member


Medals: 15



« Reply #19 - Posted 2014-05-11 08:53:50 »

I wrote some code that collides two objects 100 times in different random reference frames and calculates the kinetic energy lost in the collision. As expected it gets the same result each time so it really is independant of the reference frame.

http://pastebin.com/dzvxs6RC
Offline Riven
« League of Dukes »

JGO Overlord


Medals: 742
Projects: 4
Exp: 16 years


Hand over your head.


« Reply #20 - Posted 2014-05-11 12:51:26 »

Well, yes, ofcourse it's the same, as your calculations are based on momentum.

In the calculations posted in earlier replies the impact calculation is wrong, because due to the way it is calculated, the reference frame is going to determine the energy lost to object A and B, and as such they cannot be directly used to calculate the impact - it's usable to calculate the loss of kinetic energy in the entire system, yes, but that's not interesting when you're calculating the damage of each object. The simplest, least-prone-to-error way of calculating the impact, is to make the impacted object stationary.

Hi, appreciate more people! Σ ♥ = ¾
Learn how to award medals... and work your way up the social rankings
Offline DrZoidberg

Senior Member


Medals: 15



« Reply #21 - Posted 2014-05-11 12:55:57 »

My calculations are based on both, momentum and energy.
I calculate the energy lost in the collision.

before collision: 1/2 * 0^2  + 1/2 * 20^2 = 200 J
after collision:   1/2 * 10^2 + 1/2 * 10^2 = 100 J

So 100 J were lost on the collision. And that number is independant of the reference frame.
Offline Riven
« League of Dukes »

JGO Overlord


Medals: 742
Projects: 4
Exp: 16 years


Hand over your head.


« Reply #22 - Posted 2014-05-11 12:56:22 »

Yeah... that's what I said Clueless

Hi, appreciate more people! Σ ♥ = ¾
Learn how to award medals... and work your way up the social rankings
Offline delt0r

JGO Knight


Medals: 26
Exp: 18 years


Computers can do that?


« Reply #23 - Posted 2014-05-12 14:03:42 »

The trick with using a "easy" frame of reference is that it makes non closed systems easy to deal with. That is the problem with using a different frame of reference. A wall can bring  momentum in and out of a system. If the wall is at zero speed. You no longer need care.

Typically for collisions the correct frame is the center of mass frame as the easiest. Since an unmovable wall has effectively infinite mass. Its rest frame is the correct one.

In games almost all "collisions" are not really closed systems. Seriously hack physics typically ends up as better more fun game play anyway.

I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious.--Albert Einstein
Offline ags1

JGO Ninja


Medals: 46
Projects: 2
Exp: 5 years


Make code not war!


« Reply #24 - Posted 2014-05-12 19:26:04 »

Unless you are travelling at relativistic speeds, a nuclear warhead will definitely deliver more energy to the target than any realistic impactor....

Also, the h-bomb only has to get near its target, whereas the impactor has to be a direct hit. And, if you are using a rail gun to fire your impactor, don't forget the firing ship takes a recoil.

Offline cylab

JGO Ninja


Medals: 38



« Reply #25 - Posted 2014-05-13 09:49:16 »

<offtopic>
The Risen Empire has a pretty nice kinetic space fight...
</offtopic>

Mathias - I Know What [you] Did Last Summer!
Offline pitbuller
« Reply #26 - Posted 2014-05-13 11:05:29 »

Quite enjoyable essey about space combats http://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/essay-on-realistic-space-combat-i-wrote.131056/
Offline theagentd
« Reply #27 - Posted 2014-05-13 15:01:45 »

Here's a snippet:
Quote
Let’s say you have a nuclear salt water rocket propelled warship with a mass ratio of 5, which will give it a delta V of 8,421 km/s, and you want to bomb New York. If you expend all your propellant in a single burn in the direction of Earth and then launch a 1 ton missile into New York City it will impact with the energy equal to an 8.48 megaton bomb. Consider that to be able to saturate the PD of enemy warships your ship will probably carry several hundred such missiles. In other words, forget about New York, you can singlehandedly devastate the entire United States. And this is peanuts compared to what you can do if you really want to make a splash: crash your ship into the planet along with your missiles. If your ship weighs 10,000 tons it will impact with a force of 84.8 gigatons.
O_O

I pretty much managed to predict most of the stuff in there, nice to see that confirmed. What I seem to have underestimated is the result of the impact of kinetic missiles, so it's time to resuscitate this thread!


A missile which after using up all its fuel has a mass of only 1kg which collides with an enemy craft with a speed difference of 20km/sec has the kinetic energy of ~48kilotons of TNT, equal to around two and a half Fat Man nukes. There's probably not a single material in the world that can stand against such an impact, but that doesn't necessarily imply a one-hit-kill as the essay assumes. What's important is the amount of energy that's actually lost (e.g. converted to heat) in the impact. A kinetic projectile hitting a solar panel isn't going to cause a nuclear explosion. It's most likely going to disintegrate the solar panel and possibly severely damage whatever part of the ship that it was attached to, but it's far from a one-hit-kill. We simply can't assume that all the kinetic energy of the projectile is converted to heat. We can however assume that the projectile will probably either vaporize or simply break up into millions of fragments no matter how slightly it touches anything at that speed. It would seem as if the important number here is how much speed the projectile loses by penetrating the target. It would actually make perfect sense to design the missile to essentially be round. A spherical missile would require less materials for its volume (for fuel), while reducing the penetration effect compared to a long and narrow missile (maximizing kinetic energy to heat conversion on impact).

A very interesting way of handling damage in the game would be to give each component of the ship a health value and a heat value. Once heat is above a certain threshold, health starts going down. Some components (fuel tanks, missile storages, reactors, etc) may even instantly explode if they become too hot, so cooling them is a priority. Rail guns, gauss cannons, lasers, reactors and engines all heat up their respective components. Heat in turn slowly spreads to nearby components, while components facing space radiates heat away from the ship. A laser hitting an enemy ship would not inherently do any damage. It would simply heat up whatever ship component it hits, so heat shielding and cooling would be an important aspect of the game. However, missiles can also be made to damage using the heat system. An impact from a projectile in essence just heats up whatever it hits, so why not just simply add a (large) amount of heat based on the speed lost by the projectile when passing through said component? The area-of-effect explosion of the impact will then essentially be handled by the heat spread system, pretty much detonating anything that can detonate in the ship. Both nuclear explosions and explosions caused by ship components detonating would work the same way; just dump a shitload of heat in said component. HYPE!

Any further ideas?

Myomyomyo.
Offline BurntPizza
« Reply #28 - Posted 2014-05-13 16:34:27 »

Any further ideas?

Well if it's in space where's there's little to no air resistance, the missiles could be whatever shape you want:

Nuclear chain shot  Cool

Also liking this: Relativistic Kill Vehicle
Their example of a 1kg mass traveling at .99c would impact at the equivalent of 132 megatons, 6 times as much kinetic energy as mass-energy!
Which means the next logical step is to fire 1 kg anti-matter rounds at .99c  Grin

Some great end-game weapon tech here, I'd say. Probably tough to balance, though.
Offline theagentd
« Reply #29 - Posted 2014-05-13 18:29:55 »

Any further ideas?

Well if it's in space where's there's little to no air resistance, the missiles could be whatever shape you want:

Nuclear chain shot  Cool

Also liking this: Relativistic Kill Vehicle
Their example of a 1kg mass traveling at .99c would impact at the equivalent of 132 megatons, 6 times as much kinetic energy as mass-energy!
Which means the next logical step is to fire 1 kg anti-matter rounds at .99c  Grin

Some great end-game weapon tech here, I'd say. Probably tough to balance, though.

I'm not sure if balancing this would actually be that difficult, if you exaggerate some of the inherent drawbacks of each type of weapon.

 - Kinetic missile: Somewhat fast and relatively sturdy since it is made of solid metal. Damage strongly depends on the speed difference between the ships making the missile situational, but at least it's simple to manufacture.
 - Nuclear missile: Can be extremely powerful without depending on a speed difference, but they have a minimum size and are therefore much bulkier and heavier, making it easier to intercept these missiles. The fact that they rely on fine mechanisms to trigger a nuclear reaction in the warhead further enhances their weakness against missile defense as they are easy to disable (without triggering a nuclear explosion).
 - Anti-matter missiles: Powerful as hell. Also suffers from size problems but not to the same degree as nuclear warheads. Always explodes when destroyed, meaning that a single shot down missile can prematurely detonate an entire volley. Dangerous to store on a ship.
 - Rail guns/Gauss cannons: Useful for missile defense and bombardments of enemy ships. Projectiles weigh almost nothing, so it's possible to fire a huge number of rounds with sufficient power and cooling.
 - Lasers: Great for missile defense and combat at relatively short distance. Ships equipped with lasers can attempt to get close to enemy ships by protecting themselves with their lasers against missiles and then cut up everything in range without having to worry about running out of missiles.

Nuclear missiles are good against enemies with weaker missile defense. Anti-matter missiles are better than nuclear missiles, but they inherently carry a risk since the anti-matter has to be kept stable. Kinetic missiles are heavy since you need lots of them, but in sufficient numbers they can overcome any missile defense system. Rail guns can easily shoot missiles and also weakly bombard enemy ships at medium range. Lasers bring great defensive and offensive capabilities but are short ranged.

Myomyomyo.
Pages: [1] 2
  ignore  |  Print  
 
 

 

Add your game by posting it in the WIP section,
or publish it in Showcase.

The first screenshot will be displayed as a thumbnail.

ctomni231 (34 views)
2014-07-18 06:55:21

Zero Volt (30 views)
2014-07-17 23:47:54

danieldean (25 views)
2014-07-17 23:41:23

MustardPeter (27 views)
2014-07-16 23:30:00

Cero (42 views)
2014-07-16 00:42:17

Riven (44 views)
2014-07-14 18:02:53

OpenGLShaders (32 views)
2014-07-14 16:23:47

Riven (34 views)
2014-07-14 11:51:35

quew8 (30 views)
2014-07-13 13:57:52

SHC (66 views)
2014-07-12 17:50:04
HotSpot Options
by dleskov
2014-07-08 03:59:08

Java and Game Development Tutorials
by SwordsMiner
2014-06-14 00:58:24

Java and Game Development Tutorials
by SwordsMiner
2014-06-14 00:47:22

How do I start Java Game Development?
by ra4king
2014-05-17 11:13:37

HotSpot Options
by Roquen
2014-05-15 09:59:54

HotSpot Options
by Roquen
2014-05-06 15:03:10

Escape Analysis
by Roquen
2014-04-29 22:16:43

Experimental Toys
by Roquen
2014-04-28 13:24:22
java-gaming.org is not responsible for the content posted by its members, including references to external websites, and other references that may or may not have a relation with our primarily gaming and game production oriented community. inquiries and complaints can be sent via email to the info‑account of the company managing the website of java‑gaming.org
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Managed by Enhanced Four Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!