A week had passed since the release of 《CRAFT RUNNERS》.
What the first grassland course asked of players hadn’t changed since its release date.
Combine the parts as you like and transport the aircraft you created to the goal on the other side.
Players on release day took that explanation quite honestly.
There were people who made cars with four or six wheels, and there were people who aimed to make airplanes by adding wings. When they reached the river, they combined swim bladders and propellers to create something that resembled a boat.
Even if the shape was a little strange, I could usually tell what it was just by looking at the screen.
This is a car. This is an airplane. This is a ship.
The problem was that the time attack racers began to seriously pursue the goal of “reaching the goal in the fastest time.”
◇
[CRAFT RUNNERS Time Attack Comprehensive Part 7]
436: Anonymous Runner
Until yesterday, the world record was in the 18-second range, but when I look at the rankings now, it’s 12.82 seconds.
Didn’t nearly 30% of the course disappear after just one night’s sleep?
454: Anonymous Runner
Did someone throw something away again?
Lately, every time a record gets updated, I’ve started to ask, “What did they throw away this time?” instead of “What did they add?”
472: Anonymous Runner
The design data has been released
Even when I look at it, I have no idea what it is.
It does have tires, so I think there was a time when it was a car.
489: Anonymous Runner
Isn’t it closer to a plane?
506: Anonymous Runner
>>489
It has wings
However, if we call this an airplane, there will likely be protests from the aircraft side.
524: Anonymous Runner
So a rocket?
542: Anonymous Runner
There are four rockets on board, but I can’t explain it even if I focus on that.
“Something with temporary car parts attached to a rocket” is the closest.
558: Anonymous Runner
Your explanation is getting worse.
576: Anonymous Runner
Someone please ask YU, “What is this?”
594: Anonymous Runner
The creator would be troubled too.
Getting inquiries like “This is a mysterious object created in your game. Please classify it.”
611: Anonymous Runner
I’m afraid that if it’s YU, he’ll probably respond with something like, “I don’t care about anything as long as it reaches the goal.”
628: Anonymous Runner
There’s no evidence to deny that
◇
Soon after, a video of the aircraft in action was posted.
What was placed at the starting point was an aircraft with six tires attached to a square central frame, small wings extending to the left and right, and four rockets mounted on the rear.
It was a strange shape, but looking at just this part, you could call it a high-speed vehicle.
When it started, power was applied and the six tires gripped the ground, accelerating all at once.
One second later, the left and right front wheels came off.
◇
651: Anonymous Runner
Wait, wait, wait
Both front wheels just came off, right?
669: Anonymous Runner
I didn’t expect a world record video to show the vehicle falling apart in the very first second.
That’s usually the accident you’d want to hide the most.
686: Anonymous Runner
I looked at the design data and it wasn’t an accident.
The joint strength of only the front wheels is clearly set low.
704: Anonymous Runner
So they were planning to remove them from the beginning?
722: Anonymous Runner
It seems to be adjusted so that they break when it reaches a certain speed.
They don’t intend to use them from start to finish.
739: Anonymous Runner
Don’t make tires a consumable item
757: Anonymous Runner
Until yesterday, everyone was talking about “It happened to become faster when it broke,” right?
Is it the correct progress for humanity to evolve in one day to “Then just aim to break it?”
774: Anonymous Runner
>>757
Whoever wrote yesterday that someone would design something on the premise that it breaks, please come forward.
791: Anonymous Runner
Even if the Prophet is executed, the TA forces won’t stop.
◇
The two front wheels that came off weren’t just left behind.
Only one side lagged a little, ducking under the center frame and colliding with the moving aircraft.
The car body jumped up.
Furthermore, the moment the impact was applied, the joints of the auxiliary frame jutting out to either side also broke.
The lighter central frame was ejected forward, leaving only the outer structure behind.
◇
814: Anonymous Runner
It was ejected!?
832: Anonymous Runner
So the main body just flew forward by running over its own tire that came off?
850: Anonymous Runner
That’s what the design says
The position where the front wheel comes off, the place where the removed tire ends up, and the strength at which the auxiliary frame breaks have all been adjusted.
869: Anonymous Runner
In other words,
“Remove the front wheel at this speed.”
“Put the removed tire in here.”
“This part will break due to the recoil from the collision.”
They even designed that?
887: Anonymous Runner
If you’re going to go that far, just make a normal fast car.
905: Anonymous Runner
A normal fast car takes 18 seconds, and this one takes 12 seconds.
Numbers are destroying humanity
923: Anonymous Runner
Why did you let players touch the joint strength, YU?
941: Anonymous Runner
Because it’s a craft game.
958: Anonymous Runner
I understand the logic, but it’s definitely not a feature they included expecting it to be used that way!
976: Anonymous Runner
I feel like I’ve heard that line every day since CRAFT RUNNERS started.
◇
By the time the discussion moved on to the next thread, the central frame had jumped into the air.
The moment the aircraft floated, the four rear rockets ignited.
The speed suddenly increased, and the wings left on the left and right caught the wind and supported its posture.
However, that didn’t last long.
As the aircraft accelerated further, only the right wing came off its base.
◇
[CRAFT RUNNERS Time Attack Comprehensive Part 8]
17: Anonymous Runner
The moment I opened the new thread, the right wing went!
35: Anonymous Runner
It’s definitely an accident this time.
If only one wing remains at this speed, it won’t be able to maintain its attitude.
53: Anonymous Runner
No, wait
Isn’t it speeding up?
71: Anonymous Runner
It’s not a mistake
Not only is it lighter by one wing, but air resistance is also reduced.
89: Anonymous Runner
Don’t make the wings a disposable weight-reduction part.
107: Anonymous Runner
Moreover, if you look at the design, the joint strength is different on the left and right sides.
Only the right side is set to come off first in this speed range.
125: Anonymous Runner
It’s not a coincidence this time!?
143: Anonymous Runner
The design from the beginning was “Once we’ve come this far, we don’t need a right wing.”
161: Anonymous Runner
So, if you didn’t add wings, wouldn’t it be lighter from the beginning?
179: Anonymous Runner
They’re necessary to stabilize its posture in the air in the first section.
Use them only when necessary and throw them away when you’re done.
197: Anonymous Runner
If you just listen to the wording, it sounds like a multi-stage rocket, which is cool.
215: Anonymous Runner
In reality, its wings just get torn off and it flies away.
233: Anonymous Runner
Give me back my coolness
◇
The aircraft, with only one wing left, tilted sharply to the right.
Normally, it would just look like an accident where it lost its posture.
However, even that rotation was part of the design.
The aircraft continued toward the rocky mountain while tilting, and slid on its side into a narrow gap that it couldn’t have passed through facing forward.
On the way, the remaining left wing came into contact with the rock surface.
The force exceeded what the joint could withstand, and the left wing also came off.
◇
271: Anonymous Runner
Both wings are gone.
289: Anonymous Runner
Now all that’s left is the central frame and the rockets.
307: Anonymous Runner
That seems correct
325: Anonymous Runner
What are you looking at to determine what’s “correct”?
343: Anonymous Runner
The rankings
361: Anonymous Runner
I’m annoyed that I can’t say anything back
◇
It entered the final straightaway.
There were four rockets left.
One of them came into contact with a rock and came off its joint.
As the center of thrust shifted, the frame tilted and crashed into the ground.
After it bounced and spun around a second time, another one fell off.
There were only two left, but the speed didn’t slow down at all.
In the end, the object, reduced to only a central frame and a minimal propulsion section, bounced off the ground three times and flew toward the goal line.
Record: 12.82 seconds.
◇
397: Anonymous Runner
My reactions can’t keep up.
415: Anonymous Runner
What were we just shown?
433: Anonymous Runner
The 《CRAFT RUNNERS》 world record
451: Anonymous Runner
The time it was actually running was only about one second.
Isn’t it basically a flying object partway through?
469: Anonymous Runner
It was running seriously for the first second.
487: Anonymous Runner
Don’t finish your duties as a car in one second
505: Anonymous Runner
But it’s never been disqualified.
523: Anonymous Runner
That’s the thing
Even though it looks like a video of an accident, the game keeps saying “there’s no problem” until the end.
◇
That afternoon.
A new world record was posted in the same general thread.
11.31 seconds.
◇
623: Anonymous Runner
Updated again
11.31 seconds
So, what breaks this time?
641: Anonymous Runner
It’s strange that when you hear a world record report, you start with “What broke?” instead of “What improved?”
659: Anonymous Runner
The video’s up
This time there were only two tires on at the start.
677: Anonymous Runner
You don’t even feel like pretending to be a car anymore?
695: Anonymous Runner
>>677
In fact, this time it’s not using the tires as wheels.
It shoots one forward first
713: Anonymous Runner
I feel like I’m going to give up on understanding after the first sentence.
731: Anonymous Runner
At the start, it rolls one tire ahead first and places it halfway up the hill.
The main body caught up a little later and collided with the tire at an angle.
749: Anonymous Runner
For what?
767: Anonymous Runner
To change the main body’s direction of movement using the reaction from the collision
785: Anonymous Runner
Don’t use tires as outer walls
803: Anonymous Runner
It’s a tire
821: Anonymous Runner
Remember what a tire’s main job is?
839: Anonymous Runner
Don’t take away the tires’ freedom of career choice.
857: Anonymous Runner
The tire rights activists are here!
875: Anonymous Runner
Was that a good one just now?
893: Anonymous Runner
Not at all
911: Anonymous Runner
yes
929: Anonymous Runner
If you just say “yes,” I can’t tell if you’re repenting or being defiant.
947: Anonymous Runner
I slipped up, so I’ll be quiet
965: Anonymous Runner
It’s great that you can properly reflect in writing.
◇
Even among the players who had watched with laughter at first, serious questions soon began to arise.
Could this strategy of deliberately destroying the aircraft and taking advantage of the recoil really be called a correct strategy?
◇
[Discussion] Isn’t the self-destruction method exploiting bugs?
8: Anonymous Runner
Can we talk about something serious?
Those at the top of the current rankings are intentionally weakening joints and breaking them, hitting themselves with parts they’ve shed, or dropping one wing and spinning the aircraft around.
If you just look at it, it’s a completely buggy technique, but is this really allowed?
26: Anonymous Runner
Which part do you think is a bug?
44: Anonymous Runner
>>26
Honestly, if you just look at it, it’s normal to think so.
I’ve never heard of a game where you run over your own front wheels to make your car go faster.
62: Anonymous Runner
I agree that it’s a weird way to drive.
However, isn’t there a difference between “movements that normal cars don’t make” and “the game’s calculations are broken”?
As of now, everything’s been explained, from why it breaks to why it flies.
80: Anonymous Runner
At least it’s probably not the strategy the creator envisioned.
98: Anonymous Runner
In the first place, was there ever a “correct strategy envisioned by the creator” for this game?
116: Anonymous Runner
Stop hitting me from that angle.
134: Anonymous Runner
I don’t think there was a correct answer from the beginning, considering it’s okay to drive along the bottom of the river instead of crossing it by boat, or even to jump over the river itself.
152: Anonymous Runner
But isn’t self-destructive acceleration crossing the line?
Breaking is usually a failure.
170: Anonymous Runner
Isn’t it normal physics that the weight becomes lighter when parts disappear?
188: Anonymous Runner
The problem is that the result of that “ordinary physics” is a car that hits itself with its front wheels and flies away.
206: Anonymous Runner
The rules of the game are correct
It’s the way they’re being used that’s strange
224: Anonymous Runner
Don’t suddenly make it seem like it’s all the players’ fault.
242: Anonymous Runner
Even with multi-stage rockets, the parts that have finished their purpose are thrown away.
Isn’t it similar if you just think about the idea?
260: Anonymous Runner
So, is the current aircraft a multi-stage vehicle too?
278: Anonymous Runner
People in the aerospace world will probably get mad if you call it that.
296: Anonymous Runner
So it’s different after all?
314: Anonymous Runner
The idea is similar
However, ordinary multi-stage rockets have a separation mechanism.
These guys solve the problem by saying, “There’s no separation mechanism. Let’s destroy it,” so the level of civilization drops considerably.
332: Anonymous Runner
The design concept is barbaric
350: Anonymous Runner
High technical skill but barbaric judgment, that’s the scariest combination.
368: Anonymous Runner
Ever since I started playing this game, I can no longer feel at ease with the words “Physically, everything is normal.”
◇
The matter couldn’t be resolved through discussion alone.
So, in another thread, people started investigating the techniques used by the top players one by one.
◇
[Verification] To what extent are the running methods of the top competitors within the specifications?
12: Anonymous Runner
I’m checking all the running methods currently being used.
First of all, the one that hits the wall diagonally and turns just bounces back according to the angle and speed of the collision, so at least the calculation itself doesn’t seem strange.
30: Anonymous Runner
What about the one that loses weight by dropping parts in the air?
48: Anonymous Runner
>>30
It’s not like there’s a detach command either.
Applying a load higher than the set value to a joint causes it to break.
Even with the same structure, if you increase the joint strength, it won’t come off, so it’s treated as normal damage.
66: Anonymous Runner
Why does it get faster after it breaks?
84: Anonymous Runner
Mass and drag are reduced by the missing parts.
If the conditions for speeding up are met, it gets faster.
102: Anonymous Runner
What about the one that attaches a rocket facing the opposite direction and forces it to rotate?
120: Anonymous Runner
The force is only directed in the direction the rocket is facing.
It’s working as intended
138: Anonymous Runner
The one that kicks the ground with legs facing backward and uses the recoil to send itself flying is really weird.
156: Anonymous Runner
The legs kick the ground
The ground returns a reaction force
As a result, the main body flies forward.
The only strange thing is the designer’s idea.
174: Anonymous Runner
After all, isn’t the player the most abnormal element?
192: Anonymous Runner
A week of searching for bugs
The weirdest thing was the humans.
210: Anonymous Runner
Don’t wrap it up yet
Still looking
228: Anonymous Runner
Even if you run it into a wall at super high speed, it won’t slip through the collision detection, and even if you make an extremely thin aircraft aiming to pass through a wall, it stops normally.
Although the verification team is being quite reckless, there have been no cases of calculation failure so far.
246: Anonymous Runner
What about forcing parts into each other and sending them into space like in old physics games?
264: Anonymous Runner
Before they can illegally overlap, the collision detection kicks in and pushes them back.
At least, it’s currently impossible to “suddenly super accelerate when two objects are pushed into the same place”
282: Anonymous Runner
Stacking 1,000 swim bladders gives infinite buoyancy.
300: Anonymous Runner
There’s no point in placing them in the same spot just for appearance.
Buoyancy is only generated by the effective volume that actually displaces the fluid.
318: Anonymous Runner
What if you put a tire halfway into the ground and spin it?
336: Anonymous Runner
In the first place, you can’t set it in that position.
The position is corrected before the contact between the terrain and the part breaks down.
354: Anonymous Runner
Why not!
372: Anonymous Runner
This is the first time I’ve seen someone get angry over the lack of bugs.
390: Anonymous Runner
I’ve been looking for a week now, and I want to shout “I found one!” just once.
408: Anonymous Runner
I understand how you feel, but you’ve lost sight of your purpose.
◇
In the end, the players alone weren’t able to determine the boundary between an “unexpected strategy” and a “defect.”
Finally, one person contacted YU himself.
◇
[Breaking News] We asked YU about the self-destructive running method.
7: Anonymous Runner
While I was looking at the rankings, I got too curious, so I sent an inquiry.
The question was,
“Is the method of accelerating using broken parts a defect?”
25: Anonymous Runner
A hero
Did you get a reply?
43: Anonymous Runner
I did
“If the calculation result is incorrect, it’s a problem.”
61: Anonymous Runner
If you just read that, it’s a normal answer.
79: Anonymous Runner
There’s a continuation
“If it just becomes faster as a result of being broken, it’s not a defect.”
97: Anonymous Runner
YU, you’re really just letting it pass.
115: Anonymous Runner
Even if it looks like an accident, if the calculations match, it’s still a specification judgment.
133: Anonymous Runner
I know what you’re saying.
I get it, but this is the first time I’ve seen a developer calmly admit, “It was faster because half the car was gone midway through.”
151: Anonymous Runner
If the creator himself said it’s within the specifications, isn’t the discussion over?
169: Anonymous Runner
Why not ban that card?
187: Anonymous Runner
Did you ask anything else?
205: Anonymous Runner
I did
I sent, “This isn’t the intended strategy, is it?”
223: Anonymous Runner
This one’s definitely different.
241: Anonymous Runner
Reply
“I wasn’t expecting that.”
259: Anonymous Runner
See!
277: Anonymous Runner
So it’s unexpected after all!
295: Anonymous Runner
There’s more
“But it works, so there’s no problem.”
313: Anonymous Runner
YU!!!!!!
331: Anonymous Runner
Don’t give permission three seconds after admitting you didn’t expect it!
349: Anonymous Runner
I quite like this reply
It’s not “banned because the creator didn’t think of it,” but “if it’s based on the rules of the game, it’s acceptable.”
367: Anonymous Runner
It’s a game that doesn’t have a correct vehicle from the beginning, so the idea itself is consistent.
The creator made the parts, the physics, and the goal, and how to get there is up to the player.
385: Anonymous Runner
Isn’t this basically the same as 《FRONTIER SAGA》?
403: Anonymous Runner
In what way?
421: Anonymous Runner
Over there, as a result of combining nations, NPCs, and economies, a history the creator didn’t directly write was born.
This time, as a result of combining tires, wings, and joints, a driving style the creator didn’t directly consider was born.
Although the scale is different, the idea of “leave the cause alone and leave the result to us” seems to be the same.
439: Anonymous Runner
It’s not that the world has gotten smaller, it’s that tires are dying instead of nations.
457: Anonymous Runner
I kinda like that one
475: Anonymous Runner
Yay, I passed this time.
493: Anonymous Runner
Why is there a pass/fail system for bulletin board gags?
◇
Around the same time.
In communities specializing in design and physics, this was causing an uproar in a different sense.
The verification thread that had started right after the release had already progressed to Part 4.
◇
[CRAFT RUNNERS Physical Verification Part 4]
287: Anonymous Designer
Interim report
As volunteers, we’ve been looking for inconsistencies in the in-game physics for almost a week, but so far we haven’t found anything that clearly says “this is a calculation error.”
305: Anonymous Designer
How many people are working on it now?
323: Anonymous Designer
>>305
There are about 300 people who are continuously testing while adjusting the conditions.
If you include people who just bring data on a one-off basis, there are more.
341: Anonymous Designer
If 300 people searched for bugs for a week and got no results, wouldn’t it be better to look for something else?
359: Anonymous Designer
We’re already getting carried away
But it’s so interesting we can’t stop
377: Anonymous Designer
How much have you tried so far?
395: Anonymous Designer
We tried some pretty unreasonable conditions.
Driving into a wall at super high speed, colliding multiple parts almost simultaneously, rotating a structure with its center of gravity close to the edge at high speed.
There are also tests where the speed keeps increasing underwater, a large number of floating bodies are connected, and the wings are made extremely large.
413: Anonymous Designer
We also looked at thrust deflection and structural resonance.
Yesterday, I kept increasing the rotation speed little by little and kept track of which joints started to break until midnight.
431: Anonymous Designer
So, did you see anything strange?
449: Anonymous Designer
Everything broke properly
467: Anonymous Designer
Have you ever heard the Japanese phrase “broke properly” outside of this game?
485: Anonymous Designer
When rotating at high speeds, the outer joints are subjected to a greater load, causing them to break first.
So when I tried increasing the joint strength, the inner frame side warped first.
503: Anonymous Designer
What if you made it even stronger?
521: Anonymous Designer
The load escaped to another weak spot.
It’s not a sloppy process like “If I strengthen this part, the whole thing mysteriously becomes invincible”; the next weak spot breaks properly.
539: Anonymous Designer
You seem to be having fun talking about it, but how many hours did you spend on it?
557: Anonymous Designer
Don’t ask
575: Anonymous Designer
What about the wings?
593: Anonymous Designer
As you increase the angle of attack, lift increases at first, but at a certain point it starts to stall.
Depending on the arrangement, you can see the flow break down starting from the front.
611: Anonymous Designer
Does the propeller’s wake affect other parts?
629: Anonymous Designer
It does
If you put the wings behind it, their effectiveness changes depending on the position of the propeller.
647: Anonymous Designer
What happens when you hit the water surface at high speed?
665: Anonymous Designer
The way it bounces changes not only with speed but also with the angle of approach and the area in contact with the water.
If you go in shallow, it may skip several times like a skipping stone.
683: Anonymous Designer
Tire deformation also changes depending on the load, right?
701: Anonymous Designer
It does
If you apply too much load, the contact surface increases, and the way it rolls changes accordingly.
719: Anonymous Designer
Is there even suspension resonance?
737: Anonymous Designer
There is
If the conditions are bad, its own vibrations will disrupt its behavior.
755: Anonymous Designer
Please stop saying “yes” every time I ask a question.
773: Anonymous Designer
What is this physics engine?
791: Anonymous Designer
Quite seriously, I think the concept is different from normal game physics engines.
Considering ease of play and computational load, they usually go for much bolder simplifications.
809: Anonymous Designer
If you ask me whether a construction game needs to know in which direction a single joint bends and where it breaks, it usually doesn’t.
827: Anonymous Designer
Why did it go that far?
845: Anonymous Designer
To make a car with 14 rockets explode in a way that makes sense.
863: Anonymous Designer
Wrong way to use technology
881: Anonymous Designer
But that’s the best part.
In reality, the design would be too dangerous, but here, no one gets hurt even if it breaks a hundred times, and every time it fails, the reason is given.
899: Anonymous Designer
Just to be clear, I’m not saying it “perfectly reproduces real physics.”
Of course, there are approximations and simplifications.
917: Anonymous Designer
That’s natural
The important thing is that the rules used in the game don’t conflict with each other, so far.
That part is so solid it’s disgusting
935: Anonymous Designer
Isn’t “disgustingly solid” a compliment?
953: Anonymous Designer
It’s the highest praise
971: Anonymous Designer
Is this really a solo production?
989: Anonymous Designer
It’s YU
◇
[CRAFT RUNNERS Physical Verification Part 5]
14: Anonymous Designer
At the end of the previous thread, someone said “It’s YU,” but I don’t know who that YU is.
31: Anonymous Designer
Well, if you play 《FRONTIER SAGA》, you’ll understand.
49: Anonymous Designer
Stop it
This guy’s the mechanics type.
He’ll definitely take a detour into logistics and economics and never come back.
67: Anonymous Designer
Is the game really that dangerous?
85: Anonymous Designer
He’s the guy who made the craft game you’ve spent a week looking for bugs in.
103: Anonymous Designer
Don’t convince me in one sentence
◇
Around that time.
In my room, I was replaying the world record aircraft so many times that I’d lost count.
“…That’s amazing.”
“What is?”
“This player. I couldn’t have imagined using it like this.”
On the screen, the world record holder’s aircraft began to run.
The joint strength of the front wheels had been intentionally reduced, causing them to break when the required speed was reached.
The detached tire collided with its own aircraft, and the momentum flipped the vehicle up.
The auxiliary frame had been given a strength difference in advance so that it would break when a shock was applied, and only the center part was sent forward in a lightened state.
Once in the air, the rockets ignited, and the single wing used for attitude control was destroyed once its mission was complete.
The change in posture that occurred at that time was used to get through the rocky mountain, and when the remaining wing was no longer needed, it was scraped against the rocks and dropped.
By the time it reached the goal, the aircraft that had been placed at the starting point had been reduced to such an extent that you could no longer tell what shape it had been.
“Are all the calculations correct?”
“Yes. The run in question has been re-verified.”
“The part where the front wheels come off first?”
“They broke because the load at that point exceeded the set joint strength.”
“The part where it bounces when it hits the tire that came off?”
“The change in momentum before and after the collision is within the tolerance defined in the game.”
“And it gets faster after dropping its wings?”
“The mass and drag decreased, so the acceleration for the same thrust increased.”
“And the part where the aircraft turns by hitting the rock with its wing?”
“That’s the rotation calculated from the contact position, the speed, and the aircraft’s center of gravity.”
“Then it’s not a bug.”
“Yes. There are no inconsistencies in the calculation results.”
It was a simple story.
Just because I didn’t think of it doesn’t mean it’s a problem.
Even if the movement is completely different from the aircraft I prepared as a reference, if the same result is returned from the same cause according to the rules of physics I decided on, then it’s simply a use I hadn’t thought of.
In this game, each part has a mass, and when power is applied, a force acts in that direction. Tires move through friction with the ground, wings catch air, and joints break if they exceed the load they can withstand.
The player had simply combined the rules in an order I hadn’t expected.
“Interesting.”
“Driving stability is low.”
“How low?”
“In 10,000 tests using the same design but with slight differences in initial posture, ground contact position, and operation timing, the completion rate was 7.8 percent.”
“That low, huh.”
“Especially in the section where the first front wheel breaks and it transitions to the self-collision, a slight difference in timing can greatly affect the subsequent behavior.”
“That’s interesting too.”
“Under the current evaluation standards, there is no basis for judging a decline in completion rate as interesting.”
“I know.”
Ever since I started talking to this guy, that’s the one thing that hasn’t changed.
It’s good if the AI tries out a lot of things and finds the differences.
I’ll look at the results and decide what I want to keep.
◇
“By the way, how’s the verification going?”
I asked while opening the next recorded video.
“The players are trying a lot of things, but you still haven’t found anything really strange, have you?”
“Automatic verification has not detected any specification inconsistencies to date.”
“As expected?”
I thought so.
I had created the basic part of the physics calculations myself, and since then I had repeatedly given the development assistance AI extreme conditions that normally wouldn’t be tested.
When a part has an abnormally large speed or mass, when a structure has an extremely biased center of gravity, when a large number of parts are concentrated in a small area, when collisions and breakages occur repeatedly in a short period of time, when a part jumps out of the water into the air at high speed, when a part comes into contact with another object at the moment it breaks.
While I was sleeping, the AI ran them over and over again, not just things players would think of, but also conditions they wouldn’t normally think to try.
If the calculation itself is wrong, correct it.
If contradictory results are returned from the same conditions, correct it.
If we find behavior that deviates from the rules established in the game, we correct that too.
However, if it worked according to the rules and the result was just strange, that alone isn’t a reason to delete it.
“Actually, I’d like to keep that kind of thing.”
“Shall I record the reason?”
“Please. Even if it would normally look like a failure, I want to leave room for it to work out depending on how it’s put together and the conditions.”
“Do you mean to intentionally maintain behavior with a low probability of success?”
“It’s not that I want it to succeed.”
I thought a little and chose my words.
“When a player tries something, I don’t want the game to decide from the beginning that it’s no good. I want them to get the correct result after they try it.”
“Recorded.”
I played the next video.
This time, the aircraft didn’t have a single tire, and instead had twelve legs.
Rather than running, it was rampaging.
However, it was moving forward little by little.
“This is good too.”
“Movement efficiency is significantly lower compared to standard four-wheeled vehicles.”
“It’s so slow I can tell without you saying so.”
“Then, shall I omit remarks about efficiency?”
“No. Keep telling me. I’ll ignore it.”
“Understood.”
◇
The next day.
The world record was updated yet again.
9.94 seconds.
It had only been a week since the release.
◇
[CRAFT RUNNERS Time Attack Comprehensive Part 8]
742: Anonymous Runner
It’s under 10 seconds!!
9.94 seconds!
760: Anonymous Runner
It’s only been out a week!?
The course that originally took 2 minutes and 12 seconds is now under 10 seconds!
778: Anonymous Runner
The video’s up
On the design screen, it looks more like an object that’s meant to be broken cleanly than a finished product.
796: Anonymous Runner
Most of the joints have been weakened to the limit.
If it were a normal design, the first thing you’d fix would be making it more durable.
814: Anonymous Runner
The entire aircraft warps right after the start.
Isn’t it simply not strong enough?
832: Anonymous Runner
No
The frame warps, and the forward force of it trying to spring back overlaps with the rocket’s thrust at that moment.
850: Anonymous Runner
Is the aircraft itself like a spring?
868: Anonymous Runner
For a spring, it explodes midway.
886: Anonymous Runner
Well then, a rocket attached to an exploding spring.
904: Anonymous Runner
The more you explain it, the worse it gets.
922: Anonymous Runner
Even though there’s only the main frame left in the middle, it’s fastest from there lol
940: Anonymous Runner
It’s no longer a design, it’s a demolition plan.
958: Anonymous Runner
No, I think it’s properly designed.
“Which parts to break, in what order, and in what speed range” is decided from the beginning.
The way it breaks is incorporated into the aircraft’s operation.
976: Anonymous Runner
Hearing that explanation suddenly makes it sound respectable.
994: Anonymous Runner
But it’s exploding on screen
◇
[CRAFT RUNNERS Time Attack Comprehensive Part 9]
18: Anonymous Runner
I thought the previous thread’s “designing even the way it breaks” was kind of cool.
36: Anonymous Runner
Don’t be fooled
What they’re doing is a planned explosion.
54: Anonymous Runner
But the order in which things explode is adjusted in units of 0.01 seconds.
72: Anonymous Runner
Adding that information makes it sound cool again, so don’t.
90: Anonymous Runner
Think of it as directing the aircraft right up until the very end.
108: Anonymous Runner
That one was no good.
126: Anonymous Runner
I thought it was a little off the moment I wrote it myself.
144: Anonymous Runner
Realize that before posting
◇
[Question for time attack players]
9: Anonymous Runner
It’s a simple question, but
Why do you guys want to destroy the aircraft so much?
27: Anonymous Runner
We don’t want to break it
As a result of making it faster, breaking it just happened to be the fastest.
45: Anonymous Runner
>>27
It’s not convincing when it’s reduced to rubble at the end every time.
63: Anonymous Runner
The parts you need partway through aren’t necessarily needed all the way to the goal.
Even if you need tires for early acceleration on land, once you’re in the air they may just be dead weight.
81: Anonymous Runner
The wings are the same
You want them when changing posture in the middle, but if they become drag after entering the final straightaway, there’s no point in keeping them.
99: Anonymous Runner
So why not just take them off when you’re done with them?
117: Anonymous Runner
If only we could remove them
135: Anonymous Runner
This game doesn’t have a part separation device.
153: Anonymous Runner
They come off if you break them
171: Anonymous Runner
Don’t offer barbaric solutions in such a natural tone.
189: Anonymous Runner
The creator replied, “If it works, there’s no problem,” so there was no reason to hold back anymore.
To be honest, I’d been holding back on research because I thought it might get patched.
207: Anonymous Runner
It’s already scary that you call it “research”
225: Anonymous Runner
I’m currently comparing whether moving the right wing’s rupture timing forward by 0.03 seconds improves the angle at which it hits the rock.
243: Anonymous Runner
Correction
It was all research
261: Anonymous Runner
>>189
But “YU said it’s within the specifications, so you can do whatever you want” is a different matter.
If you find behavior that really breaks the calculations, it’s usually a bug.
279: Anonymous Runner
Of course we keep those separate
What we want is the strangest way to run within normal physics.
297: Anonymous Runner
If you showed me this sentence a week ago, I probably wouldn’t have been able to process it as Japanese.
◇
In the design community, a thread had finally started to study the way time attack players played.
◇
[Recruitment] Multi-stage aircraft design using intentional structural destruction
11: Anonymous Designer
I want to properly organize the design approach the TA crowd started: “destroying and discarding parts that have finished their use at the desired timing.”
It looks like a complete accident, but the idea is quite interesting.
29: Anonymous Designer
It’s finally starting to look academic.
47: Anonymous Designer
It’s destructive engineering.
65: Anonymous Designer
>>47
It sounds like it fits, but it’s better not to name it arbitrarily because it seems to overlap with an existing term.
83: Anonymous Designer
Seriously shot down
101: Anonymous Designer
I thought I’d said something nice, but
119: Anonymous Designer
This time, I failed the naming test before even being evaluated.
137: Anonymous Designer
If you look at the top-ranked machines, they’re currently divided into four stages.
In the beginning, you accelerate with your tires, then jump using legs and collisions. Once in the air, many configurations change the aircraft’s attitude using the wings, and finally reach the goal using only the rockets and main frame.
155: Anonymous Designer
So, do you discard each part after its role has been completed?
173: Anonymous Designer
Yes
If you just think about the idea, it’s similar to a multi-stage rocket.
191: Anonymous Designer
However, ordinary multi-stage rockets have a proper separation mechanism.
209: Anonymous Designer
Since we don’t have one here, we destroy them by exceeding the load capacity.
227: Anonymous Designer
That one sentence makes your civilization level plummet.
245: Anonymous Designer
But it makes sense
Shedding weight that’s no longer needed is advantageous for acceleration, and if the elastic energy stored in the structure before rupture and the collisions with detached parts can be used, the process of discarding them can itself be used for propulsion and attitude changes.
263: Anonymous Designer
This is a way of playing that would be a candidate for a fix in a normal game.
If you just go by looks, it’s a complete exploit.
281: Anonymous Designer
Normally, there’s a high chance it would be “We fixed it because the behavior was not intended by the developer.”
299: Anonymous Designer
《CRAFT RUNNERS》 is the opposite.
YU himself admitted that it was unexpected, but said, “If it works according to the rules in the game, I’ll keep it.”
317: Anonymous Designer
Crazy
335: Anonymous Designer
Are you praising it right now?
353: Anonymous Designer
I’m praising it a lot
I like this kind of developer
371: Anonymous Designer
In reality, there are safety issues, prototyping costs, and time, so it’s almost impossible to try a design on the assumption that it’ll break hundreds of times.
In a game, you can explode as much as you want, and each time the physics responds, “This time, this area reached its limit first.”
389: Anonymous Designer
That’s it, isn’t it?
Rather than the game saying up front, “That way of playing is prohibited,”
It replies, “If you do it, this is what the result will be.”
407: Anonymous Designer
There are reasons for success, and there are reasons for failure.
So you can think about what to change next.
425: Anonymous Designer
That’s the most fun part
443: Anonymous Designer
I’m not the kind of person who needs physics this detailed, but I understand why the people who like it are hooked.
If you just build a car and drive it on a course, you can do it without knowing anything about structural mechanics.
461: Anonymous Designer
I think that’s important
This isn’t a game that forces everyone to study structural mechanics.
It’s a game where some people start studying on their own while playing.
479: Anonymous Designer
Isn’t that the most dangerous type of teaching material?
◇
That night.
New impressions had also started appearing in the review section.
“We check every time we find bug-like behavior, but so far there’s been a good reason for everything. I’m getting more scared of not finding any bugs.”
“I made a car that couldn’t turn, so I decided to hit a wall to turn. There’s no steering wheel. There’s a wall.”
“I’ve been adjusting the timing of ditching the right wing for an hour. The day I bought the game, I never imagined a life like this.”
“I used to think ‘if it breaks, it’s a failure.’ Now, I even include ‘where and how to break it’ in the design.”
“I started with the intention of looking for defects, but before I knew it, I had ordered an introductory book on structural mechanics.”
“The child laughs and says, ‘More rockets!’ while the adult next to him calculates the breaking load of the joints. It’s the same game.”
“When I asked the creator, ‘Is this a bug?’, he basically replied, ‘It’s breaking normally.’ It was the first time in my life I’d used the expression ‘breaking normally.'”
One review that garnered a lot of sympathy was written as follows.
“In this game, even if you try something strange, it doesn’t say ‘that can’t be done’ from the start. Instead, physics tells you, ‘If you do that, this is what will happen.’ So even if you fail, you’ll want to try slightly different conditions next time.”
◇
The next morning.
Dad showed me the review on his smartphone.
“Yuu. This has been at the top of the reviews since yesterday.”
“Which one?”
“This one.”
I moved my face closer to the screen.
It was the review from earlier that said, “If you do that, this is what will happen.”
“They’ve written some nice things.”
“Is that so?”
Dad frowned a little.
“Below that, it says things like, ‘I’m scared because I can’t find any bugs,’ and ‘What does it mean that it breaks normally?'”
“It’s highly rated.”
“That’s the thing… I know you’re being praised, but why do people start getting scared halfway through?”
“Isn’t it because it’s fun?”
“Dad still doesn’t understand the cause and effect here.”
These days, my father made a similar face every time he read the reviews of YU’s works.
He understood that I was being praised.
However, he still didn’t seem to understand why “scary” got mixed in with the compliments.
“More importantly, look at this.”
“What?”
Dad opened the ranking screen.
“When you were making this game, you said, ‘Create your favorite vehicle and run the course,’ right?”
“I did.”
“Then take a look at the current No. 1 in the world.”
“I’m already looking.”
“All the tires are gone within two seconds of starting.”
“Once it’s in the air, it doesn’t need them anymore, right?”
“Five seconds later, there are no wings.”
“It’s a straight line from there.”
“In the end, all that’s left is the frame and the rockets.”
“But it’s reaching the goal.”
Dad looked up from his smartphone.
“Can you still call it a vehicle?”
“At first, it was a vehicle.”
“And from the middle on?”
I thought about it for a while.
“Something fast, right?”
“Don’t give up on classifying it.”
I couldn’t help but laugh.
Dad also laughed as if surprised, then looked down at the ranking screen again.
World record, 9.94 seconds.
The aircraft lost its tires within two seconds of starting, and once it took off into the air, it gradually threw away its wings, and in the end, it flew toward the goal with only the main frame and a minimal propulsion device.
“…It’s really interesting.”
“I’m glad you look like you’re having fun.”
All I had placed in 《CRAFT RUNNERS》 were parts that could be combined freely, the laws of physics each of them obeyed, and the goal on the other side.
What kind of shape can be called a vehicle?
Which section to run, where to fly from, and what to discard along the way?
Is breaking something a failure, or can it be used for a purpose?
There’s no need for me to decide all that.
What I prepared wasn’t an answer, but a mechanism for creating answers.
And now, I’m no longer the only one creating the answers.
We don’t use ads!
If you enjoyed our translation, please consider buying us a cup…
Thanks!!!
Become a Patron!
We don’t use ads!
If you enjoyed our translation, please consider buying us a cup…
Thanks!!!
Become a Patron!