To make it look like vectors we'd need to create vector, matrix, multiplication, transformation etc. Half of numbers would be 0 either 1 which can easily be optimized. That's why it's easier to do like this (possibly even easier to understand after a little research).
I guess. But when you move up to more complex things happening at once I think it becomes a lot simpler to manage. It seems like he's making some sort of space game with gravity being simulated here, and I'm not really sure if gravity between...say...6 different bodies would be easy here or not. It might be, but I can see him using dedicated vector functions in different situations as well.
Nonono I'm not going that much in-depth. In fact I'm pretty much ignoring the REAL effects of gravity all together. I'm aiming for semi-complex which results in planets orbiting suns, and suns essentially orbiting the center of the map.
Any object massive enough to induce significant gravity after n distance should be classed and handled differently...for example, the center of the screen would be something handled differently in his case.
How would I go about making objects (a; AKA a planet) closer to the orbit origin (b; AKA the sun), orbit faster than those further away? Right now everything orbits in perfect alignment which is just awkward.
Someone should make a simulation library based on all this, if only to hand a huge improvement to space games that like to simulate things properly. Plus, pixel movement based systems need more documentation in general if you ask me.
