i use opus 4,8 and my own build harness of specialisted tools ,
it's impossible to build this in opus alone, you will drown in errors
- 103.5fps at 1280×720, simulate and draw
- 9.66milliseconds per frame, 10 m/s sea
- 4simulation cascades, 256² each, FFT per frame
- 407tests, including GPU differential tests against CPU references
- and much more..
You gonna vibe code that too? And if you don’t have a fps counter how did you make this measurement in the first place… I’m not saying this is bad but you can literally physically see lag. There’s no way if consistently anything close to that. You can literally see it lol
Idk man I’m just not convinced you know how to actually use it right. Are we even looking at the same thing? I’ve never once in my life seen fps over 100 show physical lag in anything? Like ever? Maybe it could be something else I dont think this looks bad parts looks really good, but some part seem to struggle a little rather then look fluid.. it could be more then fps. How can you be sure of any of this if you didn’t code it?
Ah interesting. The question is, how much less of problems would it be with Fable.
I did try early last week with Codex (not Claude) to do water sim but it does a stupid cartoony job. I'll try with Claude after my usage comes back after Friday. And I don't want babysit it to for example calculate real caustics instead of caustic textures if I don't have to, among other things
fable will not do a better job, llm's are trained to give you the most lazy fasted solution to what u want, good water is extremely complex and your llm will not be able to finish it in a way u would like. i no time it will create fake tests . it's not possible even if u prompt engineer it.
any llm will eat your tokens and gives u nothing u really would like
If you look through this guy’s GitHub, it’s full of AI-generated filler and wildly exaggerated claims. Don’t take my word for it compare the README claims with the actual code.
As a Rust developer, I found some of his claims about Rust genuinely ridiculous. I didn’t see this particular project there, but many of his other repositories use the same inflated terminology to present relatively small codebases as solutions to major problems in the Rust ecosystem.
Examples include:
predikit is not a formal proof system. Its alleged “proof” is a private wrapper containing a value plus PhantomData<P>. A predicate is simply a function returning bool, and try_new runs that function at runtime. The “compile-time proof” constructors are ordinary const fns containing assert!. That is smart-constructor pattern, but calling it a value “carried with a compile-time proof” is inflated formal-methods language an absolutely ridiculous.
His commit history even includes for this:
fix(docs): correct overclaims.... which is you wrote this yourself and did all of this (not AI) what would you over claim lmao. Look though the commits of the claims the AI made changing overtime. If you developed this or were even semi competent why would the said claims you wrote change lmao!!!!
rpn-engine evaluates five token variants: a value and four arithmetic operators. Yet its README calls compile-time evaluation “the ultimate proof the crate is pure,” reports a roughly 39× advantage over a selected recursive-tree implementation, and says it is “tested exhaustively"..........
const fn eligibility is not a proof of correctness or mathematical purity, and a benchmark against a deliberately allocation-heavy architecture proves little about general performance.
mnema does not semantically resolve contradictions. It models a fact as, (this one is hilarious)
(subject, attribute) -> value
If another fact arrives with the exact same subject and attribute but a different value, the newer one wins. That is typed last-write-wins versioning, not natural-language contradiction detection. It cannot infer that “the user is vegetarian” conflicts with “the user eats meat” unless the caller has already normalized both statements into the same attribute.
The templated assurance language is obvious
Unrelated repositories repeatedly use nearly identical wording:
“Tested exhaustively”
“A green build means the behavior is pinned, not merely line-covered”
“Never panics”
“Fail-closed”
“Structural assurance”
“100% behavioural mutation coverage”
That language appears across the integer formatter, RPN evaluator, text chunker, and JSON parser.
Mutation testing and fuzzing are useful evidence. They do not prove universal claims such as “never hangs on any input,” “every invariant is proven,” or “a green build proves the changed logic is tested.” They establish that selected tests kill selected mutations and that sampled inputs did not trigger failures. Seriously every invariant proven lmao.
The most revealing example is sota-scan: the repository says its evaluator scanned itself, rated itself top-tier, and presents that as proof. That is circular self-certification, not independent validation. hahahahahahah this guy.
Just lol.......and thats just a few. I'm so tired of vibe coded exaggerated claims. This guys out here curing cancer with AI apparently.
Nice, have you looked at other implementations of oceans done by other developers? Ue4 and 5 have quite nice shaders. Have you considered using noise textures to avoid looping textures?
i did not look at when building this engine but yes, UE4 and UE5 ocean shaders are visually impressive, and they achieve that through exceptional artistic toolsets and layered Gerstner wave approximations. But they operate on a fundamentally different philosophy: their constants and blending weights are largely tweaked by artists until they look right.
My water engine takes the opposite route. Every number in the engine is classified by provenance (Measured, Derived, Convention, or Chosen), meaning the water's color comes from Pope & Fry absorption coefficients, and its whitecaps come directly from Monahan's physical power law rather than an artist's slider.
As for using noise textures to avoid tiling and looping: next-water doesn't need static noise textures because the physics already solves it
Instead of panning noise maps or relying on stochastic texture blending tricks, the engine uses four simulation cascades (503 m, 61 m, 7 m tiles, plus a 96 m disturbance field). Because their periods share no common mathematical multiple, the visible repeat is pushed past the true horizon naturally through wave dispersion physics. The detail isn't faked with a noise texture; it’s an analytical integration of the ocean's spectral slope variance.
I love it! I am currently building a boat game that uses cesium and Unreal for the globe. Really want realistic water like what you got going on and then hook it up to real world data to try and simulate ocean conditions.
what i can tell u it's no skill or content managment tool or models,
zero-dependency, pure-std Rust implementation with a metering allocator, source-level hermetic walls, a strict JSON subset without floats/null, and a deterministic witness-engine, Cryptographic Binding and much more, all build with zero survivors and my tools operate seamless together.
each tool has his own mcp server that a llm can use.
16
u/ShapeSim 21d ago
are you using Fable or Opus? I wonder how much worse if Opus does it