• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 16:17
CEST 22:17
KST 05:17
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 20259Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202577RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18
Community News
EWC 2025 - Replay Pack0Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced25BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19
StarCraft 2
General
EWC 2025 - Replay Pack #1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 2025 Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 I offer completely free coaching services
Tourneys
FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $10,000 live event Esports World Cup 2025 $25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced $5,000 WardiTV Summer Championship 2025 WardiTV Mondays
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 484 Magnetic Pull Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune
Brood War
General
Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign Dewalt's Show Matches in China BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW General Discussion
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers [G] Mineral Boosting Does 1 second matter in StarCraft?
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Total Annihilation Server - TAForever [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
UK Politics Mega-thread US Politics Mega-thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 715 users

Physics Engine - Game Programming

Blogs > CecilSunkure
Post a Reply
1 2 Next All
CecilSunkure
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States2829 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-03-28 02:05:25
March 28 2013 02:00 GMT
#1
Hello all! I've been wanting to create another TL KnowHow article to go over a topic of interest: creating a custom physics engine. My last one talked a lot about high level summaries without too much implementation details. The physics engine one was going to be all about the implementation details.

[image loading]


However TL KnowHow pretty much shut down, so I don't really have the option anymore. Instead I put them up on my website and they will just chill out there forever.

So is anyone here interested in reading up a bit on what it is like to code your own custom physics engine? It happens to be a lot of geometry and linear algebra, and a lot of interesting details. I started up an article series that will be going over all the details involved in creating a small custom 2D physics engine. Here's the list of what I've finished so far:

  • Impulse Resolution
  • Manifold Generation

Just wanted to share the articles I'm creating here in case anyone was going to miss them, since TL KnowHow is a goner. I'll of course be adding more articles to the series as time passes. Since everyone loves pictures I'll share a few from the posts.

[image loading]


[image loading]
Change of basis from left to right.


[image loading]
Stacked oriented boxes from my own physics engine.


And lastly here's a sweet equation I wrote in code comments! + Show Spoiler [code] +
Eq 14:
Impulse = -(1 + Restitution) * (VelocityRelativeAtoB dot n)
-------------------------------------------------
1 1 (rA cross n)^2 (rB cross n)^2
----- + ----- + -------------- + --------------
MassA MassB InertiaTensorA InertiaTensorB


**
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24676 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-03-28 02:15:25
March 28 2013 02:11 GMT
#2
Something to keep in mind about coding physics engines (and other things like that): it's more effective to have a science specialist learn coding in order to apply expertise to a program than it is to try to teach the scientific expertise to someone who purely knows how to code.

For a simple 2d engine this may not be the case, but it is true in the 'working world' for the most part.

Thank you for sharing this... sounds interesting.

edit: you might want to suggest how people can learn the physics necessary to come up with their own engines! We can't all have degrees in physics :p
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
CecilSunkure
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States2829 Posts
March 28 2013 02:23 GMT
#3
On March 28 2013 11:11 micronesia wrote:
Something to keep in mind about coding physics engines (and other things like that): it's more effective to have a science specialist learn coding in order to apply expertise to a program than it is to try to teach the scientific expertise to someone who purely knows how to code.

For a simple 2d engine this may not be the case, but it is true in the 'working world' for the most part.

Thank you for sharing this... sounds interesting.

edit: you might want to suggest how people can learn the physics necessary to come up with their own engines! We can't all have degrees in physics :p

I would tend to agree. Most people aren't capable of writing this sort of thing on their own. And the funny thing is, is that in 2D the complexity isn't all that much simpler than in 3D. They are actually very similar, and often times just "adding another dimension" is all that is required to make such a transition.

However scientists and mathmaticians are absolutely terrible at programming. They can't really be used for any commercial products because of this. So what is really needed, is someone that is great with mathematics and specializes in computer science. These types of people however are quite rare.
jrkirby
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States1510 Posts
March 28 2013 02:41 GMT
#4
On March 28 2013 11:23 CecilSunkure wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 28 2013 11:11 micronesia wrote:
Something to keep in mind about coding physics engines (and other things like that): it's more effective to have a science specialist learn coding in order to apply expertise to a program than it is to try to teach the scientific expertise to someone who purely knows how to code.

For a simple 2d engine this may not be the case, but it is true in the 'working world' for the most part.

Thank you for sharing this... sounds interesting.

edit: you might want to suggest how people can learn the physics necessary to come up with their own engines! We can't all have degrees in physics :p

I would tend to agree. Most people aren't capable of writing this sort of thing on their own. And the funny thing is, is that in 2D the complexity isn't all that much simpler than in 3D. They are actually very similar, and often times just "adding another dimension" is all that is required to make such a transition.

However scientists and mathmaticians are absolutely terrible at programming. They can't really be used for any commercial products because of this. So what is really needed, is someone that is great with mathematics and specializes in computer science. These types of people however are quite rare.


I think collision detection or arbitrary shapes is a bit harder in 3d than in 2d, but a lot of the concepts are the same.
CecilSunkure
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States2829 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-03-28 03:06:50
March 28 2013 03:02 GMT
#5
On March 28 2013 11:41 jrkirby wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 28 2013 11:23 CecilSunkure wrote:
On March 28 2013 11:11 micronesia wrote:
Something to keep in mind about coding physics engines (and other things like that): it's more effective to have a science specialist learn coding in order to apply expertise to a program than it is to try to teach the scientific expertise to someone who purely knows how to code.

For a simple 2d engine this may not be the case, but it is true in the 'working world' for the most part.

Thank you for sharing this... sounds interesting.

edit: you might want to suggest how people can learn the physics necessary to come up with their own engines! We can't all have degrees in physics :p

I would tend to agree. Most people aren't capable of writing this sort of thing on their own. And the funny thing is, is that in 2D the complexity isn't all that much simpler than in 3D. They are actually very similar, and often times just "adding another dimension" is all that is required to make such a transition.

However scientists and mathmaticians are absolutely terrible at programming. They can't really be used for any commercial products because of this. So what is really needed, is someone that is great with mathematics and specializes in computer science. These types of people however are quite rare.


I think collision detection or arbitrary shapes is a bit harder in 3d than in 2d, but a lot of the concepts are the same.

Yeah that's one area that gets more difficult. Another one is friction.
corpuscle
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States1967 Posts
March 28 2013 03:06 GMT
#6
On March 28 2013 11:23 CecilSunkure wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 28 2013 11:11 micronesia wrote:
Something to keep in mind about coding physics engines (and other things like that): it's more effective to have a science specialist learn coding in order to apply expertise to a program than it is to try to teach the scientific expertise to someone who purely knows how to code.

For a simple 2d engine this may not be the case, but it is true in the 'working world' for the most part.

Thank you for sharing this... sounds interesting.

edit: you might want to suggest how people can learn the physics necessary to come up with their own engines! We can't all have degrees in physics :p

I would tend to agree. Most people aren't capable of writing this sort of thing on their own. And the funny thing is, is that in 2D the complexity isn't all that much simpler than in 3D. They are actually very similar, and often times just "adding another dimension" is all that is required to make such a transition.

However scientists and mathmaticians are absolutely terrible at programming. They can't really be used for any commercial products because of this. So what is really needed, is someone that is great with mathematics and specializes in computer science. These types of people however are quite rare.


Do software firms that do a lot of physics modeling (like game companies) hire physicists as consultants, or anything like that? I can understand physicists not being the best at programming, but as far as I know, many of them at least know the basics of coding, and could advise programmers on more efficient ways to implement physics problems.

I took a scientific computing class that was pretty much a mix of physics and CS majors, and the CS majors had devised some of the most unwieldy and awkward numerical techniques to solve problems that can be simplified with math because they simply didn't know how, it was pretty ugly. The physics majors, of course, had ugly and poorly-organized code, so it's not like we were any better, but when we worked in pairs, we ended up with some pretty solid work, considering the level of expertise we were at.
From the void I am born into wave and particle
CecilSunkure
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States2829 Posts
March 28 2013 03:15 GMT
#7
On March 28 2013 12:06 corpuscle wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 28 2013 11:23 CecilSunkure wrote:
On March 28 2013 11:11 micronesia wrote:
Something to keep in mind about coding physics engines (and other things like that): it's more effective to have a science specialist learn coding in order to apply expertise to a program than it is to try to teach the scientific expertise to someone who purely knows how to code.

For a simple 2d engine this may not be the case, but it is true in the 'working world' for the most part.

Thank you for sharing this... sounds interesting.

edit: you might want to suggest how people can learn the physics necessary to come up with their own engines! We can't all have degrees in physics :p

I would tend to agree. Most people aren't capable of writing this sort of thing on their own. And the funny thing is, is that in 2D the complexity isn't all that much simpler than in 3D. They are actually very similar, and often times just "adding another dimension" is all that is required to make such a transition.

However scientists and mathmaticians are absolutely terrible at programming. They can't really be used for any commercial products because of this. So what is really needed, is someone that is great with mathematics and specializes in computer science. These types of people however are quite rare.


Do software firms that do a lot of physics modeling (like game companies) hire physicists as consultants, or anything like that? I can understand physicists not being the best at programming, but as far as I know, many of them at least know the basics of coding, and could advise programmers on more efficient ways to implement physics problems.

I took a scientific computing class that was pretty much a mix of physics and CS majors, and the CS majors had devised some of the most unwieldy and awkward numerical techniques to solve problems that can be simplified with math because they simply didn't know how, it was pretty ugly. The physics majors, of course, had ugly and poorly-organized code, so it's not like we were any better, but when we worked in pairs, we ended up with some pretty solid work, considering the level of expertise we were at.

Not that I know of. Usually companies just use a pre-made engine (Havok or something), or hire people who are very good at physics and math and specialize in computer science. For example Erin Catto does all the physics at Blizzard all on his own. All of it. That guy however is a mathematician and an excellent computer scientist. Also, physics engine development is very low in demand. Studios have like, one guy that does it and usually this guy has been doing it for years and years. It's sort of like engine architect, or technical director; very strong professionals take these positions, and there's almost no demand for positions like such to be filled.

tldr; physics programming isn't a job position that has any demand (in my own opinion).

It is quite interesting to hear about you guys working together though! Honestly computer scientists should have an excellent understanding of math in order to be a competent game developer. Like I said, people who are good at both sides of the fence are really rare, which is why it's so hard for most programmers to get a game industry job related to computer science.
corpuscle
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States1967 Posts
March 28 2013 03:29 GMT
#8
On March 28 2013 12:15 CecilSunkure wrote:It is quite interesting to hear about you guys working together though! Honestly computer scientists should have an excellent understanding of math in order to be a competent game developer. Like I said, people who are good at both sides of the fence are really rare, which is why it's so hard for most programmers to get a game industry job related to computer science.


Oh, they knew the math, they just didn't really know the various ways to apply it to physics. One of the problems we did, for example, involved the Coriolis effect, so I got to introduce my partner to non-inertial reference frames and all that fun stuff, which cleaned up the actual computation by quite a bit. He could follow the math easily as I showed it to him, he just wouldn't have thought of approaching the problem that way, I guess.

That kind of sucks to hear about how (relatively) unimportant physicists are in game development, though. It's not surprising, but I guess a part of me was hoping that every game company secretly had a team of top-flight physicists stashed away in a dank basement somewhere.
From the void I am born into wave and particle
CecilSunkure
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States2829 Posts
March 28 2013 03:34 GMT
#9
On March 28 2013 12:29 corpuscle wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 28 2013 12:15 CecilSunkure wrote:It is quite interesting to hear about you guys working together though! Honestly computer scientists should have an excellent understanding of math in order to be a competent game developer. Like I said, people who are good at both sides of the fence are really rare, which is why it's so hard for most programmers to get a game industry job related to computer science.


Oh, they knew the math, they just didn't really know the various ways to apply it to physics. One of the problems we did, for example, involved the Coriolis effect, so I got to introduce my partner to non-inertial reference frames and all that fun stuff, which cleaned up the actual computation by quite a bit. He could follow the math easily as I showed it to him, he just wouldn't have thought of approaching the problem that way, I guess.

That kind of sucks to hear about how (relatively) unimportant physicists are in game development, though. It's not surprising, but I guess a part of me was hoping that every game company secretly had a team of top-flight physicists stashed away in a dank basement somewhere.

Okay well it's good that he could follow the math!

Yeah, they don't hire straight physicists as far as I know. Of course there's no reason why you couldn't pursue such a job yourself. There'd just need to be a lot of independent study done on your part.
wptlzkwjd
Profile Joined January 2012
Canada1240 Posts
March 28 2013 04:02 GMT
#10
Haha nice. Is this going to be the next CryEngine 4?
Feel free to add me on steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/MagnusAskeland/
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24676 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-03-28 04:04:19
March 28 2013 04:04 GMT
#11
Lots of physicists become solid programmers. In fact, many people major in physics then go on to become software engineers. Others use programming in finance, astronomical modeling, etc.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
CecilSunkure
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States2829 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-03-28 04:44:39
March 28 2013 04:44 GMT
#12
On March 28 2013 13:02 wptlzkwjd wrote:
Haha nice. Is this going to be the next CryEngine 4?

Haha probably not! However it will be used next year in a game I'm devoting a year of my life (at least one year, maybe two) to
CatNzHat
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
United States1599 Posts
March 28 2013 06:06 GMT
#13
On March 28 2013 12:02 CecilSunkure wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 28 2013 11:41 jrkirby wrote:
On March 28 2013 11:23 CecilSunkure wrote:
On March 28 2013 11:11 micronesia wrote:
Something to keep in mind about coding physics engines (and other things like that): it's more effective to have a science specialist learn coding in order to apply expertise to a program than it is to try to teach the scientific expertise to someone who purely knows how to code.

For a simple 2d engine this may not be the case, but it is true in the 'working world' for the most part.

Thank you for sharing this... sounds interesting.

edit: you might want to suggest how people can learn the physics necessary to come up with their own engines! We can't all have degrees in physics :p

I would tend to agree. Most people aren't capable of writing this sort of thing on their own. And the funny thing is, is that in 2D the complexity isn't all that much simpler than in 3D. They are actually very similar, and often times just "adding another dimension" is all that is required to make such a transition.

However scientists and mathmaticians are absolutely terrible at programming. They can't really be used for any commercial products because of this. So what is really needed, is someone that is great with mathematics and specializes in computer science. These types of people however are quite rare.


I think collision detection or arbitrary shapes is a bit harder in 3d than in 2d, but a lot of the concepts are the same.

Yeah that's one area that gets more difficult. Another one is friction.

Yep, friction's a bitch.

The thing about mathematically demanding computer science projects in a commercial environment is that most of the math has already been figured out, and algorithms can be found in research papers or for more generic problems, on the internet. If you've taken the required math for a CS degree at a UC it's not very hard to determine how to properly implement these solutions. Game engine physics require a good bit of science knowledge as well as good programming skills and complete control of whatever language you're writing in to get it right. The physics engine in games needs to run in real-time and be consistent. This means the "correct" mathematical solution might not work because it runs too slowly, so you need to modify it to run quicker without losing too much accuracy. This makes a giant mess if you don't completely understand the math, the physics, and the programming. Bringing together just 2 of the three disciplines is pretty manageable, but all three require a very specific skill set and lots of experience to get right. The place where these skills are the most valuable i probably in medical simulation research facilities, and I think there's a lot more jobs out there for people with this skillset than you might think, but you're correct in that they aren't in the entertainment industry.
Heyoka
Profile Blog Joined March 2008
Katowice25012 Posts
March 28 2013 06:08 GMT
#14
On March 28 2013 13:04 micronesia wrote:
Lots of physicists become solid programmers. In fact, many people major in physics then go on to become software engineers. Others use programming in finance, astronomical modeling, etc.


My brief experiences in academia have lead me to believe this is a really smart career move. In all the labs I've worked with or had friends in they were constantly looking for people who could program with the tools they had to get the kinds of simulations and models they needed for publications, making the guys who knew both the science aspect as well as the technical side really valuable. I'd guess that someone who is highly skilled in mathmatics as well as being a good computer science specialist has a lot of opportunities so they don't often land in video games (which I guess would explain why there are a few well known engines out there that handle most of it this for the majority of studios).
@RealHeyoka | ESL / DreamHack StarCraft Lead
CatNzHat
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
United States1599 Posts
March 28 2013 06:09 GMT
#15
On March 28 2013 13:02 wptlzkwjd wrote:
Haha nice. Is this going to be the next CryEngine 4?


I would so play a 2d crysis platformer. Someone please do this and post to cryengine developer forum...

Seriously though, nice work cecil, I really appreciate that you spend the time to create the educational content, especially since I've moved from the CS academic world to a digital media and design trade school.

Teaching others what you have learned ensure you won't forget it, this has been shown in many studies, keep up the great work!
EatThePath
Profile Blog Joined September 2009
United States3943 Posts
March 28 2013 06:38 GMT
#16
Ah this lead to a cascade of link clicking and article/blog reading, resulting in the consumption of many tasty tidbits of useful info I had not come across before. Thanks!
Comprehensive strategic intention: DNE
wei2coolman
Profile Joined November 2010
United States60033 Posts
March 28 2013 09:26 GMT
#17
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the issue with physics coding is more often than not the game engine doesn't actually code for physics, so much as it codes the "effects" of physics, if you know what I mean.
liftlift > tsm
freelander
Profile Blog Joined December 2004
Hungary4707 Posts
March 28 2013 09:54 GMT
#18
On March 28 2013 12:15 CecilSunkure wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 28 2013 12:06 corpuscle wrote:
On March 28 2013 11:23 CecilSunkure wrote:
On March 28 2013 11:11 micronesia wrote:
Something to keep in mind about coding physics engines (and other things like that): it's more effective to have a science specialist learn coding in order to apply expertise to a program than it is to try to teach the scientific expertise to someone who purely knows how to code.

For a simple 2d engine this may not be the case, but it is true in the 'working world' for the most part.

Thank you for sharing this... sounds interesting.

edit: you might want to suggest how people can learn the physics necessary to come up with their own engines! We can't all have degrees in physics :p

I would tend to agree. Most people aren't capable of writing this sort of thing on their own. And the funny thing is, is that in 2D the complexity isn't all that much simpler than in 3D. They are actually very similar, and often times just "adding another dimension" is all that is required to make such a transition.

However scientists and mathmaticians are absolutely terrible at programming. They can't really be used for any commercial products because of this. So what is really needed, is someone that is great with mathematics and specializes in computer science. These types of people however are quite rare.


Do software firms that do a lot of physics modeling (like game companies) hire physicists as consultants, or anything like that? I can understand physicists not being the best at programming, but as far as I know, many of them at least know the basics of coding, and could advise programmers on more efficient ways to implement physics problems.

I took a scientific computing class that was pretty much a mix of physics and CS majors, and the CS majors had devised some of the most unwieldy and awkward numerical techniques to solve problems that can be simplified with math because they simply didn't know how, it was pretty ugly. The physics majors, of course, had ugly and poorly-organized code, so it's not like we were any better, but when we worked in pairs, we ended up with some pretty solid work, considering the level of expertise we were at.

Not that I know of. Usually companies just use a pre-made engine (Havok or something), or hire people who are very good at physics and math and specialize in computer science. For example Erin Catto does all the physics at Blizzard all on his own. All of it. That guy however is a mathematician and an excellent computer scientist. Also, physics engine development is very low in demand. Studios have like, one guy that does it and usually this guy has been doing it for years and years. It's sort of like engine architect, or technical director; very strong professionals take these positions, and there's almost no demand for positions like such to be filled.

tldr; physics programming isn't a job position that has any demand (in my own opinion).

It is quite interesting to hear about you guys working together though! Honestly computer scientists should have an excellent understanding of math in order to be a competent game developer. Like I said, people who are good at both sides of the fence are really rare, which is why it's so hard for most programmers to get a game industry job related to computer science.


hehe I use Catto's 2D physics engine in all my 2d games
And all is illuminated.
Otolia
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
France5805 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-03-28 11:38:40
March 28 2013 11:35 GMT
#19
On March 28 2013 12:15 CecilSunkure wrote:
tldr; physics programming isn't a job position that has any demand (in my own opinion).

Like micronesia said, a physics programming is the mother of all computational science bar computational mathematics (but mathematicians are always secluded). Weather forecast, Finance, behavior modelling all of this is done by physicists.

For example, the best programmers in my theoritical physics class have written projects like : behavioral spreading of diseases, chaotic rebound (that was mine) or weather propagation. Those were simplistic but for most of us that was our first real code ever and we all wrote in C.
Gianttt
Profile Blog Joined November 2011
Netherlands194 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-03-28 16:40:52
March 28 2013 16:40 GMT
#20
I'd love to see more of this. I am a programmer both working for a webdesign studio and freelancer and always like to learn more about these subjects.
Eventually I would love getting more known in using science in websites.

Good luck!
Winners: It is difficult, but it's possible.
1 2 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
18:00
RO8 Round Robin Group - Day 4
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
ZZZero.O255
LiquipediaDiscussion
FEL
09:00
Cracow 2025
Clem vs LamboLIVE!
Reynor vs TBD
RotterdaM2659
ComeBackTV 2242
IndyStarCraft 677
WardiTV435
3DClanTV 189
CranKy Ducklings160
EnkiAlexander 123
Rex67
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
RotterdaM 2659
IndyStarCraft 677
Rex 67
StarCraft: Brood War
ZZZero.O 255
Soulkey 118
NaDa 6
Dota 2
capcasts312
LuMiX1
League of Legends
JimRising 101
febbydoto10
Counter-Strike
fl0m3331
Fnx 2198
Stewie2K401
flusha391
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox2017
Mew2King1383
AZ_Axe177
Westballz12
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor669
Liquid`Hasu570
Other Games
Grubby2902
B2W.Neo1261
KnowMe129
mouzStarbuck96
Sick24
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick2707
StarCraft 2
angryscii 21
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 22 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• davetesta33
• LUISG 20
• Hupsaiya 16
• Legendk 4
• Adnapsc2 4
• Kozan
• intothetv
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• HerbMon 23
• Azhi_Dahaki13
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• masondota21879
• WagamamaTV903
League of Legends
• Doublelift3575
Other Games
• imaqtpie1650
• Shiphtur613
Upcoming Events
Wardi Open
14h 43m
Sparkling Tuna Cup
1d 13h
WardiTV European League
1d 19h
Online Event
1d 21h
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
2 days
The PondCast
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
Korean StarCraft League
5 days
CranKy Ducklings
5 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL 20 Non-Korean Championship
BSL 20 Team Wars
FEL Cracov 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
WardiTV Summer 2025
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.