Why do game engines tolerate larger position errors than cosmological simulations, given both face similar computational constraints?

This is a thoughtful question, but the preprints provided don't directly address the design philosophy behind game engines versus cosmological simulations — they focus on the latter's internal numerical challenges.

That said, I can sketch why the comparison might seem backwards:

Cosmological simulations actually demand tighter position control than games do. A game engine can tolerate larger errors because it only needs to look "plausible" to a human watching at 60 Hz over a few minutes. A cosmological simulation must predict large-scale structure with percent-level accuracy across billions of particles over cosmic time, because those predictions are compared directly to real observations to constrain fundamental physics [AG-2025.02-229]. Even tiny errors compound: box-size effects on the matter power spectrum grow measurably at large scales [AG-2024.01-417], and energy non-conservation in self-interacting dark matter models can derail simulations entirely [AG-2024.03-936].

In other words: games optimize for *perceptual fidelity*, while cosmology optimizes for *inference accuracy*. The latter is much less forgiving.

The provided preprints don't compare computational budgets or error-tolerance thresholds between these domains, so I can't directly explain why you might have observed game engines tolerating larger errors—that may reflect domain-specific design choices not covered here.