<p>
</p>
<p>“Physics simulator” could include a game where objects are moving or flying around “realistically”.</p>
<p>I’ve said this a million times and I have probably ticked a bunch of people on these forums by repeatedly saying it but:</p>
<p>The key here isn’t intelligence. It’s concept-oriented learning. Every concept has an optimal method of learning. The optimal method for learning CS for example will not be the same as the optimal method for learning, say, organic chemistry </p>
<p>Now I’ve never understood what people mean by “this doesn’t ‘click’ with me” so I am assuming that it means that they are not approaching learning or “seeing” that concept the right (or optimal) way. </p>
<p>Obviously it isn’t easy to know how to see a subject and that may take practice, but perhaps you should try getting help from those kids who do well. Not to offend those kids, but more often than not, their good grades aren’t because they’re smart, but because they practice concept-oriented learning and studying in the “optimal” manner for that concept.</p>
<p>For example, I spent a TON of effort learning EE 20N, and barely any time learning CS70, but I will end up probably doing so much better in CS 70 than EE 20 (in terms of letter grades) because I approached learning CS 70 optimally since they beginning of the class (and my nice exam grades reflected that), but learned how to study EE 20N optimally only near the end (and my exams have reflected this too).</p>
<p>Front load your human machine learning capabilities through problem sets and past exams early on to figure out how you should be seeing concepts and how to think about applying them.</p>
<p>If all that still doesn’t work, then I guess maybe computer science isn’t for you? But if I feel if any human being does the generic, abstract, and frustratingly non-descriptive advice I’ve given above, they should be able to learn anything imo.</p>