I skimmed those articles. And tbh it seems like they are just whitewashing their backers who dont have game programming experience.

Eg. For the 64bit precision one they have a decent amount of detail explaining what it is. But not why they are doing it when its not necessary. (I assume the only reason one could possibly do this is cus every ship in a game instance exists in the same phsyics world (which is a crazy bad implementation))

The problem with making guesses about any of the technical decisions is that this is a software project with hundreds of people in multiple studios. There are no design efficiencies to be had here: somewhere within those hundreds of developers a rationale for taking on a more complicated architecture arises - a specific feature, or combination of features, that causes a cascade of requirements inflation.

For example, one reason they might want higher precision is for editing and processing persistent data: a need that doesn't apparently have anything to do with the physics simulation, but subsequently ripples down into "well, if we want to allow editing in real-time, then..."

It is interesting work, but nothing that you would want to emulate as a best practice for making a Better Game. It's just a result of the software aspects being scoped and executed in such an uncompromising way. A good majority of the work to date has been on the organization-building work of teams and processes that can execute at this scale.

What??