That creates a bigger box, but you should really be translating your box upwards(as in add something to it's y position). I'm guessing the box is clipping through your ground where you can't see it's actually bigger than the boundary of the mesh. So something like:
// Draw model here
D3DXMatrixTranslation(&matrix, 0.0f, (m_vMaxd.y - m_vMind.y) / 2, 0.0f);
// Draw bounding box here
Does the 3DS Max pivot even export to X? I can't recall that, but I would position models so that (0, 0, 0) is the ground, if you ever want to animate your models this will make your life easier. This means you will have to adjust the position of your bounding box, either manually or automatically.
But if I put the pivot point at ground zero, the bounding box will be half the size.
Why is that? How are you getting your bounding box?
Wow... those debugger tips, 16 minutes in and I'm pretty sure this is one of the best videos I've watched in quiet some time! Writing expressions in comments during debugging and evaluating them on the fly == mind is blown.
The idea is you'll be able to get all the info you need by looking at your car, instead of the corners of the screen.
I'm not sure that's a good idea, there's a lot of information crammed into a very small space. Not all the info is something you want to be constantly looking at, which might make it harder to read the info you really care about.
I like the idea of showing heat 'organically' through the redness of the tires, maybe you could something similar for other elements?
I'm guessing you're running some sort of experiment, not sure what you think you'll get out of it. Based on what I've seen, which are some animated and static graphics without gameplay, I wouldn't play it.
First, owners are 260 500 copies, but probably kickstarter backers should not count as people who bought broken age, since they didnt bought it, they kickstarterted it and all that money went probably into development so it is not an earning or profit for the creators (double fine).
This makes no sense to me. Why wouldn't a backer count as someone who bought the game? Because Double Fine didn't profit off of them? Even if they didn't, how is that any different from a studio with investors that first have to sell an x amount of games before they start making a profit?
There are a lot of ifs and assumptions you're making, what is it that you're interested in? It doesn't seem to be the number of people Tim Schaffer can appeal to(the number you mentioned is lower than the amount of backers).
I think you should start programming. Start with the basics of your game, see what steps you need to take to get some basic stuff on your screen and go from there. Once you actually have some code and know what step(s) you're going to take next, you can start thinking about whether you should make pieces of your code more abstract or not.
You shouldn't be writing abstract code because you're unsure where you want to go with your game. It takes more time to write and will probably not suit your needs very well.
Passing as argument or storing as member are both valid designs. The examples you've given are quite distinct though. Calling the method with different instances of A is easy in the first example, less so in the second. If only a single instance of A should be coupled to B, then passing the pointer to the constructor would more clearly describe that intent.
There's also a difference in lifetime management, in your first example class B has no control over the lifetime of A, the second example does.
Depending on your requirements you can choose one over the other.