Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
    7
  • comments
    37
  • views
    8545

2D GameDev Challenges - January 2018 (Missile Command)

GoliathForge

1006 views

LightningCommandScreen.jpg

This challenge was a good run because of

  • Implementing coroutine with IEnumerator and yield return
  • Simple Dictionary based texture manager
  • Basic Particle Engine
  • Ripped GameStateMachine from previous monogame project (joust)
  • had fun making flare particles
  • Did I mention, it's not cool unless it has lightning bolts
  • browsed current scifi google images...nice...inspired.

Source : MarkK_LightningCommand.zip

 

 



5 Comments


Recommended Comments

I'm going after fast iteration. I've already ripped out the parts I like, made asset loading/access consistant in code( texture, sound and font), bumped up ease of input usage and rewrote the state manager to be stacked based similar to my C++ approach. In short, preparing my framework for the next challenge. C#/monogame kicks tail.

Edited by GoliathForge

Share this comment


Link to comment

haha,  great, I think you could add more stuff that was not in the original version.

I am just hardcoding without thinking about next challenge. Not sure I will have time for challenges.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Lightning is an interesting special effect. Particle implementations are always satisfying. This was a fun one.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Advertisement
  • Advertisement
  • Blog Entries

  • Similar Content

    • By BlackSpoon
      Hi guys, let me introduce my new project - Just Smash It! It's all about destruction! Break your way smashing objects with aimed shots!
      * Realistic physics of destruction
      * Smooth game flow
      * Pleasant graphic and sound design
      * Infinite mode after passing the basic set of levels
      * Small size, great time-killer!
      Play Market: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.blackspoongames.smashworld
      Feedback are welcome!
    • By Seer
      I have programmed an implementation of the Separating Axis Theorem to handle collisions between 2D convex polygons. It is written in Processing and can be viewed on Github here. There are a couple of issues with it that I would like some help in resolving.
      In the construction of Polygon objects, you specify the width and height of the polygon and the initial rotation offset by which the vertices will be placed around the polygon. If the rotation offset is 0, the first vertex is placed directly to the right of the object. If higher or lower, the first vertex is placed clockwise or counter-clockwise, respectively, around the circumference of the object by the rotation amount. The rest of the vertices follow by a consistent offset of TWO_PI / number of vertices. While this places the vertices at the correct angle around the polygon, the problem is that if the rotation is anything other than 0, the width and height of the polygon are no longer the values specified. They are reduced because the vertices are placed around the polygon using the sin and cos functions, which often return values other than 1 or -1. Of course, when the half width and half height are multiplied by a sin or cos value other than 1 or -1, they are reduced. This is my issue. How can I place an arbitrary number of vertices at an arbitrary rotation around the polygon, while maintaining both the intended shape specified by the number of vertices (triangle, hexagon, octagon), and the intended width and height of the polygon as specified by the parameter values in the constructor?
      The Polygon code:
      class Polygon { PVector position; PShape shape; int w, h, halfW, halfH; color c; ArrayList<PVector> vertexOffsets; Polygon(PVector position, int numVertices, int w, int h, float rotation) { this.position = position; this.w = w; this.h = h; this.halfW = w / 2; this.halfH = h / 2; this.c = color(255); vertexOffsets = new ArrayList<PVector>(); if(numVertices < 3) numVertices = 3; shape = createShape(); shape.beginShape(); shape.fill(255); shape.stroke(255); for(int i = 0; i < numVertices; ++i) { PVector vertex = new PVector(position.x + cos(rotation) * halfW, position.y + sin(rotation) * halfH); shape.vertex(vertex.x, vertex.y); rotation += TWO_PI / numVertices; PVector vertexOffset = vertex.sub(position); vertexOffsets.add(vertexOffset); } shape.endShape(CLOSE); } void move(float x, float y) { position.set(x, y); for(int i = 0; i < shape.getVertexCount(); ++i) { PVector vertexOffset = vertexOffsets.get(i); shape.setVertex(i, position.x + vertexOffset.x, position.y + vertexOffset.y); } } void rotate(float angle) { for(int i = 0; i < shape.getVertexCount(); ++i) { PVector vertexOffset = vertexOffsets.get(i); vertexOffset.rotate(angle); shape.setVertex(i, position.x + vertexOffset.x, position.y + vertexOffset.y); } } void setColour(color c) { this.c = c; } void render() { shape.setFill(c); shape(shape); } }  
      My other issue is that when two polygons with three vertices each collide, they are not always moved out of collision smoothly by the Minimum Translation Vector returned by the SAT algorithm. The polygon moved out of collision by the MTV does not rest against the other polygon as it should, it instead jumps back a small distance. I find this very strange as I have been unable to replicate this behaviour when resolving collisions between polygons of other vertex quantities and I cannot find the flaw in the implementation, though it must be there. What could be causing this incorrect collision resolution, which from my testing appears to only occur between polygons of three vertices?
      Any help you can provide on these issues would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
    • By nxrighthere
      BenchmarkNet is a console application for testing the reliable UDP networking solutions.
      Features:
      Asynchronous simulation of a large number of clients Stable under high loads Simple and flexible simulation setup Detailed session information Multi-process instances Supported networking libraries:
      ENet UNet LiteNetLib Lidgren MiniUDP Hazel Photon Neutrino DarkRift More information and source code on GitHub.
      You can find the latest benchmark results on the wiki page.
       
    • By ggenije
      Important: I am trying to realize in scrtach which is performance very low due to it's "virutal level" scrtach->flashplayer->java...
      Also i'm new to this forum so i'm sorry if I missed group (like last time)
      Like a title is saying:
      I have project ,and I get negative feedback on it because some people need 30 min to complete it (what is the planned time)
      but problem is that some people need EVEN 5 hours…(game is incremental/idle/upgrade type so it's important to keep same time ...)
      ———————————————————————————————————————-
      Of course people with slower computer will have less fps so game will be slower for them,
      so I have created TimeDelta system for each frame to calculate something to do per second
      for example
        Update(){move(TimeDelta*speed)}  so that mean it will be moving speed number of pixels(or units) per second so it will be same for almost each user.

      But problem is next:
      I have to change ySpeed by jumpPower (#PlayerJump in my project)
      when any jump button is pressed
      then in each frame decrease ySpeed by gravity it is(-10 * TimeDelta)
      but when someone have lower fps it will have higher TimeDelta and will fall faster but with same jump it turns out to jump significantly lower that changes core of game
      BUT even worse if fps suddenly in moment of jump then timeDelta would be 1 so player will jump much much MUCH higher , then fall much slower because timeDelta changed in meanwhile…(and the point of my game is about upgrading jump not complete game in first fps drop)


      —————————————————————————————————————————————————————

      Then I got an idea to fix TimeDelta (like in unity for rigibody) so it will be rounded like
      if calculated TimeDelta is 0.01834 it will be 0.02 fixed
      if weaker computer is using it the TImeDelta will be 0.143 so runded to 0.14 and so on…

      I did not manage to realize it… i tried to calculate it before main initialization of game objects
      but I'm afraid to fps will drop in moment that is calculating so it will be much diffirent…
      I was trying with empty loop(400)(in scrtach even this is taking time) to calculate it but i'm not sure is it right

      So is there good way to realize this fixed TimeDelta
      I only have timer function to use and time difference between frames
       
      This_is_the_link_for_the_game
    • By CommanderLake
      I've been experimenting with my own n-body simulation for some time and I recently discovered how to optimize it for efficient multithreading and vectorization with the Intel compiler. It did exactly the same thing after making it multithreaded and scaled very well on my ancient i7 3820 (4.3GHz). Then I changed the interleaved xy coordinates to separate arrays for x and y to eliminate the strided loads to improve AVX scaling and copy the coordinates to an interleaved array for OpenTK to render as points. Now the physics is all wrong, the points form clumps that interact with each other but they are unusually dense and accelerate faster than they decelerate causing the clumps to randomly fly off into the distance and after several seconds I get a NaN where 2 points somehow occupy exactly the same x and y float coordinates. This is the C++ DLL:
      #include "PPC.h" #include <thread> static const float G = 0.0000001F; const int count = 4096; __declspec(align(64)) float pointsx[count]; __declspec(align(64)) float pointsy[count]; void SetData(float* x, float* y){ memcpy(pointsx, x, count * sizeof(float)); memcpy(pointsy, y, count * sizeof(float)); } void Compute(float* points, float* velx, float* vely, long pcount, float aspect, float zoom) { #pragma omp parallel for for (auto i = 0; i < count; ++i) { auto forcex = 0.0F; auto forcey = 0.0F; for (auto j = 0; j < count; ++j) { if(j == i)continue; const auto distx = pointsx[i] - pointsx[j]; const auto disty = pointsy[i] - pointsy[j]; //if(px != px) continue; //most efficient way to avoid a NaN failure const auto force = G / (distx * distx + disty * disty); forcex += distx * force; forcey += disty * force; } pointsx[i] += velx[i] -= forcex; pointsy[i] += vely[i] -= forcey; if (zoom != 1) { points[i * 2] = pointsx[i] * zoom / aspect; points[i * 2 + 1] = pointsy[i] * zoom; } else { points[i * 2] = pointsx[i] / aspect; points[i * 2 + 1] = pointsy[i]; } /*points[i * 2] = pointsx[i]; points[i * 2 + 1] = pointsy[i];*/ } } This is the relevant part of the C# OpenTK GameWindow:
      private void PhysicsLoop(){ while(true){ if(stop){ for(var i = 0; i < pcount; ++i) { velx[i] = vely[i] = 0F; } } if(reset){ reset = false; var r = new Random(); for(var i = 0; i < Startcount; ++i){ do{ pointsx[i] = (float)(r.NextDouble()*2.0F - 1.0F); pointsy[i] = (float)(r.NextDouble()*2.0F - 1.0F); } while(pointsx[i]*pointsx[i] + pointsy[i]*pointsy[i] > 1.0F); velx[i] = vely[i] = 0.0F; } NativeMethods.SetData(pointsx, pointsy); pcount = Startcount; buffersize = (IntPtr)(pcount*8); } are.WaitOne(); NativeMethods.Compute(points0, velx, vely, pcount, aspect, zoom); var pointstemp = points0; points0 = points1; points1 = pointstemp; are1.Set(); } } protected override void OnRenderFrame(FrameEventArgs e){ GL.Clear(ClearBufferMask.ColorBufferBit); GL.EnableVertexAttribArray(0); GL.BindBuffer(BufferTarget.ArrayBuffer, vbo); mre1.Wait(); are1.WaitOne(); GL.BufferData(BufferTarget.ArrayBuffer, buffersize, points1, BufferUsageHint.StaticDraw); are.Set(); GL.VertexAttribPointer(0, 2, VertexAttribPointerType.Float, false, 0, 0); GL.DrawArrays(PrimitiveType.Points, 0, pcount); GL.DisableVertexAttribArray(0); SwapBuffers(); } These are the array declarations:
      private const int Startcount = 4096; private readonly float[] pointsx = new float[Startcount]; private readonly float[] pointsy = new float[Startcount]; private float[] points0 = new float[Startcount*2]; private float[] points1 = new float[Startcount*2]; private readonly float[] velx = new float[Startcount]; private readonly float[] vely = new float[Startcount];  
      Edit 0: It seems that adding 3 zeros to G increases the accuracy of the simulation but I'm at a loss as to why its different without interleaved coordinates. Edit 1: I somehow achieved an 8.3x performance increase with AVX over scalar with the new code above!
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!