just a simple question for the above poster...
have you ever programmed a whole computer game?
if not, what makes you think (as the 3D guru you must surely be) that you have even the slimmest understanding of what the other guys on your team do?
Right now i am doing sound coding, but thanks to my earlier experience, i know how the AI guys and GUI guys might want to interact with my sound stuff. In turn that means i code a more usefull API.
Some of the 3D coders out there should try adopting a similar attitude methinks

http://www.positech.co.uk

bishop:

This is a game development site. And a forum entitled Game Programming. Is it not logical to assume he wants to do something that involves making games? Especially since there is also a devoted graphics forum here...

quote:Original post by cliffski
just a simple question for the above poster...
have you ever programmed a whole computer game?

No, and I don''t want to. Therefore I am proof positive that not everyone here wants to program a whole computer game. However, what were you doing in 1982 when I was programming scrollable maps in 6502 assembly language on an Apple II computer?

quote:Original post by cliffski
if not, what makes you think (as the 3D guru you must surely be) that you have even the slimmest understanding of what the other guys on your team do?

Because I have programmed security analysis software for my own use that applied the back propogation learning algorithm to neural networks as described by Rumelhart in his landmark cognitive science book. Because I have programmed a lite Lisp interpreter. Because I have programmed a predicate calculus parser. Because I have hand drawn frames of little running characters for 2d applications on an Apple II computer. Because I programmed a ray tracer on an Amiga computer which intersected Bezier surfaces using 6th degree root finding algorithms. Because I coded a z buffer polygon rasterizer on a 386 under Windows 3.1 Because I have studied Soar and Cyc and other AI architectures. Because I was in conversation with the developer of the Soar API and was making suggestions to improve the Soar API. Because I have programmed genetic algorithms for option analysis in the securities markets. Because I have been in correspondence with an individual regarding the implementation of a full version of the ROAM terrain renderer. Because I have studied geomorphology and implemented an erosion algorithm to create realistic drainage netowrks given an inital fractal landscape. Because I have written an interactive spline editor.

quote:Original post by cliffski
Right now i am doing sound coding, but thanks to my earlier experience, i know how the AI guys and GUI guys might want to interact with my sound stuff. In turn that means i code a more usefull API. Some of the 3D coders out there should try adopting a similar attitude methinks

Hmmm. Methinks some of the other coders out there should start going to the library and pulling out texts and journals on subjects other than game programming. I think they should start exploring what really fascinates them. But no, people like you think within a constrained channel and want to play it by the book which is some book called "How to program a game" or some other such nonsense. Such techniques will yield programmers who are able to program games like they were programmed yesterday. I think the more interesting and talented people out there are the ones who take the initiative to explore their passions and develop code which paves a new avenue for software development whereever it may go.

A useful 3d API is not built by programming a 2d game like Tetris. A useful 3d API is built by studying highly useful 3d APIs like OpenGL. A useful API in general is built by encapsulating the API''s functionality within a set of functions which minimize input and output to the bare essentials. A useful API is built by organizing an API''s set of functions into separate groups based on input and output.

Learning is a process which can occur in at least two different ways.

One of the ways being advocated here (not mine) is to follow through with the basics even if there is NO applicability to your goal. And you cannot make the claim that the topic starter here has or needs the desire to do something like multiplayer modes in games. You cannot even make the claim that he wants to get on a team and do that. Like I said, maybe he wants to do something entirely different. Even if there was applicability to his end goal, he may not realize how it ties in, and not retain what he has learned.

Another way being advocated here is to dive right into what you want to learn (my way). Upon realizing where you are over your head, you then backtrack and learn the basics. This is a top down learning approach. It has the advantage of tying the basics into the ultimate application and this increases retention and inspiration. It is akin to the light bulb going on when complete understanding occurs. It also provides greater motivation and interest in learning the basics.

quote:Original post by LordElectro
bishop:

This is a game development site. And a forum entitled Game Programming. Is it not logical to assume he wants to do something that involves making games? Especially since there is also a devoted graphics forum here...

Sure, but he was asking about learning 3d graphics. Why must one throw the whole "PROCEDURE and PLAN for BUILDING a GAME" at him? A lot applies to making games and there are numerous specialties of interest and expertise.

quote:
"Because I have programmed security analysis software for my own use that applied the back propogation learning algorithm to neural networks as described by Rumelhart in his landmark cognitive science book. "

Yes, there are whole companies full of people with this attitude that make some very involved software. This same software then gets marketed as a game.
Problem is, they forgot to include anyone on the team that understood how to make a GAME.
I dont go into Electronics boutique to learn about cognitive science, i go in there to have fun.
Nobody makes GAMES anymore, its all about showing off technology.
I dont think the Pokemon games used any of the stuff you described did they? or Rollercoaster Tycoon, or Who wants to be a millionaire?
didnt hurt their sales though. I guess it must be something to do with them being GAMES and not computer science essays.

http://www.positech.co.uk

Making the game fun is the job of the designer - the coders just put it together. Bishop_pass never claimed to be a game designer, or a game coder for that matter. He just pointed out that a) he has all the technical skills to be a game coder and b) not everyone who is interested in 3d graphics or AI is interested in writing games.

I agree that you should learn what you are interested in learning. If you fail, then at least you may have an idea of what "boring stuff" you need to learn to succeed, and with a firm goal in mind that boring stuff will seem easier. Sure you may get discouraged by failure, but if you get discouraged that easily then you would probably never make it anyway.