• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Burnt_Fyr

Animation

3 posts in this topic

So I'm currently implementing Animation in my code, after avoiding it for such a long time. I'm sort of torn between 2 ideas right now and want some more experienced peeps to guide me.

 

Is it better to load and export animations with a strict number of Keyframes and frame rate, or just use key key frames? lets say I have a simple animation that lasts for 1 second, I could export 30 frames of this animation, or 15 skipping every other, or some other rate that makes sense.

 

This means easy math upon playback. find my current time delta, lerp between the previous frame time and next frame time based on dt.

 

OR

 

I could brake up the transformation into rotation, translation and scaling components and only key frame the important stuff, using less data to store the animation. Say the object translates each frame at a consistant speed, but only rotates at the beginning, middle, and ends. so some frames may not require complete SQT transforms.

 

Now upon playback, I have to find the last key frame that was stored for each track(SQT) and the next frame for each. and then use some mathemagic to get the current key frame for each track to combine into a complete matrix again.

 

It seems that can trade some complexity and 3x the calculation time to save some data space and loading time. Am I right to think this is a bad idea?

 

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.) Using animations with a fixed frequency of key frames may produce a bigger memory footprint. Your animation sub-system should be able to deal with both fixed and variable frequencies. Then the decision is on the used DCC and toolchain.

 

2.) You should use separate tracks for orientation and translation (and perhaps scaling if you use it) anyway, because interpolation of combined transform matrices is possible but cumbersome and/or requires very small steps. How to combine them depends on what is animated. The animation should not know whether it is an animation of a bone or of a clock hand … it's just an orientation (as an example).

 

3.) For interpolation it plays no role how much 2 key frames are apart. Whether you look-up 1 time or 3 times where the next key frame is will probably also not be so different performace-wise.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.) Using animations with a fixed frequency of key frames may produce a bigger memory footprint. Your animation sub-system should be able to deal with both fixed and variable frequencies. Then the decision is on the used DCC and toolchain.

 

2.) You should use separate tracks for orientation and translation (and perhaps scaling if you use it) anyway, because interpolation of combined transform matrices is possible but cumbersome and/or requires very small steps. How to combine them depends on what is animated. The animation should not know whether it is an animation of a bone or of a clock hand … it's just an orientation (as an example).

 

3.) For interpolation it plays no role how much 2 key frames are apart. Whether you look-up 1 time or 3 times where the next key frame is will probably also not be so different performace-wise.

 

Thanks for the speedy reply, so it seems that my 2nd option, though more cumbersome and slightly more performance intensive is the best as it allows for your #2. Back to the trenches I go

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the speedy reply, so it seems that my 2nd option, though more cumbersome and slightly more performance intensive is the best as it allows for your #2. Back to the trenches I go

It is not more performance-intensive—it is virtually always if not always the faster route in terms of run-time performance, and since it matches the output of your tool chains it is just the correct way anyway.


L. Spiro
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0