Jump to content
  • Advertisement
smit patil

C++ How much time will it take to make a game in SDL as a single persone while learning?

Recommended Posts

I am at the first year of diploma and I am planing to make a nice small 2D or 3D First Person Shooter game . As I mentioned I am just at first year in IT ,I Dont know much about game developing but I do know lots of more things that normal 1st and even 3rd year students . 

I  Know Java,C,C++ and little bit of python and GTK+ framework . I am currently trying to learn SDL and Qt with C++. I will also happily learn new technology if required to make games.

Now my main Question's are:-

How much time will it take to make SMALL 2D game as a single person in SDL while LEARNING SDL ?

How much time will it take to make SMALL 3D game as a single person in SDL while LEARNING SDL ?

Will learning Qt help me make games faster or with High performance ?

My main platform is Linux and Android.I don't care if It runs on windows or Mac but it should run fine on Linux .

 

Thanks in advance :)

 

 

Edited by smit patil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
37 minutes ago, smit patil said:

How much time will it take to make SMALL 2D game as a single person in SDL while LEARNING SDL ?

Define "small". You can feasibly make Pong or Snake in an afternoon. More complex games will take more time.

39 minutes ago, smit patil said:

How much time will it take to make SMALL 3D game as a single person in SDL while LEARNING SDL ?

Same answer, I'm afraid. anywhere from days to months, depending on complexity. Although in this case you will be learning both SDL and OpenGL (since SDL by itself can't do 3D graphics), which will add some time.

41 minutes ago, smit patil said:

Will learning Qt help me make games faster or with High performance ?

No, not really. Qt is a great framework for building desktop applications, but it has little relevance to games.

42 minutes ago, smit patil said:

My main platform is Linux and Android.

SDL can run on either of those. Linux will likely be easier to get started with than Android (Android adds a lot of complexities around mobile development that are only tangentially related to games).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, smit patil said:

small mean I want to make small FPS(First person shooter).

I was thrown by your 2D question there. First person shooter is an inherently 3D genre.

A 3D shooter is not a simple game to write from scratch in SDL+OpenGL. Expect to spend considerable time learning the basics.

If, on the other hand you decide to use a 3D engine like Unity or Unreal, an awful lot of those basics are handled for you, plus you'll be able to leverage their examples and asset stores to get a basic shooter up and running in days (or even hours).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2018 at 11:48 AM, smit patil said:

How much time will it take to make SMALL 2D game as a single person in SDL while LEARNING SDL ?

How much time will it take to make SMALL 3D game as a single person in SDL while LEARNING SDL ?

This really depends on your ability to use the language and SDL, as well as problem solve. There is not a set "time" anyone can give you because one person could complete Game A in 4 months, but another person might take 9 months to complete Game A.

The factors that come into play are:

  • How fast you're able to learn your core language and understand the key concepts
  • How fast you're able to learn SDL in a 2D enviroment
  • How fast you're able to learn openGL on top of SDL for 3D games
  • Your ability to create solutions and solve problems
  • How long it takes to generate assets for your game

All I can tell you for sure is that making a 2D game with SDL will be quicker than making a first person shooter using SDL and openGL. You also have to account for time to create or obtain assets for your game.

If you're looking at speeding up the process when creating a game, you would have to look towards high level languages, and engines that handle the bulk of the work for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks :)

But now I am thinking of trying out GODOT engine as it is open source , But I have new question now.

 

Should Directly go for learning any game engine (Except Unity Cause I don't know C#) or should I learn SDL and OpenGL basics before starting ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to make a game, start with an engine. If you want to learn low-level graphics programming, learn everything from the bottom upwards.

Keep in mind that the latter takes a lot longer than the former to achieve the same end result.

Even if you don't know C#, Unity still may be a pretty rapid route (I didn't know any C# when I picked it up).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, smit patil said:

thanks :)

But now I am thinking of trying out GODOT engine as it is open source , But I have new question now.

 

Should Directly go for learning any game engine (Except Unity Cause I don't know C#) or should I learn SDL and OpenGL basics before starting ?

@swiftcoder provided a great answer.

I personally got into engine and tool programming on top of game programming because I was extremely interested in learning how it all worked, but this came at a large cost in time. I would recommend that you stick to pre-made engines for now If you're not really into making all the components to the engine, tools, and then a game on top of everything else.

Going into C# from C++ really isn't an issue (even if you're not far enough in C++ it wont matter), and using Unity along the way will really motivate you because you can achieve results a lot faster. The Unity community has a ton of support as well.

If you decide to take on SDL and openGL you will be left with a lot of tasks. Game Loops, Time Steps, Collision, Physics, Asset Management, Event Management, Memory Management, Buffers, ect... before you can even get your game up and running. You really need to have a reason to motivate yourself to push through if you're going down the lower level route because it's a major time sink.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will add something to give you an Idea of what you may do.

I am writing now the graphic part of my new game using only Opengl, It is already about 11000 lines of code to do do what needs something like 400 lines with SDL2. So as they already told you unless you want to learn or/and just love the process of writing game, just go with a game engine. This thing eat time and you need ALOT of motivation to not stop in the middle of nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry your question seems like asking "how long is a piece of string"?

One person's idea of small is mammoth to someone else. Learning from what baseline, know "hello world in C++" or have worked on million line projects for 10 years? 

A lot also depends on the type of game. 

How about a different tact. I think everybody knows DOOM?

Those 4 guys each had 10 years experience making and publishing games - before starting idSoftware.

Then they made a handful of games together, like Wolfenstein. After that they made DOOM. Lived in a shared house and worked on it pretty well every hour they were awake.

How long? That took 12 months.  By today's standards DOOM is a small game. Not sure what you had in mind?

If you know C++ and Linear Algebra (matrices, vertices...) well and you only have to learn SDL/OpenGL then should be able to make some "hello triangle" - hey it moves type "games" in a couple of months I reckon. 

3D is a lot more work, probably a year to make something which doesn't have everything in it. 

Initially you can borrow the art but will eventually have to make your own.

The first few games will not be games, they'll just be programs which emit graphics while learning.

It can be done. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Advertisement
  • Advertisement
  • Popular Tags

  • Popular Now

  • Advertisement
  • Similar Content

    • By BearishSun
      bs::framework is a newly released, free and open-source C++ game development framework. It aims to provide a modern C++14 API & codebase, focus on high-end technologies comparable to commercial engine offerings and a highly optimized core capable of running demanding projects. Additionally it aims to offer a clean, simple architecture with lightweight implementations that allow the framework to be easily enhanced with new features and therefore be ready for future growth.
      Some of the currently available features include a physically based renderer based on Vulkan, DirectX and OpenGL, unified shading language, systems for animation, audio, GUI, physics, scripting, heavily multi-threaded core, full API documentation + user manuals, support for Windows, Linux and macOS and more.
      The next few updates are focusing on adding support for scripting languages like C#, Python and Lua, further enhancing the rendering fidelity and adding sub-systems for particle and terrain rendering.
      A complete editor based on the framework is also in development, currently available in pre-alpha stage.
      You can find out more information on www.bsframework.io.

      View full story
    • By BearishSun
      bs::framework is a newly released, free and open-source C++ game development framework. It aims to provide a modern C++14 API & codebase, focus on high-end technologies comparable to commercial engine offerings and a highly optimized core capable of running demanding projects. Additionally it aims to offer a clean, simple architecture with lightweight implementations that allow the framework to be easily enhanced with new features and therefore be ready for future growth.
      Some of the currently available features include a physically based renderer based on Vulkan, DirectX and OpenGL, unified shading language, systems for animation, audio, GUI, physics, scripting, heavily multi-threaded core, full API documentation + user manuals, support for Windows, Linux and macOS and more.
      The next few updates are focusing on adding support for scripting languages like C#, Python and Lua, further enhancing the rendering fidelity and adding sub-systems for particle and terrain rendering.
      A complete editor based on the framework is also in development, currently available in pre-alpha stage.
      You can find out more information on www.bsframework.io.
    • By Gnollrunner
      Hi again,  After some looking around I have decided to base my game directly on Direct X rather than using an existing game engine.  Because of the nature of the stuff I'm doing it just didn't seem to fit very well and I kept running into road blocks.  At this point I have a big blob of code for doing fractal world generation and some collision code,  and I'm trying to put it into some form that resembles a game engine.  Since I've never used one before It's a bit alien to me ..... so can someone direct me to a book, website, article, whatever... that covers this?  I'm mainly looking for stuff that covers C++ library design. I'm not adverse to using 3rd party tools for stuff I can used them for.
    • By chiffre
      Introduction:
      In general my questions pertain to the differences between floating- and fixed-point data. Additionally I would like to understand when it can be advantageous to prefer fixed-point representation over floating-point representation in the context of vertex data and how the hardware deals with the different data-types. I believe I should be able to reduce the amount of data (bytes) necessary per vertex by choosing the most opportune representations for my vertex attributes. Thanks ahead of time if you, the reader, are considering the effort of reading this and helping me.
      I found an old topic that shows this is possible in principal, but I am not sure I understand what the pitfalls are when using fixed-point representation and whether there are any hardware-based performance advantages/disadvantages.
      (TLDR at bottom)
      The Actual Post:
      To my understanding HLSL/D3D11 offers not just the traditional floating point model in half-,single-, and double-precision, but also the fixed-point model in form of signed/unsigned normalized integers in 8-,10-,16-,24-, and 32-bit variants. Both models offer a finite sequence of "grid-points". The obvious difference between the two models is that the fixed-point model offers a constant spacing between values in the normalized range of [0,1] or [-1,1], while the floating point model allows for smaller "deltas" as you get closer to 0, and larger "deltas" the further you are away from 0.
      To add some context, let me define a struct as an example:
      struct VertexData { float[3] position; //3x32-bits float[2] texCoord; //2x32-bits float[3] normals; //3x32-bits } //Total of 32 bytes Every vertex gets a position, a coordinate on my texture, and a normal to do some light calculations. In this case we have 8x32=256bits per vertex. Since the texture coordinates lie in the interval [0,1] and the normal vector components are in the interval [-1,1] it would seem useful to use normalized representation as suggested in the topic linked at the top of the post. The texture coordinates might as well be represented in a fixed-point model, because it seems most useful to be able to sample the texture in a uniform manner, as the pixels don't get any "denser" as we get closer to 0. In other words the "delta" does not need to become any smaller as the texture coordinates approach (0,0). A similar argument can be made for the normal-vector, as a normal vector should be normalized anyway, and we want as many points as possible on the sphere around (0,0,0) with a radius of 1, and we don't care about precision around the origin. Even if we have large textures such as 4k by 4k (or the maximum allowed by D3D11, 16k by 16k) we only need as many grid-points on one axis, as there are pixels on one axis. An unsigned normalized 14 bit integer would be ideal, but because it is both unsupported and impractical, we will stick to an unsigned normalized 16 bit integer. The same type should take care of the normal vector coordinates, and might even be a bit overkill.
      struct VertexData { float[3] position; //3x32-bits uint16_t[2] texCoord; //2x16bits uint16_t[3] normals; //3x16bits } //Total of 22 bytes Seems like a good start, and we might even be able to take it further, but before we pursue that path, here is my first question: can the GPU even work with the data in this format, or is all I have accomplished minimizing CPU-side RAM usage? Does the GPU have to convert the texture coordinates back to a floating-point model when I hand them over to the sampler in my pixel shader? I have looked up the data types for HLSL and I am not sure I even comprehend how to declare the vertex input type in HLSL. Would the following work?
      struct VertexInputType { float3 pos; //this one is obvious unorm half2 tex; //half corresponds to a 16-bit float, so I assume this is wrong, but this the only 16-bit type I found on the linked MSDN site snorm half3 normal; //same as above } I assume this is possible somehow, as I have found input element formats such as: DXGI_FORMAT_R16G16B16A16_SNORM and DXGI_FORMAT_R16G16B16A16_UNORM (also available with a different number of components, as well as different component lengths). I might have to avoid 3-component vectors because there is no 3-component 16-bit input element format, but that is the least of my worries. The next question would be: what happens with my normals if I try to do lighting calculations with them in such a normalized-fixed-point format? Is there no issue as long as I take care not to mix floating- and fixed-point data? Or would that work as well? In general this gives rise to the question: how does the GPU handle fixed-point arithmetic? Is it the same as integer-arithmetic, and/or is it faster/slower than floating-point arithmetic?
      Assuming that we still have a valid and useful VertexData format, how far could I take this while remaining on the sensible side of what could be called optimization? Theoretically I could use the an input element format such as DXGI_FORMAT_R10G10B10A2_UNORM to pack my normal coordinates into a 10-bit fixed-point format, and my verticies (in object space) might even be representable in a 16-bit unsigned normalized fixed-point format. That way I could end up with something like the following struct:
      struct VertexData { uint16_t[3] pos; //3x16bits uint16_t[2] texCoord; //2x16bits uint32_t packedNormals; //10+10+10+2bits } //Total of 14 bytes Could I use a vertex structure like this without too much performance-loss on the GPU-side? If the GPU has to execute some sort of unpacking algorithm in the background I might as well let it be. In the end I have a functioning deferred renderer, but I would like to reduce the memory footprint of the huge amount of vertecies involved in rendering my landscape. 
      TLDR: I have a lot of vertices that I need to render and I want to reduce the RAM-usage without introducing crazy compression/decompression algorithms to the CPU or GPU. I am hoping to find a solution by involving fixed-point data-types, but I am not exactly sure how how that would work.
    • By babaliaris
      Well i found out Here what's the problem and how to solve it (Something about world coordinates and object coordinates) but i can't understand how ti works. Can you show me some examples in code on how you implement this???
       
      Scaling Matrix:
      m_Impl->scale = glm::mat4(1.0f); m_Impl->scale = glm::scale(m_Impl->scale, glm::vec3(width, height, 0)); Verticies:
      //Verticies. float verticies[] = { //Positions. //Texture Coordinates. 1.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f, 2.0f, 1.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f, 2.0f, 2.0f, 1.0f, 1.0f, 1.0f, 2.0f, 0.0f, 1.0f }; Rendering:
      //Projection Matrix. glm::mat4 proj = glm::ortho(0.0f, (float)window->GetWidth(), 0.0f, (float)window->GetHeight(), -1.0f, 1.0f); //Set the uniform. material->program->setUniformMat4f("u_MVP", proj * model); //model is the scale matrix from the previous code. //Draw. glDrawElements(GL_TRIANGLES, material->ibo->GetCount(), GL_UNSIGNED_INT, NULL);  
      Shader:
      #shader vertex #version 330 core layout(location = 0) in vec4 aPos; layout(location = 1) in vec2 aTexCoord; out vec2 texCoord; uniform mat4 u_MVP; void main() { gl_Position = u_MVP*aPos; texCoord = aTexCoord; } #shader fragment #version 330 core out vec4 colors; in vec2 texCoord; uniform sampler2D u_Texture; void main() { colors = texture(u_Texture, texCoord); }  
      Before Scaling (It's down there on the bottom left corner as a dot).

       
      After Scaling

       
      Problem: Why does the position also changes?? If you see my Verticies, the first position starts at 1.0f, 1.0f , so when i'm scaling it should stay at that position
  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

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

Participate in the game development conversation and more when you create an account on GameDev.net!

Sign me up!