Jump to content
  • Advertisement


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/27/18 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    Sublime 3, there, I picked a pseudo random program for you. I have a fresh Windows install so not a lot of programs to pick from. Gimp was a close second though!
  2. 1 point
    I think you should add a bit more detail to what you want, and how you want to use it. What is the use case?
  3. 1 point
    Okay, I was fully intending to be posting about my designs for a dungeon crawler prototype that would serve double duty as the intro for my other macro-project. That, will not be happening. I've decided that to split my attentions yet again would be folly. I have a good game prototype that I just worked my fingers to the bone creating, so I'm going to just go ahead and spend the next couple of months taking that to its next levels while sprinkling in some work on the main project so I don't lose my place too badly.. So, here's my rough list of SlingBot Boarding TO-DOs for before the end of February(gotta give myself some kind of timeline): Some competition modes, where you have to compete in a configurable number of races/etc on specific or user selected courses. Calculations for in-race behaviors, including disqualifications for going too far off course and bonuses for perfect course maneuvers. Investigate shaders, Unity makes it pretty easy to dig into them so I'm going to spend some time on that side of the fence. I saw a pretty cool how-to vid posted here about using tessellation shaders in Unity to make snow-tracks, I watched it thinking about how cool they would look in this game.. Maybe not for the WebGL version, but still... Player leveling/achievement/skills system. Refining/completing the replay system, build in the ability to save and share replays, auto share replays for new game records. More NPC types, and better record keeping for races including standings for individual courses. Ice Road and Tube construction, for building race courses and freestyle park features. Snowball Slinging(and other much more humorous objects). Knock the competition out of your way!! Gotta put the Sling in the SlingBots.. LOTS more stuff for the store, some upgrades, but mostly comical skins, doodads, and funny objects for slinging. Adjustable camera settings, including a few other standard and easily switched follow/view modes. PC, Android, and IOS builds. Actual real live online multi-player. Begin ID@XBOX application process. Not necessarily in that order... Yeah, I think that's enough for now... It only takes me a few minutes to come up with an oppressive list of things to do for this game, I spent most of yesterday evening staring at a blank Unity project trying to figure out where I was going to start on a dungeon crawler prototype. Everything I wanted to do I somehow talked myself out of before writing a single line of code or creating a single object. Just not time to change courses I guess.
  4. 1 point
    If you’re wanting to learn unreal engine start out by learning blueprints. It’s much friendlier than C++, and will be easier to learn. Youll still need to know the basics of programming eg. Flow control, loops and variables plus the basics of linear algebra such as vectors. You can’t really make anything without knowledge of both. Its not true that you can use unreal to make a game in ue4 with no programming experience as there’s a basic expected level needed. Good luck!
  5. 1 point
    ok cool ill check the link and i am using windows
  6. 1 point
    @RutinProtagonist finds himself stranded on a strange planet with no recollection of how he got there. He finds several other people on the planet (NPC). Along with them has to survive and figure out what happened that landed them all where they are. Gameplay will focus on resource gathering in the form of mining (similar to minecraft in that sense) and a story mode. Thanks for the kind words
  7. 1 point
    "I did not know that Unity was a religion around here. " "...and not your beloved Unity. " You're still doing it. Having to write a game engine from scratch is very, very difficult and time consuming. Don't berate people for using Unity. Not everyone is a programmer. I am writing a game engine in C++ using Lua also. I am impressed at what you have done with your engine. Gamedev.net and other websites can distract you when you need to be concentrating on becoming a better game programmer. This is especially true when you are generating dislikes for yourself and letting it take your focus off what needs to be done. Maybe you are self-sabotaging? Maybe the drama is better than the programming? Sorry to psychoanalyze.
  8. 1 point
    Nobody got mad(that I saw), we were just responding to blanket statements you were making that weren't really correct. I think your engine looks fascinating even though I'm just a Unity "script kid". Lol
  9. 1 point
    Good morning, folks! Just wanted to share another track with you. I'll be trying to make myself more accustomed to the community when I'm not working so much. Here is March of the Frightful, another track that I made a few months ago: Have a good day!
  10. -1 points
    Maybe it's just my experience, but Object-Oriented Programming seems like a default, most common paradigm of software engineering. The one typically thought to students, featured in online material and for some reason, spontaneously applied even by people that didn't intend it. I know how succumbing it is, and how great of an idea it seems on the surface. It took me years to break its spell, and understand clearly how horrible it is and why. Because of this perspective, I have a strong belief that it's important that people understand what is wrong with OOP, and what they should do instead. Many people discussed problems with OOP before, and I will provide a list of my favorite articles and videos at the end of this post. Before that, I'd like to give it my own take. Data is more important than code At its core, all software is about manipulating data to achieve a certain goal. The goal determines how the data should be structured, and the structure of the data determines what code is necessary. This part is very important, so I will repeat. One must never change the order here! When designing a piece of software, always start with figuring out what do you want to achieve, then at least roughly think about data architecture: data structures and infrastructure you need to efficiently achieve it. Only then write your code to work in such architecture. If with time the goal changes, alter the architecture, then change your code. In my experience, the biggest problem with OOP is that encourages ignoring the data model architecture and applying a mindless pattern of storing everything in objects, promising some vague benefits. If it looks like a candidate for a class, it goes into a class. Do I have a Customer? It goes into class Customer. Do I have a rendering context? It goes into class RenderingContext. Instead of building a good data architecture, the developer attention is moved toward inventing “good” classes, relations between them, taxonomies, inheritance hierarchies and so on. Not only is this a useless effort. It's actually deeply harmful. Encouraging complexity When explicitly designing a data architecture, the result is typically a minimum viable set of data structures that support the goal of our software. When thinking in terms of abstract classes and objects there is no upper bound to how grandiose and complex can our abstractions be. Just look at FizzBuzz Enterprise Edition – the reason why such a simple problem can be implemented in so many lines of code, is because in OOP there's always a room for more abstractions. OOP apologists will respond that it's a matter of developer skill, to keep abstractions in check. Maybe. But in practice, OOP programs tend to only grow and never shrink because OOP encourages it. Graphs everywhere Because OOP requires scattering everything across many, many tiny encapsulated objects, the number of references to these objects explodes as well. OOP requires passing long lists of arguments everywhere or holding references to related objects directly to shortcut it. Your class Customer has a reference to class Order and vice versa. class OrderManager holds references to all Orders, and thus indirectly to Customer's. Everything tends to point to everything else because as time passes, there are more and more places in the code that require referring to a related object. Instead of a well-designed data store, OOP projects tend to look like a huge spaghetti graph of objects pointing at each other and methods taking long argument lists. When you start to design Context objects just to cut on the number of arguments passed around, you know you're writing real OOP Enterprise-level software. Cross-cutting concerns The vast majority of essential code is not operating on just one object – it is actually implementing cross-cutting concerns. Example: when class Player hits() a class Monster, where exactly do we modify data? Monster's hp has to decrease by Player's attackPower, Player's xps increase by Monster's level if Monster got killed. Does it happen in Player.hits(Monster m) or Monster.isHitBy(Player p). What if there's a class Weapon involved? Do we pass it as an argument to isHitBy or does Player has a currentWeapon() getter? This oversimplified example with just 3 interacting classes is already becoming a typical OOP nightmare. A simple data transformation becomes a bunch of awkward, intertwined methods that call each other for no reason other than OOP dogma of encapsulation. Adding a bit of inheritance to the mix gets us a nice example of what stereotypical “Enterprise” software is about. Object encapsulation is schizophrenic Let's look at the definition of Encapsulation: The sentiment is good, but in practice, encapsulation on a granularity of an object or a class often leads to code trying to separate everything from everything else (from itself). It generates tons of boilerplate: getters, setters, multiple constructors, odd methods, all trying to protect from mistakes that are unlikely to happen, on a scale too small to mater. The metaphor that I give is putting a padlock on your left pocket, to make sure your right hand can't take anything from it. Don't get me wrong – enforcing constraints, especially on ADTs is usually a great idea. But in OOP with all the inter-referencing of objects, encapsulation often doesn't achieve anything useful, and it's hard to address the constraints spanning across many classes. In my opinion classes and objects are just too granular, and the right place to focus on the isolation, APIs etc. are “modules”/“components”/“libraries” boundaries. And in my experience, OOP (Java/Scala) codebases are usually the ones in which no modules/libraries are employed. Developers focus on putting boundaries around each class, without much thought which groups of classes form together a standalone, reusable, consistent logical unit. There are multiple ways to look at the same data OOP requires an inflexible data organization: splitting it into many logical objects, which defines a data architecture: graph of objects with associated behavior (methods). However, it's often useful to have multiple ways of logically expressing data manipulations. If program data is stored e.g. in a tabular, data-oriented form, it's possible to have two or more modules each operating on the same data structure, but in a different way. If the data is split into objects with methods it's no longer possible. That's also the main reason for Object-relational impedance mismatch. While relational data architecture might not always be the best one, it is typically flexible enough to be able to operate on the data in many different ways, using different paradigms. However, the rigidness of OOP data organization causes incompatibility with any other data architecture. Bad performance Combination of data scattered between many small objects, heavy use of indirection and pointers and lack of right data architecture in the first place leads to poor runtime performance. Nuff said. What to do instead? I don't think there's a silver bullet, so I'm going to just describe how it tends to work in my code nowadays. First, the data-consideration goes first. I analyze what is going to be the input and the outputs, their format, volume. How should the data be stored at runtime, and how persisted: what operations will have to be supported, how fast (throughput, latencies) etc. Typically the design is something close to a database for the data that has any significant volume. That is: there will be some object like a DataStore with an API exposing all the necessary operations for querying and storing the data. The data itself will be in form of an ADT/PoD structures, and any references between the data records will be of a form of an ID (number, uuid, or a deterministic hash). Under the hood, it typically closely resembles or actually is backed by a relational database: Vectors or HashMaps storing bulk of the data by Index or ID, some other ones for “indices” that are required for fast lookup and so on. Other data structures like LRU caches etc. are also placed there. The bulk of actual program logic takes a reference to such DataStores, and performs the necessary operations on them. For concurrency and multi-threading, I typically glue different logical components via message passing, actor-style. Example of an actor: stdin reader, input data processor, trust manager, game state, etc. Such “actors” can be implemented as thread-pools, elements of pipelines etc. When required, they can have their own DataStore or share one with other “actors”. Such architecture gives me nice testing points: DataStores can have multiple implementations via polymorphism, and actors communicating via messages can be instantiated separately and driven through test sequence of messages. The main point is: just because my software operates in a domain with concepts of eg. Customers and Orders, doesn't mean there is any Customer class, with methods associated with it. Quite the opposite: the Customer concept is just a bunch of data in a tabular form in one or more DataStores, and “business logic” code manipulates the data directly. Follow-up read As many things in software engineering critique of OOP is not a simple matter. I might have failed at clearly articulating my views and/or convincing you. If you're still interested, here are some links for you: Two videos by Brian Will where he makes plenty of great points against OOP: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad and Object-Oriented Programming is Garbage: 3800 SLOC example CppCon 2018: Stoyan Nikolov “OOP Is Dead, Long Live Data-oriented Design” where the author beautifully goes through an example OOP codebase and points out problems with it. Arguments Against Oop on wiki.c2.com for a list of common arguments against OOP. Object Oriented Programming is an expensive disaster which must end by Lawrence Krubner – this one is long and goes in depth into many ideas Feedback I've been receiving comments and more links, so I'm putting them here: Quora: Is C++ OOP slower than C? If yes, is the difference significant? Note: This article was originally published on the author's blog, and is republished here with kind permission.
  • Advertisement

Important Information

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

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!