Elenesski

Members
  • Content count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

124 Neutral

About Elenesski

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Graphics Adapter Strategies

    Thanks, this is exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for. I can develop the model first. Cheers, - El [Edited by - Elenesski on June 26, 2007 1:22:45 AM]
  2. A good 12 months ago I starting thinking about writing a game. At that time, I wrote a back story to the premise and started down the grand game writing path trying to do elaboration on the graphics aspects where I've been preliminarily stuck. These days I have a different angle on the story (same concept) which would enable a broader playing style. I have little experience with graphics implementations, so rather than spinning my wheels in the sand, I've decided that I'll work on the game mechanics; make that fun to play, then work on the graphics in a much later stage with a game developer/publisher (assuming I get that far). I have expert level object-oriented design, development with patterns and system level enterprise component architecture experience; temper your responses with that in mind. My question is if I do not pick a graphics engine to start with and work only on the mechanics and assuming that my design is competent and high quality, would a potential game developer be more apt to writing adapters to their graphics engine to hook up my game, or should I assume the game (if bought) it will be rewritten in order to support a graphics model because they are so heavily intertwined? Or are their architectural strategies I should consider in order to facilitate the development of the various adapters? I'm assuming that game design/development is really no different than enterprise application design/development in the sense that the user interface is just a "shell" on top of a domain (aka the game engine).
  3. I look at a database as primarily a way to store data. I know a lot of developers who use the internal procedural languages to store and execute logic, but that to me breaks so many good software development rules. I've seen software projects budgets ballon out of control when then want to change the data structure, because they coupled things together. Fundamentally I'm after a small footprint, and if it becomes a requirement to move up to something more complicated such as Access, then all I have to do is replace the data tier. All of my "logic" sits in the domain and I use an MVP pattern to get it to the UI. I'm hoping that this kind of design philosophy is equally applicable to game design and implementation.
  4. I have many apps that generate XML and although it's easy to generate and work with, I'd never consider it as a database because it is a slug. I'll investigate SQLLite; as it has a ADO library. I use a framework generator to encapsulate the SQL, so developers don't actually need to know anything about SQL to load/save objects. Thanks.
  5. What type of database should I consider for creating a game which will be written primarily in C#? In my regular life, I'm a application architect that designs multi-tier business apps for supporting multiple users performing concurrent transactions. The architecture for this type of application is massive overkill for what I want to do, but that's my starting point. What I am looking for is a database that has a small footprint; but one in which I can continue to encapsulate in a data tier. Would a SQL database be overkill with enormous overhead? Is there a better choice? What about parts of the game that are I/O intensive, as compared to game load/save operations where a game is loaded into memory or vice versa. Thanks a bunch. - El
  6. Smoothing of the concavities is why I suggested a Bezier curve. Perhaps there is some way to use those fuctions once the "outer shell" has been determined by the method described.
  7. http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i268/Elenesski/Xwithredmesh.jpg Consider the image above. It has an internal "X" shape, but the red area represents the mesh with rounded edges around the outside of the shape, with some minimum distance from the internal structure. The outer mesh has nice curves on it rather than "points" representing a larger X shape. The term "method" is to indicate that the logic for generating the mesh would be contained within a class, and I'd call a method to generate the mesh, call a different method to calculate the volume, etc.
  8. I realize it is difficult to articulate a graphical construct in terms of words when I don't know all of the math or graphics nomenclature -- I hope this is clearer. In terms of a specific calculation/determination of any given mesh, the distance would always be fixed (from the outer reaches of any internal structural object). However, it would be variable depending on which method you used to describe it's final outer shape. For example, suppose you have two rectangular boxes which form an "X" shape, that is 10 x 4 x 1 (hieght, width, depth), and a minimum distance of 1 unit. At the intersection point between the two boxes, the width is also 1. I'm not looking for a mesh that is simply a larger X shape 12x6x2 in size, with points, what I want is an "X" shape that is more like a bubble with smooth curves forming the outside structure. For example, (and using a bit of imagination) consider this shape: http://www.pacifict.com/images/Example4.gif While it doesn't show a minimum distance at the crossing point (of the two boxes), it does show the bubble that could be formed around the top and bottom edges of the "X" shape. Consider an "o" shape, that is 100x100x10 with the internal structure being 5 units in diameter. Using a minimum distance of 1 (as well) the resulting mesh would be a torus/donut shape.
  9. I have a 3D structure consisting of spheres, tubes, cubes and rectangular columns. I wish to determine a closed mesh that will encompass the 3D structure with some minimum distance from the internal structure. The mesh itself has nice Bezier curves and could form a torus or other shape with holes. In addition to the mesh, I need to know the volume that the mesh encompasses. How do I go about determining the geometry of the mesh? Is there a library I can buy or must I get a mathematics guy to write one for me? Approximately how many person-weeks of work is it to write the logic if the technology is DirectX and .Net? I'm not looking for a precise estimate, rather a way to judge just how much work exists so that I can create a budget. I'm I asking for a days of work, few weeks of work, or a few months?
  10. Discovery of something new

    This game has no technology tree, per se, as the ability to create a light-speed capable engine is possible at the beginning of the game. The trick to achieving light-speed is the combination of components to produce more powerful designs. The game is a simulator, so introducing technology at different points in the game will result in different outcomes. Replayability comes in the form of creating a more formitable opponent in terms of either technological might, AI intellience, numbers of enemies, etc., with the recognition that the first few times through the game the "big powerful" technology will like not be discovered, unless they bought a hint book. Further, having all the technology may not be enough against an adaptive AI. This is where things like strategy play a big part.
  11. I have a 3D structure consisting of spheres, tubes, cubes and rectangular columns. I wish to determine a closed mesh that will encompass the 3D structure with some minimum distance from the internal structure. The mesh itself has nice Bezier curves and could form a torus or other shape with holes. In addition to the mesh, I need to know the volume that the mesh encompasses. How do I go about determining the geometry of the mesh? Is there a library I can buy or must I get a mathematics guy to write one for me? If I pay somebody to write it, approximately how many person-weeks of work is it to write the logic if the technology is DirectX and .Net?
  12. Discovery of something new

    Essentially the player needs to discover how to exceed the speed of light. Actually there are several ways, each yeilding a different speed. If they combine some of the discoveries, they can go even faster, do different things ... They start out in an environment where knowledge of these abilities have been lost, but they have the mechanism to discover though an experimental lab with different things which would help them discover new technologies. The idea is to have an open ended technology tree, or at least one where the technologies are not in a tree where the player simply says "allocate X research units to this discovery" then some number of cycle later the games says "congratulations you've discovered Y". The experimental lab is where they will need to be in order to discover many advanced concept besides the speed of light; such as weapons, shields, communications, etc.
  13. Actually, there is probably 20-30 components to start with, but the player designs additional (and more elaborate) components as the game progresses ... to some upper maximum of a several hundred. Players can manage the number by retiring old designs.
  14. I am creating a game where the player has to discover things in order to continue to advance in the game. In most games, there is a limited set of combinations and incorrect combinations which usually provide some kind of clue or result output. For example, you need a combination to open a door or some mechansim to get you to the next part of the game. In this idea, the next part of the game isn't necessarily obvious, and since it deals with "outer space", it deals with a branch of physics that is "my" fiction, so there no context in which somebody might be aware that there might be something available to discover. That means I have to provide hints. While I could say something like "congratulations you have acheived X, now it's time to think about Y." I want to create mechanism that is much more subtle so that the player looking for the ultimate challenge has to poke around a bit before they discover the answer. One mechanism I thought about was to have a dream sequence in the opening video that eluded to the existance of the various technologies the player will eventually discover. Is that a good approach, or is there anything that could use that is more subtle; to maximize the difficulty and the enjoyment at discovering the answer?
  15. What about the number of components involved. Could I have hundreds? thousands? Or is a few hundred (200-400) sort of a good working limit?