• 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.

DerekEhrman

Members
  • Content count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

127 Neutral

About DerekEhrman

  • Rank
    Newbie
  1. I would change a few things about your collision detection routine. First, I would store a radius instead of a diameter (why do the division constantly when what you really want is the radius? Just do the division once and you have the value to work from!). Second, I would make the hole itself also have a radius member so you can remove what appear to be *magic numbers* (where is 17 from?). I know the radius is constant in this example, but it would be much cleaner and cooler to support any sized hole, right? Now, your core collision detection is algorithm is doing more work than it needs to be (hypot uses the very expensive square root function) and is not an accurate representation of the object (I am assuming this is why you used the value 17 instead of the actual diameter value in your test?) I think you can greatly simplify the algorithm to something more like: * calculate the distance from the center of the hole to the center of the circle * add to this value, the radius of the circle * if this value is greater than or equal to the radius of the hole, we have a collision
  2. Just to be sure ... have you double-checked that you do indeed have the required lib on your machine in an appropriate location?
  3. [quote name='Cornstalks' timestamp='1343401501' post='4963662'] Sounds to me like a perfect time to use [url="http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/clibrary/cassert/assert/"]assert[/url], like was suggested... [/quote] Agreed, I had meant to reiterate that a debug-only assertion was a valid solution!
  4. There is actually a very valid reason to simply crash on a 0 vector in your normalization function and I promise it has nothing to do with "ignorance or laziness". The entire point of using SSE is that it is high performance code. Normalization of a 0 vector, as previously stated is technically an invalid operation. Adding vector validation (i.e. checking for a 0 vector) in your normalization code will introduce unnecessary run-time overhead (in the form of potential branch mis-predictions and LHS) to a performance-sensitive area of your code. As the operation in question is technically invalid, those concerned with performance will opt to have the function crash rather than introduce the overhead. If this code crashes, the real bug lies elsewhere (the attempt to normalize a 0 vector ... why is your vector 0? Why are you trying to normalize it if it is? These are the bugs you should be concerned with). If there is a case in your code where you *may* be normalizing a 0 vector (direction derived via velocity when player is standing still perhaps?), then you should validate the vector *before* the attempt to normalize. The reason for this is that these cases are likely few and far between, and introducing the overhead that I explained above to *every* instance of a call to normalize is unfairly penalizing everyone who calls the function, whether they have a chance to pass a 0 vector or not.