• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

133 Neutral

About thed77

  • Rank
  1. I did have one recommendation. If you are going to go with Visual Studio, use Visual Studio 2013 Community edition. It is the same as Pro but has a licensing limitation on the size of your organization.
  2. I love F#

    Quote:Original post by Daerax Thanks :) @daviangel - all the claims except the complaint of error messages are not really founded. The bugs are fixed and the last CTP made the VS IDE integration much, much better. Visual Studio 2008 Shell mode is free. The person was not used to functional programming, loops are not usually used there. variants with matching are far more powerful than enums - with or without numbers. Im near enough making a game in F#. I too am not too fond of the F# object system. Hey, Daerax, I calling it like I see it. And to add to you and Joh's comments on IDE both #Develop and it's Linux-centric offspring MonoDevelop support F#. Then the hubFS guy sounded like so many from this board when people asked if C# was good for game programming, so I really could take him seriously.
  3. I love F#

    Joh, I enjoy using F# as well. I started using it around version 1.9.4 to prototype some data transformation logic at my current job before translating it to C#. But I didn't stop there as the whole concept of functional programming fascinated be to no end. I've even made an attempt to implement Hughes' Arrows in F#. Check it here. Hopefully I'll be able to put up a few more combinators and a bit more explanation later. BTW Daerax, you dev journal is quite good. THX for sharing.
  4. Monads on .NET

    Here is some the Maybe monad in C#: class Maybe<T> { public readonly static Maybe<t> Nothing = new Maybe<T>(); public T Value { get; private set; } public bool HasValue { get; private set; } Maybe() { HasValue = false; } public Maybe(T value) { Value = value; HasValue = true; } } public static class MaybeExtensions { public static Maybe<T> ToMaybe(this T value){ return new Maybe<T>(value) } public static Maybe<U> SelectMany<T, U>(this Maybe<T> m, Func<T, Maybe<U>> f) { if (!m.HasValue) return Maybe<T>.Nothing; return f(m.Value); } public static Maybe<V> SelectMany<T, U, V>(this Maybe<T> m, Func<T, Maybe<U>> f, Func<T,U,V> s) { if (m.HasValue) return s(m.Value, f(m.Value).Value).ToMaybe(); return Maybe<V>.Nothing; } } The To???() extension method is the equivalent of the mreturn or return or unit, and the SelectMany method is the equivalent of the bind method. Usage: var results = from x in 3.ToMaybe() from y in 2.ToMaybe() select x + y; OR //using SelectMany<T, U> var results = 3.ToMaybe().SelectMany( x => 2.ToMaybe().SelectMany( y => (x + y).ToMaybe())); //using SelecMany<T,U,V> var results = 3.ToMaybe().SelectMany(x => 2.ToMaybe(), (x, y) => x + y); Then there is continuations which look like this: delegate R K<T, R>(Func<T, R> k); public static class ContinuationExtensions { public static K<T, R> ToContinuation<T, R>(this T value) { return (Func<T, R> c) => c(value); } public static K<U, R> SelectMany<T, U, R>(this K<T, R> m, Func<T, K<U, R>> k) { return (Func<U, R> c) => m((T x) => k(x)(c)); } public static K<V, R> SelectMany<T, U, V, R>(this K<T,R> m, Func<T,K<U,R>> k, Func<T,U,V> s) { return m.SelectMany(x => k(x).SelectMany( y => s(x, y). ToContinuation<V, R>())); } } Usage is pretty similar to the Maybe monad. var rn = new Random(); var r = from x in rn.Next(40).ToContinuation<int,int>() from y in rn.Next(50).ToContinuation<int, int>() from z in rn.Next(70).ToContinuation<int, int>() select x * x + z * y * z * z; Mind you this is not my code. This is from Wes Dyer's blog The Marvels of Monads. He provides some good explanations of how to derive the bind function. I would also recommend aforementioned video with Dr. Beckman. It is really easy to follow.
  5. I know around here, the amount is based on the estimated number of hours needed to complete the project. Now with that in mind I have heard anywhere from 50-325USD per hour. What kind of site are you looking for?
  6. Well, think about this a human player can guess your next move from your previous play, however instead of game designers trying to implement this into a game they would rather let the computer cheat to easy victories. It is not the games fault for being told that you can do this, this, and this, but the player can't do the same. It's the designer that has to say we want our AI to acutally have a plan of attack. I mean in strategy game this should be easier to implement as chess algorithms have been around for about 30-40 years. Plus the average strategy game does not require a lot of speed between move does it. Also if the single-player mode is suppose to lead you to the multiplayer/VS mode, why is it that the single player mode unrealistically emulate competition. And I'm not talking about unimaginative play style. I mean blatant You can't do this crap. I believe that one of the few games that I have played that didn't blatantly cheat was Marvel vs Capcom 2. Oh, it still does the CPU avatar doesn't take as much damage as you at higher levels. But then the computer doesn't do things that humans can't do.
  7. A friend of mine and I were discussing how today's games simulate advanced difficulty settings. We found that there are rather fustrating patterns. 1) The super-grunt. This particular ploy is found mostly in Civ-style strategy games. Or games that are based of a Risk-type battle system. What seems to happen is this seemingly weak grunt can take out almost if not all of your attacking forces. This is annoying because it usually tied in with... 2) The super unit factory. It seems that at no matter what you do the CPU player can mass an army in 2 secs, while it takes you 3-4 minutes. Now on game with fog o' war it becomes quite frustrating when you finally make it to the base you find that the opponent doesn't have the resources of the buildings to do what has happened. 3) Psychic countering or blocking. Ever played Soul Calibur 2 on the Ultra Hard level? If you have, you know what I speak of. In several game types not just figting games this happens. In Medevel: Total War the CPU has been known to suddenly have reinforcements to quash your attack. In Soul Calibur II, even the best mixtures of high, mid, and low attacks will be parried by the computer. SCII isn't the only fighting game to do this but most seem to. 4) The overpowered CPU characters. This is usually found in the fighting games. Play Capcom vs SNK, and King of Fighters series. The CPU character will kick your tail up and down screen. The CPU Rugals, Geese, Akumas, and Orochi Iori can take damage like a soldier, however, you play with those characters, they take damage like Mr Glass from Unbreakable. And we have excepted this but should we? And how can it be changed would the approach that SC2's Conquest Mode, VF4, and ESPN NFL 2k5's VIP uses. These three examples use player tendency statistics to emulate actual human behavior and skill levels?