• 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.

blutzeit

Members
  • Content count

    153
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1650 Excellent

About blutzeit

  • Rank
    Member

Personal Information

  1. I don't see why you want to mix different types of event listeners in the same list, they are more different than similar.   For something almost, but not completely, different: https://github.com/Reactive-Extensions/RxCpp
  2. The std::function is really nice, code would be something like this:  void Event_Bus::Add_click_handler(std::function<void(Click_Event)> handler) { // save the handler somewhere } With no need for special interface classes that you need to derive from, code becomes much cleaner.  event_bus.Add_click_handler([](Click_Event event) { // handle the event here }); Note that you can capture variables between [ and ] if you need to. 
  3.   That's a bad idea. First, you would increase the bandwidth by two orders of magnitudes, which is not just a little bit. Second, today the majority of packet drops are caused by congestion, meaning that not just one but many packets are dropped, so if you send many at the same time you still risk losing them all.   Back to the original question, your solution is to not only send position but also velocity (and possibly acceleration, depending on the game), as well as a timestamp. On the other end you will then be able to calculate the expected position at any time from the last known values of these parameters. You can improve this further by using various techniques for interpolation and clock synchronization.
  4. C++ desperately needs conditional come-froms
  5. Most likely a firewall at the cloud provider that is blocking ICMP packets. Could be the university WiFi, try testing some random address, say google.com, and see if it works.
  6. Yes, that's a third problem to take care of. If you use UDP you need to detect missing messages and make sure to resend them, while TCP takes care of this and guarantees to deliver the message eventually. But note that even if you use TCP you don't actually know *when* the message will be delivered, only that it will. So if absolute wall-clock synchronization is a requirement, you're right, you need to wait for that acknowledgement. (For games this requirement is usually relaxed, consistency and responsiveness is usually more important than absolute synchronization.)
  7. There are two problems here. One is to synchronize wall clock time, either by using a centralized reference (say ntp), or to guessing from the round-trip time between the clients. The other is synchronizing simulation time, which is solved by using a lookahead. If player 1 presses a button at simulation time T, the change is scheduled to take place at time T+D where D is sufficiently large to be sure that this information has been transmitted to player 2.
  8. Sounds like a typical application level SDN, where the main server acts as a controller, servers as switches and clients doing host-to-host communication. Check out the following links for more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software-defined_networking https://class.coursera.org/cloudnetworking-001
  9. I'm using CLion from JetBrains (the ReSharper folks), works great on all platforms, including Linux. Highly recommended for modern C++ development.
  10. Using std::function for lambdas is like using std::vector for arrays. I tend to use both heavily (except in cases where I don't).   The advice is to know what you are doing and to know what it will cost you (but that's true for everything in C++!!).
  11. Nice!!!   Some ideas: Put the FindMember classes inside a namespace, e.g. FindMember::Foo instead of FindMember_Foo. Instead of macro TRY_GET_MEMBER, overload operator ->* on these FindMember classes.  std::vector<DrawItem*>* zpass = view->*FindMember::zpass<std::vector<DrawItem*>();
  12. When choosing between different methods, it's important to consider which is more error prone. If I forget or add "this->" by mistake I would like to compiler to catch this. If I'm doing a text-based search for a parameter name I would like to find it in both declarations and definitions.
  13. @Oluseyi Good pst! If this was Stack Overflow it had to be marked as the officially *accepted* answer.     A minor clarification/update: iOS testflight betas are invitation only, and I also believe Apple recently removed the ability to rate/review beta versions.
  14.   Not sure I agree with this at all.. that would be O(1). O(0) is only the empty algorithm. NOP is not O(0), an empty function that is actually a function is not O(0), ret 0 is not O(0), the only thing that is O(0) is nothing, the empty algorithm that is never started and never ends as it is nothing. Try to call it on the complete set of particles in the universe and it is never run, the algorithm is never started and never existed as it was erased on compile-time. If one source contains an algorithm and another does not and they yield identical bytecode after compilation, then that algorithm is O(0).   Leaf-methods on trees where only branches have code can reasonably be described as O(0), if they are expected to be optimized out for example. Can't think of an example where it would make a difference for the final O(..) .. but I somehow suspect there might be some example where a sub-algorithm that is expected to removed would give a theoretical answer closer to reality if it was designated O(0) rather than O(1) in the analysis.     I'm going to disagree slightly with both of these. To me the most coherent definition of O(0), at least based on the definition of O I've always used (which is the same as Wikipedia's) is to say that f(x) is O(0) if and only if f(x) is the empty algorithm for values of x larger than some (finite) x0.   Similar to what frob is saying, but I don't think saying that a function tends toward having no complexity is quite strong enough, as it permits that the function f(x) may still have non-zero complexity for all values of x.     Why a special definition of O(0)? It works well with the ordinary one:     if and only if    Set g(x) identical to zero and f(x) = 0 for all x >= x0. You could then either prove or define the empty algorithm to be precisely the algorithm that takes zero time. The empty algorithm doesn't depend on anything, and in particular it doesn't depend on x, so it would take no time regardless of input. No matter what angle you approach this the result should be the same.
  15.   Is it? If you are discussing time complexity in terms of O(...) how can O(0) be any more moot than O(1)? The math is as you say rigorously well defined, even if the computational model not always is. Elided code (e.g. inlined empty function body) can be meaningful from a higher perspective but should reasonably have time complexity O(0).