• 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.

bpj1138

Members
  • Content count

    220
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

113 Neutral

About bpj1138

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Unfortunately, I just tested the engine again and found it still "BLOWS UP". Stay tuned...
  2. When such an error occurs, he X-Purge engine will print out an error message, like "tangent not unit"... which means, relative collision velocity was zero, therefore there was no tangent vector. It's always at the extremes where the system fails.
  3. [quote name='Cornstalks' timestamp='1348301067' post='4982604'] [quote name='bpj1138' timestamp='1348299648' post='4982600'] Your thoughts? [/quote] My thoughts? My thoughts are I'm not sure how to respond to this thread. Are you asking for specific feedback about a specific problem/question/potential solution? [/quote] I'm asking for other people's experiences solving the contact force problem. It seems to me when objects come to rest, which is obviously the solution, velocity goes to zero, therefore, you have to "catch" that condition in the code, which is obviously an invalid condition... velocity is zero, therefore time is zero, or objects are "at rest"...
  4. Hello everybody, I've been working on my 3d verlet engine, and I thought I should share some insight about this before I upload the new version. First of all, if you haven't noticed, the previous versions of the engine would occasionally "BLOW UP" for no apparent reason. Well, that is what is being addressed in the current version. Things that I have found out in the process are: 1) don't assume the problem is the friction calculation (see below) 2) if the intersection code is faulty, all bets are off, therefore friction calculation can fail as the result 3) most of the errors are caused when velocity vanishes, this means there is no tangent vector! 4) when all else fails, just abort the operation... the next interation will handle it Your thoughts?
  5. This is why this problem is so difficult. As time goes to infinity, the jitter goes to zero. Zero velocity is a bad situation, because you have no normal or tanget vector, and so you cannot calculate friction to stop the motion.
  6. The answer is that 2 + 2 can equal 5, if God wanted it to be that way. People talk about fine funing the universe, but actually, you can make anything work out if you want to. 10 + 5 could equal Pi... l8r..
  7. Phantom: Thanks for remembering.. I know you're watching me.. Yes, 2 posts... Hodgman: I'm sorry.. I should have replied to you earlier. You're absolutely correct. Time does NOT exist. It is not a substance that can be "diluted" as in Einstein's theory.. The way I always explain it, is mathematicly, which is that time is a dependent variable. Dependent on the 3 spacial dimensions. We all know, distance = velocity * time, so time = distance / velocity. If there was no movement, time would "stand still". Now, some ppl will argue that time dilation is a proven phenomenon. I agree that certain particles do experience a delayed decay, BUT, the reason for this can be explained in OTHER ways than time dilation!... Namely, if a particle is traverling faster than the surrounding SPACE, it is experiencing additional PRESSURE of the EM field. That is what keeps it GLUED longer than the other particles! So, just because you observe something to be true, there could be MANY _different_ explanations for the phenomenon.. BUT, of course, I'm telling you things you already know. In any case, thank you for your reply... I REALLY appreciate it..
  8. All right, calm down everybody. First of all, I'm talking about La Sage, not Lebinz, so go look up "push gravity" or "shadow mechanics". Lebinz supposedly invented calculus before Newton. Then again, who knows who stole what idea from who (yes, I deliberately butcher the English language). Phantom, stop stalking me! Ok, I leave you with this: I just went to the DMV to "exchange" my driver's licence, because I moved to Ohio from Florida. I still don't understand why, I live in the UNITED states. Anyway, Ohio requires such people to take the written exam before they issue you an Ohio license. So here we go, let's take the test. They direct me to a computer station, which they told me could read the questions for me. I told them, "thanks but no thanks, I'll read them myself".. First question... what is 2 + 2? I'm not shitting you! I suppose it's a "sanity check", but given our current discussion in time, how is that a coincidence? I wanted to laugh, but I figured if I did the cops would probably handcuff me. This makes me believe in my original premise, which is that my life is a world onto itself, but truthfully, I don't really believe that. I'm not that smart. I couldn't have invented all this! And I learned everything I know from other people. God bless you all..
  9. [quote name='Net Gnome' timestamp='1346790893' post='4976566'] The ongoing professional theory is deja vu is just a hiccup in your sense processing in your brain. So you get two perceptions at the same time, but the brain can only deal with one, so it picks one, the remaining one is a sensory echo that we perceive as deja vu. What causes this hiccup is debateable, everything from missed/improper synapse firing (likely) to perception singularity theories dealing with the brain having a phase imbalance and accidentally perceiving out of "proper" temporal order (unlikely)... [/quote] I tend not to believe professional theories, because they are also part of a dogma which much like the other dogma is self reinforcing. Notice I didn't say that it only reinforced material beliefs, because scientists routinely break that rule. For example, extra dimensions of string theory, Einsteins curved space, dark matter, and so on. In the case of deja vu, it's simply a foregone conclusion based on the orignal scientific dogma that everything has to be resolved through partical interaction, nevermind what particals are or who put them there. So, when it's convenient, they use the material argument, but then promptly invent exotic materials or dimensions when their equations don't work out or disagree with observation. [quote name='kseh' timestamp='1346784985' post='4976533'] It seems to me that "universe" has come to be accepted as something different than the entirety of existence. The definition tends towards more practical and scientifically observable limitations. Which makes some sense as anything else isn't going to be provable, manipulable, or otherwise have a practical purpose to us. [/quote] I agree, and I believe there is a practial theory that describes the material universe very eloquently, and this theory has been buried a long time ago. You see, when Newton came up with his gravity "theory", many people were asking "what is the mechanism of gravity", because Newton's "theory" was only a description of what happens, not how it happens. Well, not many people know that Newton had an adversary who gave exactly such a mechanism. Unfortunately, since this adversary was an unknown and Newton was the mathematics chair at Oxford, politics not science now dictate who's right and who's wrong. This was the greatest blunder in human history. I'm guessing it will take another thousand years for us to correct this, and the only way to do so is to go around the mainstream scientific community which now just like then is based on politics, popularity, money, and hurd mentality more than anything else. Luckily, power has been returned to the people through the Internet, however, it takes a lot of effort to undo the damage that the dogma has caused. The underground is also filled with crackpots, just like the mainstream. So, good luck to anyone trying to make sense of "scientific" theories. [quote name='jfavela' timestamp='1346801721' post='4976609'] I see where you're coming from and possibly obtained your "revelation." Such things can't truly be known without dying though, as much as anyone would want to speculate one way or another. [/quote] What if I'm correct and you either go on to the next life or relive your life again? In other words there is no heaven or time in between when you get the answers to such questions. In that case you can only figure it out within your lifetime. Then again, if you're not meant to do it, you never will.
  10. It occurred to me the other day that maybe the reincarnation theory is wrong, and what actually happens is you relive the same life over and over again? This would explain deja vu. The long version is this. I was also thinking of how people can't imagine the universe having always been and always will be, but curiously, nobody would argue that numbers have always existed? Maybe God doesn't exist but numbers do. There is even circumstantial evidence for this, which is the fact that even God cannot make 2 + 2 == 5, which negates one of the supposed powers that God is supposed to posses, namely, omnipotence. In theory, if you have a sufficiently long number, it could define your whole life. You and everything you experience. Why not? Unlike the "real" universe, there are no limits to the capacity of numbers. You can have any combination at all, defining every atom in your body and all the stuff you see in front of you. Furthermore, conciousness works on the anthropic principle, that is, there are infinite random combinations, and most of them end up not creating conciousness, yet, some will necessarily hit on the right combination to make conciousness, and therefore, if you're concious, you must be one of the right combinations. The end justifies the means. I'm actually a disbeliever myself. One of the reasons is that this would probably lead into the horrible thought that you're alone in your own creation. After all, how would this explain other entities interacting with you? One possibility is that numbers that are relatively close define the same type of entity. So for example, a large part of a number would define your home planet and then the minor part would define you and your friends. But still, it seems all these number are independent of each other, so you could have your own definition of people within your life that had nothing to do with someone else's definition. Does any of this make sense? I hope not. I actually like God, and would hate to lose a friend like that.
  11. [quote name='MARS_999' timestamp='1344819762' post='4968904'] [url="http://www.attendly.com/linux-founder-linus-torvalds-delivers-a-smackdown-like-no-other/"]http://www.attendly....-like-no-other/[/url] Comments anyone? I am looking at the C vs. C++ debate, as I am not knowledgeable about it enough to say either way, but can see how C++ promotes crappy programming and allows coders who have no clue what they are doing to code and still code crap software.... [/quote] I have to say I agree with him. Remember Java came about in order to purge some of the useless and/or confusing features of C++. Code readability is important, and if you give people enough rope, they'll hang themselves. However, given how Java never really caught on because it turned out to be slow, and x86 remained the processor of choice instead of Java processors, C++ was resurrected in order to rectify this situation. The truth is, the computer world can never make up its mind, much like the US voters. So, the answer is, use C++, but only the base features. Problem solved (sort of).
  12. I'm convinced. BTW, have you ever played Pulsoids? [url="http://www.simtel.net/product/view/id/138992"]http://www.simtel.net/product/view/id/138992[/url] One of these days I'll upload the new version.
  13. [quote name='serumas' timestamp='1342786081' post='4961285'] I think, dont deal with quadtrees, spatial hashing or grid in my experience beats quadtree performance, and qt is harder to implement, its limited in space partition amount (limited of recursiveness), takes longer to add replace object and so on... I tried sweep and prune algorithm (i think its name so), but in my case even only sorting takes to much time... [/quote] Right, I use spatial hashing for object<->world collisions as well. You can also use it for storing the visibility set. I even went as far as hashing the angle of view. Once that's done you just divide the object's position by the cell size and convert that to integers which gives you indexes into the collision/visibility arrays. I can't think of a quicker way to get at the relevant data.
  14. [quote name='Inferiarum' timestamp='1344727569' post='4968558'] I guess each physics simulator works with impulses implicitly because of the discrete nature of the simulations. The forces under consideration are used to keep bodies in resting contact. [/quote] I suppose you could integrate the equations symbolicly inside the time step. In classic RBD, you almost have to do this in order to conserve angular momentum properly, otherwise the system will leak energy. You can see this clearly when an object is nutating. A first order integrator will not work, or only work for a few seconds. As far as stability, I haven't seen an LCP engine, so I can't say one way or another. I do know that adhoc methods have problems, because they have no concept that the solution depends on the entire system, rather work on pairs of objects separately from all the others. This leads to impulses applied in opposite directions that grow in strength in order to componsate for the impulses working in the opposite directions. To use an analogy, think of people talking at a party, and having to talk louder and louder in order to be heard, meanwhile all the other people also start talking louder and louder so they can be heard, and so forth.
  15. [attachment=10606:VerletWellBin.zip] This should help visualize the situation. Look at the vertexes of the boxes. Red light means dynamic, Green means static, and Blue means "dampening" (something I added). Hope that helps. BTW, I'm told you can disassemble this code.. Good luck.. PS: when the system seattles down, you'll see the lights blinking rapidly. That is the shock wave traveling through the system. --Bart