• 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.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

168 Neutral

About Metus

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. Personally, I really think people over-uses singletons, but using boost you can create a singleton pretty simple without the need for a "DestroyInstance" function: [source lang = "cpp"] typedef boost::shared_ptr < class MySingleton > MySingletonPtr; class MySingleton { public: static MySingletonPtr GetInstance(); private: // alternatively static MySingletonPtr m_pInstance; } MySingletonPtr MySingleton::m_pInstance; MySingletonPtr MySingleton::GetInstance() { static MySingletonPtr pSingleton( new MySingleton ) return pSingleton; // alternatively if( m_pInstance == 0 ) m_pInstance.reset( new MySingleton ); return m_pInstance; } There should ne no problem to implement this class as a baseclass.
  2. Hehe.. no hard feelings about that :) There's one reason that I'd want the constructor to create the object: I personally prefer that way instead of [source lang = "cpp"] typedef boost::shared_ptr < Texture > TexturePtr; TexturePtr texture( new Texture ) texture->load_from_file( "file.dds" ); // or this way IDirect3DTexture* d3d_texture = { ... }; texure->assign( d3d_texture ); hmm... it seems pretty... weird anyway.. welll I think I have to get back to the design board then :)
  3. I really love to fiddle with engine core design and that includes some very interesting ways of creating flexibility. Yesterday a thing popped up in my head: what if my engine isn't too flexible to work in a large-scale project? 10 minutes lates the answer to that question was something I called "constructor functions". It means that any resource-based constructor only takes one argument and that is a function pointer. Example of my basic texture class: [source lang = "cpp"] Texture::Texture( boost::function < IDirect3DTexture9 () > constructor ) { IDirect3DTexure9* texture = constructor(); // Error checking m_texture = boost::intrusive_ptr < IDirect3DTexure9 >( texture, false ); } With this constructor and the boost::bind I can allow the user to pass in any function that returns an IDirect3DDevice9* to my texture constructor [source lang = "cpp"] IDirect3DTexture9* CreateFromFile( std::string const& source, IDirect3DDevice9 device ) { IDirect3DTexture9* texture = 0; RESULT result = D3DXCreateTextureFromFile( device, source.c_str(), &texture ); // Error checking return texture; } IDirect3DDevice9* device = renderer->get_IDirect3DDevice9(); typedef boost::shared_ptr < Texture > TexturePtr; TexturePtr texture( new Texture( boost::bind( CreateFromFile, "file.dds", device ) ) ); before I start to implement these constructor functions in the rest of my engine, is this a way that you'd like to work or is it just plain stupid? edit: perhaps this should be placed in the game programming section, but since the code contains directx code I though it might fit better here edit2: changed the subject name edit3+ tried to format the code
  4. Thank you :) We really hope to reach the TOP-10 online poker clients but the release has been a bit slow though.
  5. After almost a year of intense development - Cellar Door Games finally releases the world's first 3D Poker Client - Vegas007. For more information and downloads - visit http://www.vegas007.com Texas Hold'Em screenshot Blackjack screenshot Please note that the screenshots on the site are almost 3 months old. Edit: Tried to fix hotlinking...
  6. Ahh.. I'll take a look at the SAS now unsigned int iUserRating = 1732; ++iUserRating;
  7. Yep, that's the question. I have designed and implemented a simple scenegraph for my Neverending::Engine but I have reached a point where I need some fresh eyes on the design. So far I have implemented a Transformation-, a Mesh and a Subset node and the traversal and rendering works flawlessly. This night I had some plans for the Shader node (wrapping the ID3DXEffect interface) but something suddenly hit me: How should the ENGINE manage shaders using non-supported shader models? My first attempt to solve this problem was to automagically fallback to a default shader but I do not know if that is the best way to go. [source lang = cpp] // file: normalmapping.fx technique normalmapping { pass base { // ... } } // as far as i know, normalmapping requires atleast ps1.4 and how should the // shader / engine support this? technique fallback { pass base { // ... } } this could eventually solve this shader, but what if I decided to implement a parallax-mapping shader? [source lang = cpp] // file: parallaxmapping.fx technique parallaxmapping { pass base { // ... } } // the parallax-mapping should probably fallback to the normalmapping shader // FIRST and then - if that is unsupported - fallback to the really simple shader technique fallback { pass base { // ... } } soo should the artist manually add 4 or 5 fallback shaders in his editor for this?
  8. wow - that's pretty :)
  9. of course - my bad - or is it? Since this is a forum primarily dedicated to game developing - I thought some things were obvious. So to keep this thread alive - Quote:metus I've had a vision... Using all the tips and tricks in the world - how many boxes (8 verts and 12 indexed faces) would I be able to render using Direct3D9 capable hardware? I've had a vision... Using all the tips and tricks in the world - how many boxes (8 verts and 12 indexed faces) would I be able to render using Direct3D9 capable hardware and still get a decent framerate? And with decent frameerate I mean "the-least-amount-of-frames-per-second-that-you-could-play-a-fast-paced-actiongame-in"
  10. I haven't investigated wheter frustum- and occlusion culling will increase the performance when I'm using instances.
  11. I've had a vision... Using all the tips and tricks in the world - how many boxes (8 verts and 12 indexed faces) would I be able to render using Direct3D9 capable hardware? Using the modified "Instancing" demo in the SDK I managed to render around 30k of individually colored and textured boxes. I'm afraid that is NOT sufficient for my vision.. however, using approperiate batching and minimalistic shaders - would I be able to touch the 50k limit? The hardware that I used during this test was: A64 xxxx+ venice-core (overclocked to 2.8Ghz and SSE3), 1Gb of mid-performance DDR and an overlocked nVidia 6600GT (584Mhz on the core and 1113 on the memory)
  12. Quote:Original post by StarikKalachnikov /../ wasn't necessary anymore since todays videocards can handle alot of polygons. /../ That is almost my opinion as well - however, frustum culling is the only thing I suggest since it is very easy to implement and is the culling method that probably will offer the most performance without any extreme computations - like quadtree/octree (not that computational - but anyway) and perhaps even BSP generation. Occlusion culling is probably the most useless culling method ever, since as far as I know, you need to render the scene twice to know what objects occluds other objects. just my 2% of a coin
  13. That's pretty simple - your display adapter - the GeForce4 MX400 does not support vertex- and pixelshaders that is required by the game. yuo really need to purchase yourself a new videocard if you're planning to play some of the really awesome games of today.
  14. that was exactly the kind of answer i was hoping for Ubik. Considering the API - I have no intention to support both OpenGL and Direct3D so that is no concern. I think the only thing my renderer-class will do is to render primitives, everyting else is done the the external classes: textures will set up themselves, shaders will set constants et cetera.
  15. hehe.. you're obviously not the only one :) as you can see here: [source lang = "cpp"] // totally lazy int kState = 0; pTexture->Bind( kState ); // somewhat lazy int kState = 0; pRenderer->BindTexture( pTexture, kState ); i've displayed two different ways of setting a resource - in this case a texture - one way where the "renderer-sets-the-texture" and the other where "the-texture-uses-the-renderer-to-set-itself" way both these techniques surely have pro's and con's - and i want to know if someone here has chosen the one over the other - and why