Jump to content
  • Advertisement


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

696 Good

About ExErvus

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. ExErvus

    Improving collision query?

    As already noted, spatial partitioning is key. I have also found in my own implementation to be very helpful, for per primitive collision checking, such as with terrain, hold an index to the last previously collided with primitive, check that first in your loop. If that doesn't hit, next check the surrounding 6 primitives, if none of those hit, then do a complete collision check starting from scratch. That turned my unplayable scene from 10fps with multiple objects, to lightning fast.
  2. An individual element in a matrix does not have a 1:1 ratio with regards to its mathematical representation. It is a combination of arithmetic operations on the elements of the matrices that will give you the final outcome. A 5 in position _22 does not just represent "rotation on x axis", or "scale on Y axis". These two operations are combined into a single number.   Your question is slightly confusing, but I guess I would answer that you have to work in the context of the situation. If you are working in directX or openGl, the matrices will be represented differently, ect... If you mean how to understand them for pencil/paper operations, the same applies.   Could you clarify your question?
  3. I am not familiar with Bullet, but here's my scenario.   I went ahead and rolled my own system. It is rather undeveloped and has only been tested in a limited working environment, but the logic still stands for what I need and has shown to be sufficient for the current progress of my overall game engine.   The philosophy behind my home grown engine is to keep all systems decoupled for maximum portability. Most systems communicate using an event handling system that couples everything together.   In a nutshell, without knowing type information, but clients conforming to expected types, a physics participant in my physics environment takes a pointer to a position, world matrix and a copy of the mesh information. Using these variables, you can construct multiple types of bounding information for bodies to interact, apply gravity, ect... to the draw location. Their are different types of physics participants to accommodate different theoretical object types and their necessary sub-routines.   A LWPhysicsBody for standard, dynamic, intractable objects in the game world. A LWPhysicsTerrain for static terrain. A LWProjectile for short lived, "bullet" or "shooting" type objects.   1. Using mesh information passed in from the client application.   2. My own implementation is a simple rigid body system.   3. force is applied to a stored pointer variable for the objects draw location. Collisions are resolved using mesh information that is compiled as the physics object is created, and updated using the objects world matrix.   4. I will be using physically based movement for all animations. Meaning if their is a dash, you actually apply a set amount of force in the direction that is required for that "attack". I don't plan to support absolute position changes from an animation.   5. I have not put my system through the ringer yet to really get a good sense of the upside/pitfalls of my approach. It is, how ever, fast.   Their is a lot more for me to do with my own system, but I guess the answer you are looking for is probably just an ambiguous "what fits your scenario best" as per standard programming protocol.   Edit: As for your capsule question, I am assuming you mean how to keep the object "standing" on the ground? If that is your question, I use a bounding box. After applying gravity or any other force, you cast a ray down from the draw location(which is the object origin) to the ground, if the distance is less than half the object height, set its Y component to half its height. That keeps it from going through the ground.
  4. ExErvus

    Trump Is The Republican Candidate - Now What?

      You sound so unbelievable ignorant.   I have started a business. It wasn't successful because I was a little too young and naïve at time, but it is very easy to start a business. You can too! And hard work does pay off, you just weren't taught that apparently. How do you think people became successful in the first place? Successful people did not just pop into existence.   You know what sounds better than going back in time and trying to have rich parents, is becoming successful and rich myself. I want to make sure my children have a bright future ahead of them. Are you saying that you don't wont to provide the best possible future for your children?   Not an argument. Typical liberal misdirection when they have been caught with an indisputable fact that they don't agree with.
  5. ExErvus

    Trump Is The Republican Candidate - Now What?

      I already did, but will reiterate for you. North America was not an established civilization. Their was no common law, their was no standard that the population followed, their were no rules established by the existing population. They did not "hold land" by any such mechanism other than through force. Their was no civility, their is no double standard.   And we are the greatest country on earth, you just don't like it.
  6. ExErvus

    Trump Is The Republican Candidate - Now What?

      Well, not polluting the land, water and air, for starters,since we're starting to "compare" civilizations...Not killing them with diseases would also be nice. All the rationalizations in the world, buddy("The term or idea of a legal/illegal citizen did not exist" - of course it didn't, it was Europeans in the "New World" that decided "welp, now that *we* have those lands, we're gonna put a fence around them and forbid anyone from passing it"), doesn't alter the fact that your narrative is this : when European populations migrate to the Americas and, many times violently, dispose of and even exterminate the indigenous populations and take their lands and resources, that somehow leads to the creation of "the greatest country on Earth". Somehow...tt's a good thing! However, when Mexicans migrate to the same place to find work, it leads to a terrible situation, because...they are consuming resources that aren't theirs!   Really? Really? You don't see the gargantuan hypocricy here? Would you care to explain to me how the former leads to something great, while the latter leads to something terrible? Because all I see is populations moving to another place in order to escape a bad situation and take advantage of the new place's resources, but somehow that's only okay for you in the case of the Europeans moving to the Americas, and not in the case of Mexicans moving from the South Americas to the slighly more North Americas, even if there's *way* less violence in the latter. Why is that? It couldn't be that, in the latter case, you perceive yourself as the one that has to "share" resources with "others", is it? . And I only say "perceive" because I seriously doubt you have any significant resources to lose anyway - but somehow you feel a billionaire like Trump is "closer" to you than your economic equal, which is the Mexican trying to find a job in order to survive. You freaking peon. Wake up.   :P   -This is almost comical. And how far back do you think todays modern, European borders go? Here's a secret, not very. And how did those borders change? Through conquest and expansionism. This idea of injustice by "the evil white man" is laughable. There has been more land exchange through force in European history as far back as the books have been recorded than in the entirety of American history.   -Why on earth would I want to be closer to my "economic equal"? To sit in a circle and scream economic inequality? I want to be successful and make money! I am sorry, but you should want to emulate the successful, not condemn them. And I would also note that the simple fact you have access to the internet, that you yourself are above the "Mexican trying to find a job in order to survive" economically. I think the "Mexican trying to find a job" wants a job so that they can reach a higher economic level like where you and I are. No? This Mexican sounds more American than you.   -We don't mind people who want to work. But we want them to come the correct way. You act as if bringing immigrants has no effect on anything, illegal or legal. And if we want to control it, we are heartless.   -Thanks for the name calling also.           They recognized the sovereignty of the land and the rights of the people that they slaughtered and just gave it back? That doesn't make any sense. Look at the borders through history, I promise you are just confused. This sounds like a desperate attempt to legitimize Europe's violent history that spans over multiple millennia while condemning America's brief history of a colonization period that lasted maybe 100 years.
  7. ExErvus

    Trump Is The Republican Candidate - Now What?

    Lets take this one at a time I suppose. It is obvious their is just a complete divide in opinion that no one is going to change no matter how much it is discussed, but here we go anyways, one point at a time.         -Awful weather is not an argument for a lack of guns in the UK, maybe it is because of the onslaught of gun legislation put into law by parliament. -Their is no "paranoid psychopath" level of guns, that is a rather subjective opinion. America has a gun culture, nothing to do with paranoia. - Americans use guns for the same exact reason as well. -A Simpsons video used as a tool to portray Americans as idiotic only belittles your stance.         -Immigrants have always been expected to assimilate and in the past always have. Now you see illegals crossing the border, waving Mexican flags and screaming to make America brown again. Look at the turmoil this type of behavior has created. Look at the ghettos that foreign immigrants setup that have gotten so bad, police will not patrol those areas of cities. -Our own FBI has said that they cannot properly vet the people who are crossing our borders. That is not opinion, that is a federal organization who's primary purpose is to investigate domestic affairs.       "The average household headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) costs taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare benefits, which is 41 percent higher than the $4,431 received by the average native household."   Welfare does not just mean a free check from the government, state or federal, paid for by tax payers. The public school system is a form of public welfare paid for by tax payers. The police, fire and medical systems in place are a form of public welfare paid for by tax payers.   Most of these systems set in place extend to everyone regardless of if they carry a social security number or not.   The studies have been done. You are wrong.         The same sense is applied to guns at the low level as you describe it. We have laws and regulations as well. We have a whole bureau dedicated to it called the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).         -Those numbers are not because of policies that Obama put into place. Those numbers are because law enforcement is enforcing laws that Obama is against. -Did you forget about the mass neutralization bill Obama wanted to pass to allow 11 million immigrants become US citizens at a snap of his fingers? -Obama can be quoted innumerably about how he wants more immigration, to include refugees and from Mexico. I still don't love Obama and you are wrong.         -I don't believe anyone has ever used a "that happened so long ago, doesn't count" argument. You just think they do because you don't have a sound answer for it your self. -The North American continent had never been a settled country until the original colonizers crossed the Atlantic. The term or idea of a legal/illegal citizen did not exist. The native population of Indian tribes were not a peaceful nation. They were killing each other and taking each others land just like we did. Assimilate to what? loin clothes and bows? The settling Europeans were already ahead of that time period when they arrived. You expect people to digress? -Another "White" argument. Sorry pal, try an English, Spanish, French, Irish, Scottish, Polish and every other European. All the skin color is shades of white, but you refuse to see anything else. Nobody on our side has ever said anything about being "a supreme white", only the left side of the aisle has ever said that.        I have a small penis
  8. ExErvus

    Trump Is The Republican Candidate - Now What?

    Tell me how America is not the most accepting nation? Because we want people to apply through the proper channels and don't want to take in potential criminals when they cannot be vetted? Because we want them to wait their turn? I am sorry if we don't just blindly allow any sob story through our borders like the wonderfully diverse European nations do. I heard that's working out real well for them.   Guess what, immigrants are expected to assimilate, not the natural born population. If you think that makes me a racist, you need to take a look in the mirror. You keep arguing ideals and the morality of issues instead of the substance. You provide nothing to substantiate your claims other than opinions.   Resorting to name calling and screaming fallacy's, nukes the conversation and you shut your own argument down.
  9. ExErvus

    Trump Is The Republican Candidate - Now What?

    @phantom   When did "white Christians", gay marriage and abortion come into play when talking about the second amendment? My line on individual freedom and liberty was to be applied to guns in the context it was presented. People who pull the "white Christian" card are the true racist. Don't start talking to me about race, implying America is a racist nation, we are the most accepting country in the world. The only difference is, we expect you to pull your weight. We like hard workers and people who are willing to sweat. That's why immigration boomed in the US during its foundation. Immigration today is based off of a nanny state mentality where illegals are using the welfare meant for our own citizens. The majority of immigration today is for the promise of free citizenship and a financial safety net meant for US citizens.   People who use race in arguments are the actual racists. Ok, my tangent tossed to the side.   To the point.   Your stories are unfortunate, it is unfortunate that their are people who exists that conduct themselves in the manner you described. I am confused though, does your country not convict and penalize criminals in accordance with the law? If someone breaks the law with a gun, they will serve penance, just like any other crime. If somebody uses a gun in a violent matter(usually obtained illegally), they will be punished accordingly. You are acting as if everyone walks around shooting each other for fun. Violence is on the bottom rung as far as guns purposes are concerned. You immediately apply worse case scenarios involving guns to your personal circumstances because you have an irrational fear of them.
  10. ExErvus

    Trump Is The Republican Candidate - Now What?

    Don't be confused and think we want to keep guns because every one fears for their life. The self-defense angle is simply a tangible argument. And it is a beautiful way to live. I am going to venture to take a guess that you have never touched a gun of any type in your entire life. The idea of individual liberty and freedoms is much more attractive than the collective mind set that would aim to strip those freedoms to satisfy the group instead of the individual.
  11. ExErvus

    Trump Is The Republican Candidate - Now What?

    Whats worse is that I have been discussing this with Australians, New Zealanders, English and a Canadian. All of which live in countries where they have been raised to not be familiar with fire arms(except maybe Canada).
  12. ExErvus

    Trump Is The Republican Candidate - Now What?

    Taking away guns does not make it tougher to commit crime. You don't need a gun to mug an old women. And you must mean Western Europe has a lower homicide rate, lets not forget about all the wonderfully high homicide rates of other European countries like Albania, Ukraine, Russia, Lithuania ect ect.... All with wonderfully strict gun control.  These European countries have higher homicide rates than US and other western European countries. That is a fact.
  13. ExErvus

    Trump Is The Republican Candidate - Now What?

    Who's morality do you suggest to represent? Morality is an opinion. I think it would be immoral to take a gun away from an old women, my mother for example, someone who's only purpose of having a gun is self defense and keeps it in her purse when she goes out. She couldn't stop an attacker with out it. Should she just be allowed to be mugged because the muggers life is supposedly more valuable than her purse?   Do less guns create less ills? You don't need a gun to break into a house or kill somebody, you don't need a gun to rape somebody, you don't need a gun to mug my mother, all you need is a sick mind. Guns are not a gateway tool to harm. Anything can be used to harm if the assailant is willing.
  14. ExErvus

    Trump Is The Republican Candidate - Now What?

    Yes, guns ARE scary. One bullet could kill me. One big mac probably won't. The degree of harm DOES matter. Not all of us think of things in black and white terms.   Actually, I am not opposed to suicide, in principle, even if I don't encourage it. I believe one should have the right to end one's own life at a time of one's choosing. I support "doctor assisted suicide" and the right to a dignified death. I have never said otherwise and I'm not sure why you're pretending that I have. On the other hand, I also am not opposed to putting railings on the side of bridges to make jumping off them harder. Similarly, banning guns would make suicide harder to accomplish. Banning guns may encourage - not prevent! - people who otherwise might be able to pick themselves up and carry on not to end their life unnecessarily.   And not a single thing you've said so far proves that my argument "does not stand." Asserting that I'm wrong is not a proof.   Guns are not scary to me. To people who have never experienced one before, they are. Even minimal exposure, one day on the range, people will realize guns are not scary at all. They simply demand respect and safety awareness.   The point was not whether or not suicide is an acceptable behavior, I didn't even attempt to apply a stance on suicide to you, you misinterpreted. The point is that suicide is a decision to harm yourself just like eating a big-mac. I would reckon that the degree of harm really doesnt matter if they both end with the same result.   I am not trying to flame-bait or insult you. In-fact, I respect you. Your technical skill in this field is valuable and I look to people like you for answers when I have issues with my own programs. But no, whether I asserted, or silently stood by with out saying anything, you are not providing an argument that stands on any sort of foundation at all. I keep reading "me" and "I" in all of these responses, and as we know, all we have to go on are facts. The facts have been thoroughly dissected, and the anti-gunners points just don't add up.    @phantom   And what is so civilized about a country who takes away items from the populous because nobody can trust each other? I don't know where you read about sending children to school in Kevlar, which is obviously ridiculous, but you are using the tragic and deplorable event of Sandy Hook as a political crow bar to pry in new legislation, which is deplorable itself. You act as if no one noticed or cared about any shooting that has ever happened in the US, because if we did, we would just give up a way of life. Americans look at things differently than a European would. Americans are about the individual, not the collective. It is stated among every article in all of the founding papers of this country. America is a union of 50 states, not a collection of vassal states forced into treaty(except maybe Texas, gotta keep an eye on those folks...).   The point being that you cant change a way of life for an entire culture, because a few minority have attached a stigma to that aspect of our life.
  15. ExErvus

    Trump Is The Republican Candidate - Now What?

        As delicious as a drive-by big-maccing sounds...   You cant get away with that argument. The whole idea revolves around the unnecessary loss of life, not how that life is lost. Gun's are scary to people, not big macs, so people rally to ban guns. But big macs kill more than guns. It could be easily argued that guns are healthy for a populous. Among many things, they teach responsibility which is a terrifying idea to most people these days.   The argument that people kill themselves with big macs, so its a choice which makes it ok(and doesn't harm anyone else) just doesn't stand. Of the entire tally of gun related deaths, suicide accounts for 63%(according to CDC statistics), and homicide does not even fill up the missing 37%. Suicide is a choice right? They are only harming themselves which makes it ok by your logic.   Not a single person has brought forth a tangible argument during this discussion about a good reason to ban guns other than on an emotional/opinionated level. Just like other countries have their embedded values and beliefs, guns are just a part of American culture. The more people fight that, the more turmoil it will bring.
  • Advertisement

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!