• 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.

Neophyte

Members
  • Content count

    379
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

595 Good

About Neophyte

  • Rank
    Member
  1. The problem is right there in the error message: You are calling  this.Update(elapsedMS);   in your this.Tick function, but you have not defined an Update function anywhere.
  2. I've been kind of on the fence about the whole debate over whether or not to test private members, but I'm of the mind that private members are most likely to be small helper functions that are easy to prove that they work, and they require in-class access to test them.   Normally this sort of thinking can work out fine, but since you specifically mentioned Test Driven Development in your first post you should start thinking about tests differently. In TDD a test is not written to prove that something works, it's written to specify how it should work.  A test is, in a manner of speaking, a functional specification written in code.   Once you start thinking about tests as specifications instead of verifications then a lot of the things that initially seem "weird" about TDD makes immediate and intuitive sense (such as why you write the tests before the code, and why the code should not have the minimal functionality required to pass the tests, for instance).   So you should not test private methods. Not because they tend to be small and it is easy to prove that they work (which is often not the case anyway), but because they are not part of the specification of the class, and as such they are merely an implementation detail rather than something that should have  tests written for it.
  3. If you want something like Unreal Engine or Cryengine, then why don't you use Unreal Engine or Cryengine? This may seem like a frivolous question, but these are both available and fit the criteria you have listed, so there must be *something* that makes you not choose these, and telling us what that is will help us answer your question.
  4. It's been a while since I played with OpenGL, so take this with a grain of salt, but glOrtho doesn't require you to use the actual resolution of the screen. That is, your call [CODE] GL11.glOrtho(0.0D, xRes, 0.0D, yRes, 1.0D, -1.0D); [/CODE] could be replaced with, for instance [CODE] GL11.glOrtho(0.0D, 1920.0D, 0.0D, 1080.0D, 1.0D, -1.0D); [/CODE] which ought to solve your problem.
  5. [color=#000088]Use an anonymous inner class, like this [CODE] public class Tester { public static void main(String [] args) { C cObj = new C() { @Override public String toString() { return "I am C"; } }; B [] bList = { cObj }; for (int i = 0; i < bList.length; i++) { System.out.println( bList[i].toString() ); } } } [/CODE][/color] [color=#000088]Edit: Fixed whitespace-issues[/color]
  6. What makes you think that there being a package named "com" in two different libraries is causing you trouble? I ask because it is certainly not causing you trouble, so if you are having problems it comes from somewhere else, and you have not given information to let us help you solve it.
  7. Have you tried making your textures square, and making the sizes a power of two? Older hardware, such as one might find at a school for instance, will frequently have trouble otherwise.
  8. Don't get too hung up on the "component" part of the "Component Object Model" name, it really has nothing to do with components in the sense you're talking about (an Entity/Component design pattern). One of the main reasons for the existence of COM is to facilitate inter-process communication, and as such it has a *lot* of baggage attached to it that is of absolutely no use to you. Baggage both in terms of bloat, and in terms of complexity to work with. You will be much *much* better off implementing your own system.
  9. Unless you're using some unusual lua VM there is no concurrency. The program does not continue executing until the lua script has loaded, executed and provided a return-value.
  10. I'm not a PHP-expert (or even novice, to be perfectly honest), but from the looks of it it's testing that the input doesn't contain an apostrophe ("'"), which could be used for SQL-injection.
  11. That should be <img src="image-location" />
  12. Well, shouldn't take you more than 20 seconds to test it and find out.
  13. There are three reasons I'm gonna give you for returning by reference (the second reason is most useful): 1) It's idiomatic in C++ that the assignment-operator returns by reference. 2) Returning by value is sub-optimal. Let's assume for the moment that a Vector has 3 variables: x, y and z. Typically then, the implementation of the assignment-operator will look like this: x = Othervector.x; y = Othervector.y; z = Othervector.z; return *this; In the case where operator= returns by value it will actually return a copy of the vector, rather than the vector "itself", which incurs the extra overhead of making a copy. Returning by reference doesn't do that. 3) There are certain situations where returning by value will make statements that include assignments to behave differently from what would be expected. Unfortunately I could only think of somewhat pathological examples of this, but here goes: // Assumes the existence of a Vector-method something like this: void Vector::setX ( float f ) { x = f; } Vector a, b; // Do stuff that gives b values here (a=b).setX(1.0f); The expected result of this code (other than the immediate firing of the person who wrote it) is that a will have the same values as b, except for the 'x' variable, which will be 1.0 in a. This will hold true if operator= returns by reference. However, if operator= returns by value then 'a=b' will return a copy of a, and it's on this copy that .setX(1.0f) is called. In other words, a isn't changed, but the temporary (and unnamed) copy of a that's returned by 'a=b' has it's x set to 1.0f, and is then thrown away.
  14. If you're using C++ there's no need to use the archaic typedef struct _foo { } foo; idiom, just treat it exactly as you would a class-declaration: struct foo { };
  15. Well, as far as I can tell you have three choices here: a) Retrieve the data by using tons of queries. b) Add a column to the table with a "root_id" containing the id of the node that is at the root of the tree (in addition to a "parent_id" column showing each node's immediate parent), and collect them all in one go using select * from some_silly_table where root_id = node_id_of_the_tree_root c) Switch to a database that supports "CONNECT BY" queries for handling recursive structures (Oracle and PostgreSQL comes to mind)