• 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

122 Neutral

About AVigesaa

  • Rank
  1. Monitor resolutions are growing, but so are the number and magnitude of IDE toolbars. Seriously, though, vertical space is still a scarce resource. If indentation adequately designates the start of a new code block, I don't see a valid reason for giving the starting brace its own line. It just seems wasteful. In VS2005, I get about 50 lines of code on the screen at once. It's difficult to find a reasonably dense screen-full of code that doesn't have at least 5 opening curly braces. I don't have any actual numbers on the frequency of '{' braces in C++ code, but I'd guesstimate that at least 15% of the non-blank lines in my source files contain a '{' brace. The second style carries a heavy cost for such a minor personal preference. I only give opening-braces their own line when indentation doesn't make it immediately obvious where the code block begins. Here are a couple of random examples taken from an old C++ project. // without the emphasized scope, it's hard to differentiate the multi-line // conditional statement from the code block. if(i->second.active == false && // not currently active i->second.backups.size() == 1 && // only one backup entry i->second.backups.front().memento == 0) // the entry has no memento { // ... } // likewise with lengthy initializer lists CSurface::CSurface(unsigned width, unsigned height) : PHAL::Surface(width, height, 0, 0, true), transparency(false) { // ... } // and functions with large number of arguments Entry::Entry(Action *action, LazyGFX::CSurface *icon, const char *label, const char *descr, unsigned resize_progress, bool focus, bool own_action_mem, bool own_label_mem, bool own_descr_mem) { // ... } Disclaimer: I don't advocate writing ridiculously compact, scrunched up code. Without approprate vertical segmentation, it doesn't take very long for code to become completely unreadable.
  2. Yes, I would say that using C# is responbsible for a lot of the speed difference between the two. I'd like to see your results using unmanaged c++/D3DM.
  3. Are you using C# for the D3D app, and native C++ for the OpenGL-ES app? Unless a lot has changed in the PocketPC world, I wouldn't count on doing any realtime 3d with C# on that platform (without hardware acceleration, at least).
  4. Some of the PocketPCs with video chips are really bus limited. You can't really do anything about it. I'd recommend picking up PocketHal @ www.droneship.com. It has a few tricks, and sometimes can give you small boost or two.
  5. Quote:Original post by seanw The vast majority of security problems that are plaguing the security world today are due to buffer overflows because languages like C and C++ gave programmers the option to not range check array accesses to increase execution speed. Exactly, C++ gives you the option of not checking your bounds. If you need bounds-checked arrays, write a safe-array type to do it for you -- it'll take about 5 minutes. Even better, just use std::vector. Now, to the best of my knowledge, I can't selectivly turn off bounds checking in JAVA or C#. I could be wrong, though. I've never needed to, because I wouldn't use those languages for things that require such micro-optimizations. My point: that's the difference between these language's paradigms. Similar, but higher level languages (C#/JAVA) do give you some nice features, but you're suffering their overhead whether it's neccessary or not. C++, however, will afford you much more freedom in selecting the features you want to use. You may have to implement those features yourself (and it may be a pain in the ass), but that's the trade-off for operating more closely to the metal. Is C++ harder to use? Sure. Is C++ economically efficient for most types software development? I doubt it. Sandbox-language programmers go for much less than competent C++ programmers, afterall. But saying that using C++ is inherently 'backwards' kind of misses the point. You're making lots of ignorant blanket-statements. You can blame the mis-applications of C++ (and that'd be valid -- it's misused alot), but you need to be more careful about what pitfalls you attribute to the language itself. Different tools for different jobs, and all that.
  6. .equals() you mean?
  7. Floats are a big no-no on PPC, especially on per-pixel operations. The PPC has no FPU, so it's emulating all those floating point calculations. It looks like there's about 6 multiplies, 6 adds, and 3 subtractions PER PIXEL. That's a lot of floating point arithmetic for a little ARM processor to emulate. Depending on how (or if) they're being inlined, all those helper functions might be a performance concern as well. The previous poster has the right idea.