Jump to content
  • Advertisement

Will F

Member
  • Content count

    2264
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1069 Excellent

About Will F

  • Rank
    Contributor
  1. Will F

    XNA

    Thanks for the feedback, haven't really looked in depth into it, those are just my first impressions of PC web based distribution. Though for me one of the biggest worries is the dependency on the .NET Framework 2.0, not only just the download, but the install can take quite awhile as well. There's not really much you can do about that if you are targeting XP - I would be curious to see some numbers of how many people actually have it installed. I'm going to take a look at SlimDX (still have that dependency though) and Python too, the thought of having to continue using C++ for smaller personal projects just doesn't appeal to me anymore. Anyways, I found an interesting thread over at the XNA forums with some discussion of the issue between the Zman and Stephen Styrchak (XNA team). Couple highlights from it: Quote:Quote:Various setup technologies (including ClickOnce, which is free with the .NET Framework 2.0 SDK) include a bootstrapper setup.exe that will check for, and optionally install, prerequisites. In ClickOnce, for example, there is built-in support for installing the .NET Framework 2.0..... We would ALL love to see a white paper on how to get click once working with an XNA app... there's been a couple of people in here tried and as you say I think one person was successful back in the beta or 1.0 days but I think this is the one where the wizard gets confused and will include the XNA DLLs (breaking the EULA) directly unless you go and edit the XML files by hand. Quote:Okay, all that being said, I completely agree that making an installer is too hard. Yesterday and today, I looked more deeply into some of these issues. To be honest, I've never looked at a lot of this stuff before. So today I spoke to a couple people, and I think maybe we can make some reasonable, low-cost improvements in the v2.0 release. No promises yet, but for starters, I wondered why our runtime redist doesn't install its own DirectX dependencies. Well, I found that I'm not the only one on the XNA team that thinks it's strange, so we're going to look into fixing that. Ultimately, the runtime redist would be bigger, but currently that would still be under 6MB total (I found our v1.0 Refresh DirectX dependencies listed here). We also intend to document how to check if the XNA Framework is already installed or not. That means if you use a bootstrapper with a link to the redist, then you won't ever need to download it when it's already on the machine. If you do, then you only need to install the one dependency and you're done, without you or your users ever fussing with DirectX. I think that alone would be a big improvement. In addition, I'm going to look at improving the behavior of the Publishing wizard so that it doesn't include your source content, and doesn't package the runtime assemblies. We still will not officially support ClickOnce publishing, but if I can improve its behavior enough, then at least the workarounds will be easy enough to explain. Quote:The ZMan: Bottom line is that right now on windows its just too hard, Yep, you're right. I wanted to keep people from being discouraged from trying, but it might be more frustrating than it's worth.
  2. Will F

    XNA

    Have some free time so I started learning C#, so far i'm really impressed, and coming from a C++ background am finding it easy to pick up. I don't see myself using it for projects in the immediate future, but as I grow more comfortable I wouldn't be surprised if a large amount of my coding is done in that language. I've also been playing around with XNA - very neat stuff there. I was able to throw together a 3D "hello world" app amazingly fast (a simple heightmap). Unfortunately there is one very big problem with it - distributing a game. As far as I can tell there are 3 ways of doing so: 1) Published on Xbox Live Arcade This is pretty awesome and could potentially be a great revenue generator, but the process of getting it greenlighted by Microsoft seems pretty daunting for a independent game studio, or even worse a "hobbyist" programmer team or individual. 2) Xbox 360 via content creators club Nice that you can play it on a 360, but your potential audience is rather small. Though I can understand why Microsoft wouldn't want wide distribution of these games to the general 360 population, and do not blame them at all for requiring a content creators subscription to be able to play them. 3) PC Absolutely horrible, the end user has to have The .NET Framework 2.0 Redistributable, the XNA Framework Redistributable corresponding to the version your game was built against, and a number of files from the DirectX 9.0c Redistributable installed. A few years from now when Vista has become more widespread the .Net Framework requirement shouldn't be as much of an issue, but expecting a user to have the other 2 installed is a bit much. If you're making a commercial game your customers are not going to be happy about having to download all that extra stuff - they just want a 1 click installer (and if you've made a casual game only a few megs in size the total amount potentially needed to download jumps in size exponentially). Chances are people will download a demo of the game, then when they realize everything else they have to do just to play it will probably not even bother with it. As it stands now I can think of 3 good reasons to use XNA - Rapid prototyping of a game concept (which I think is an excellent use of it). Having a publishing deal for live arcade (which I would think twice about if I already had an established codebase in another language from previous projects, or didn't have anyone with extensive C# experience on the team). And finally, if you are just learning programming and want to make games. From what i've seen so far C# is a much better language for a beginner (compared to C++ anyways), and XNA seems fairly easy to use.
  3. Will F

    On Rusted Code

    Quote:Original post by ApochPiQ So, suffice it to say, when you can successfully remove over 1300 lines of unused, dead code from a header file, your code is officially rusted. ... My advice would be to 1) Start polishing up your resume. 2) Write a letter of resignation and give it to your boss. 3) Send your story to the Daily WTF.
  4. Will F

    Shadows and such (with pictures :)

    Welcome to journal land!
  5. Will F

    ...

    EDIT: since I originally wrote this the MSDN page has been updated to mention that its behavior does not conform to the C++ standard. Here's a question, will this code compile? (assume someSet is a std::set, and that 512 is a key that exists in it) Quote:std::set::iterator foo = someSet.erase(512); This comes from a conversation on #gamedev where it worked with visual studio but was choking on gcc. Initially I suggested that std::set might not have any erase members that returned anything - though that was wrong as it appears that there is almost definitely one that returns a size_type). The consensus was that since MSDN's page suggests it returns an iterator or size_type, that is the standard behavior. The belief was that the erase functions listed at the SGI page for std::set, none of which return an iterator, was not standard. A further link to the GNU libstdc++ docs resulted in suspicion that gcc might be in the wrong here - and this was from people whose programming abilities I highly respect. The beautiful thing is that since I don't have a copy of the standard nearby I have no idea which is correct. Google gave me this mailing list thread which suggests that the STL version of set had an erase member which returned an iterator, but standard C++ doesn't. Also, the freely available draft standard suggests in section 23.3.3 that it doesn't return an iterator. Until I have a copy of the standard in front of me I can either trust what MSDN and some of the more competent members of gamedev have to say, or I can hope that some page I found on google and a draft version of the standard is correct, yuck. Admittedly this might not seem like a big deal, and if you were only using Visual Studio as a build environment it wouldn't be a problem - but personally I think its symptomatic of some of the larger problems with C++.
  6. Will F

    New Baby!

    Congratulations!
  7. Will F

    New Baby!

    Congratulations!
  8. Will F

    The Clocktower

    I really like your art style. Looking forward to trying the game out.
  9. Will F

    Physics demo

    Yeah i'm aware of that. The way I have the app set up Ogre automatically loads settings from a config file in the directory. If you don't have a config file it will automatically create one, but the user has to manually set things. Personally I think the config dialog is somewhat confusing if you do it that way, so I just left it with the settings i've been using to make it easier to get going. It's not really that big of a deal as my understanding is that the config dialog exists in Ogre mostly to make it easier for a developer to get started developing with it, and you'd generally roll your own configuration dialog (which would also have any app specific settings you might need) if you were releasing a final game.
  10. Will F

    Physics demo

    Thanks to everyone for trying it out. [smile] Since i'm fairly new to developing on Windows I wanted to make a small app to make sure I wasn't doing anything wrong. Quote:Are you planning to do the same simulation with each of the different physics libraries to test them all? I'm thinking about it. I'll probably play around with Newton a bit more first - that scene is about as simple as it gets (it was really just to test that I had everything set up correctly) and i'd like to play around with some of the more advanced features first.
  11. Will F

    Physics demo

    Thanks to everyone for trying it out. [smile] Since i'm fairly new to developing on Windows I wanted to make a small app to make sure I wasn't doing anything wrong. Quote:Original post by takingsometime Are you planning to do the same simulation with each of the different physics libraries to test them all? I'm thinking about it. I'll probably play around with Newton a bit more first - that scene is about as simple as it gets (it was really just to test that I had everything set up correctly) and i'd like to play around with some of the more advanced features.
  12. Will F

    Physics demo

    Thanks to everyone for trying it out. [smile] Since i'm fairly new to developing on Windows I wanted to make a small app to make sure I wasn't doing anything wrong. Quote:Original post by takingsometime Are you planning to do the same simulation with each of the different physics libraries to test them all? I'm thinking about it. I'll probably play around with Newton a bit more first - that scene is about as simple as it gets (it was really just to test that I had everything set up correctly) and i'd like to play around with some of the more advanced features.
  13. Will F

    Physics demo

    Thanks to everyone for trying it out. [smile] Since i'm fairly new to developing on Windows I wanted to make a small app to make sure I wasn't doing anything wrong. Quote:Original post by takingsometime Are you planning to do the same simulation with each of the different physics libraries to test them all? I'm thinking about it. I'll probably play around with Newton a bit more first - that scene is about as simple as it gets (it was really just to test that I had everything set up correctly) and i'd like to play around with some of the more advanced features.
  14. Will F

    Physics demo

    I've been playing around with physics libraries a bit, here's an app I made using Newton (about 3 meg download - and if you don't have a version of VS C++ 2005 installed you might need to download this from Microsoft). I haven't tried to distribute a Windows app before, so it'd be awesome if anyone could download it and make sure it works on their computer (it worked for a couple people on #gamedev so hopefully no one will have a problem with it). And here's a screenie It needs a bit of work, i'm not calculating collision with the camera so you can walk through the balls and walls, and there are a number of things I could do to speed it up a bit, but I'm pretty happy with how easy it was to get started.
  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

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

Participate in the game development conversation and more when you create an account on GameDev.net!

Sign me up!