This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 »
2251
Announcements / Re: Collisions
« on: March 26, 2010, 07:02:16 pm »
*doesn't see difference between collision_polygon and collision_triangle*
Would take an extra five lines of code.
I was thinking about just writing a wrapper to Box2D, really. Would take care of most such needs. Luda had started working on an engine that allowed for several polygon-based collisions...
I'm more concerned with bitmasks for GM-simulation purposes (Can't really think of a time where a quad wouldn't cut it that Box2D wouldn't be favorable).
Also, 1337th post in Announcements.
Would take an extra five lines of code.
I was thinking about just writing a wrapper to Box2D, really. Would take care of most such needs. Luda had started working on an engine that allowed for several polygon-based collisions...
I'm more concerned with bitmasks for GM-simulation purposes (Can't really think of a time where a quad wouldn't cut it that Box2D wouldn't be favorable).
Also, 1337th post in Announcements.
2252
Announcements / Re: Collisions
« on: March 26, 2010, 06:25:41 pm »
Luda was just remarking about how easy that'd be to implement. He doesn't feel like signing on right now, though. *shrug*
2253
Announcements / Collisions
« on: March 26, 2010, 05:05:17 pm »
Luda is back!
He offered to take up collisions again today, which is good news for the project. Luda wrote the original system used in R3, which I implemented rather poorly (no collision event), but it has since been over a year and it is safe to say we're both "on top of shit."
He apparently has hatched a plan for improving collisions to operate in O(n*log n) rather than O(n**2) like most systems. I'm not sure what time GM operates in, but frankly, who gives a crap; Luda's were faster than Mark's last time. (At least, as far as I can tell. I thought Mark was supposed to be an expert on collisions?)
Anyway, I'm personally tickled pink. Luda learned not long after making the original system that he could improve it by using integers instead of bytes (somehow that wasn't common knowledge at the time, now it's so obvious...), and with his new Quad Tree idea, we should be cooking with gas.
Also, I'd like to remind everyone that DLLs are also part of the equation now. These systems are the two things that everyone concurred are all that's left to set ENIGMA and GM apart. Let's hope we don't blow this, eh?
He offered to take up collisions again today, which is good news for the project. Luda wrote the original system used in R3, which I implemented rather poorly (no collision event), but it has since been over a year and it is safe to say we're both "on top of shit."
He apparently has hatched a plan for improving collisions to operate in O(n*log n) rather than O(n**2) like most systems. I'm not sure what time GM operates in, but frankly, who gives a crap; Luda's were faster than Mark's last time. (At least, as far as I can tell. I thought Mark was supposed to be an expert on collisions?)
Anyway, I'm personally tickled pink. Luda learned not long after making the original system that he could improve it by using integers instead of bytes (somehow that wasn't common knowledge at the time, now it's so obvious...), and with his new Quad Tree idea, we should be cooking with gas.
Also, I'd like to remind everyone that DLLs are also part of the equation now. These systems are the two things that everyone concurred are all that's left to set ENIGMA and GM apart. Let's hope we don't blow this, eh?
2254
Announcements / Re: Summary
« on: March 26, 2010, 12:19:23 pm »
I'm hoping to improve var's speed from R3's. Have a newer version lying around somewhere. Other than that, not that I can tell. I ran a best-case version of this with beyond-perfect general-purpose optimization, and it ran the same speed. So, I think this is as good as we're getting from lines.
Loading time will increase slightly with sprites, but it shouldn't require a "Loading" form.
I'm just glad it consistently performs faster than GM, with some seven times the particles. XD
Loading time will increase slightly with sprites, but it shouldn't require a "Loading" form.
I'm just glad it consistently performs faster than GM, with some seven times the particles. XD
2256
Announcements / Re: Another quickie
« on: March 26, 2010, 09:45:35 am »
> backspace
Functions like the "Back" button in Vista. Didn't try since.
>"Oh, that's new! ... Wait, that was in 03?"
It's been the opposite for me. I was very used to the old layout.
Functions like the "Back" button in Vista. Didn't try since.
>"Oh, that's new! ... Wait, that was in 03?"
It's been the opposite for me. I was very used to the old layout.
2258
Announcements / Re: Summary
« on: March 26, 2010, 08:01:09 am »
> so what does this mean in terms of R4 release date?
Every time I set a release date, something goes wrong and I end up needing more time.
> Why do you need 2 different cc and cci variables?
One tells me how many objects I'm drawing. The other recycles the array to prevent reallocation.
Every time I set a release date, something goes wrong and I end up needing more time.
> Why do you need 2 different cc and cci variables?
One tells me how many objects I'm drawing. The other recycles the array to prevent reallocation.
2259
Announcements / Re: Summary
« on: March 25, 2010, 11:04:37 pm »
Grazie. I was pretty pleased Vista didn't bite me. And neither did my odd texture-binding checks; there was no speed difference with or without them.
2260
Announcements / Re: Summary
« on: March 25, 2010, 11:00:32 pm »
Good, that liveCD was 64Bit. >_<
And yes, it does. Ism gave me some structures I needed, and I'll be returning one to her tomorrow.
And yes, it does. Ism gave me some structures I needed, and I'll be returning one to her tomorrow.
2261
Announcements / Re: Summary
« on: March 25, 2010, 10:57:16 pm »
FACK.
My Linux box is presently sleeping off a headache. Ehhh... I'd tell you to download serp's GIT repo, but I don't have the link and wouldn't wish it on anyone. *shrug*
WINE should be kind to ENIGMA... It doesn't use very much...
*Fumbles a liveCD into nearby computer*
My Linux box is presently sleeping off a headache. Ehhh... I'd tell you to download serp's GIT repo, but I don't have the link and wouldn't wish it on anyone. *shrug*
WINE should be kind to ENIGMA... It doesn't use very much...
*Fumbles a liveCD into nearby computer*
2262
Announcements / Re: Summary
« on: March 25, 2010, 10:26:00 pm »
Also, for your consideration, what happens if you don't use var for fucking everything (I revised to use int and double):
I'd up the room speed, but I know that if my framerate limiter doesn't get it, the vsync will. So...
*Realizes he's being a dumbass*
*uploads executables*
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1052740/GMflames.zip (Over 9000 sets of at least 100 bytes; estimated forever on dial-up)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1052740/SHELL.zip (Three versions included; 300 KB)
Broken old version:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1052740/ENIGMAflames.zip (at least a hundred kilobytes, but barely. Like, 30 seconds on dial-up.)
So yes, do feel free to run those. And if for some reason the ENIGMA one doesn't work, errors, segfaults, or by some miracle runs more slowly than Game Maker's, do let me know.
And in conclusion, no, tr0ll, this really never does get old.
I'd up the room speed, but I know that if my framerate limiter doesn't get it, the vsync will. So...
*Realizes he's being a dumbass*
*uploads executables*
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1052740/GMflames.zip (Over 9000 sets of at least 100 bytes; estimated forever on dial-up)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1052740/SHELL.zip (Three versions included; 300 KB)
Broken old version:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1052740/ENIGMAflames.zip (at least a hundred kilobytes, but barely. Like, 30 seconds on dial-up.)
So yes, do feel free to run those. And if for some reason the ENIGMA one doesn't work, errors, segfaults, or by some miracle runs more slowly than Game Maker's, do let me know.
And in conclusion, no, tr0ll, this really never does get old.
2263
Announcements / Summary
« on: March 25, 2010, 10:11:28 pm »
Perfect summary of the project today as I tested serp's optimization fix (which was quite full of linker errors):
Game Maker
Can't do anything fast.
ENIGMA
Can't do anything right.
So.
...Fix'd
Today's lessons: Always remember to use unsigned chars when the situation calls for them, and don't be afraid to use an equation that makes sense when calculating framerate. Even when Linux won't let you use clock().
...I'll probably end up externalizing a function that uses clock() on Windows and gettimeofday() on Linux.
Technical blah:
They're actually geometric curves and trig: GM's nightmare, really. I used 20 lines each curve.
Draw
Step
Create
LGM can't actually pass that to ENIGMA yet, so I copy-pasted the code manually. Crude but effective.
The difference between ENIGMA's and GM's was (in addition to the caption) the repeat() value, which was 8 in ENIGMA.
I allocated like, 60 values more than I seemed to ever need, but you never know.
Anyway, thanks much to serp, who is the reason the game is like 288 KB. As opposed to like 420, which it has been before. He's probably also the reason it runs smoothly, and is certainly the problem I ran into five linker errors copy-pasting code. <3
Game Maker
Can't do anything fast.
ENIGMA
Can't do anything right.
So.
...Fix'd
Today's lessons: Always remember to use unsigned chars when the situation calls for them, and don't be afraid to use an equation that makes sense when calculating framerate. Even when Linux won't let you use clock().
...I'll probably end up externalizing a function that uses clock() on Windows and gettimeofday() on Linux.
Technical blah:
They're actually geometric curves and trig: GM's nightmare, really. I used 20 lines each curve.
Draw
Code: [Select]
draw_set_color(merge_color(c_red,c_yellow,.3));
draw_set_blend_mode(bm_add);
for (i=0; i<cc; i+=1) {
draw_set_alpha(min(.1,alpha[i]));
for (ii=0; ii<ic; ii+=1) {
draw_line(xo[i]+lengthdir_x(ii,ang[i]),yo[i]+lengthdir_y(ii,ang[i]),xo[i]+lengthdir_x(ic-ii,ang[i]+90),yo[i]+lengthdir_y(ic-ii,ang[i]+90));
}
yo[i] -= vs[i];
ang[i] += rot[i];
alpha[i] -= .001;
if (alpha[i] < 0)
cci = i;
}
room_caption = "Number of particles: " + string(cc) + " FPS: " + string(fps) + " ... Sad, really.";
Step
Code: [Select]
repeat (2)
{
xo[cci] = mouse_x - 16 + random(32);
yo[cci] = mouse_y - 16 + random(32);
ang[cci] = random(90);
alpha[cci] = .12;
rot[cci] = random(10) - 5;
vs[cci] = .5 + random(2);
cci += 1;
if (cci > cc)
cc = cci;
}
Create
Code: [Select]
cc = 20;
cci = cc;
ic = 20;
for (i=0; i<cc; i+=1)
{
xo[i] = mouse_x - 16 + random(32);
yo[i] = mouse_y - 16 + random(32);
ang[i] = random(90);
alpha[i] = .12;
rot[i] = random(10) - 5;
vs[i] = .5 + random(1);
}
LGM can't actually pass that to ENIGMA yet, so I copy-pasted the code manually. Crude but effective.
The difference between ENIGMA's and GM's was (in addition to the caption) the repeat() value, which was 8 in ENIGMA.
I allocated like, 60 values more than I seemed to ever need, but you never know.
Anyway, thanks much to serp, who is the reason the game is like 288 KB. As opposed to like 420, which it has been before. He's probably also the reason it runs smoothly, and is certainly the problem I ran into five linker errors copy-pasting code. <3
2264
Announcements / Re: Another quickie
« on: March 25, 2010, 09:39:11 pm »
> Just one thing, I miss the button to go to the parent directory!
I kinda miss that too. But since they at least mimicked GNOME's beautiful button-based address bar, I won't complain about that.
> First of all, I'm quite sure that you can disable that functionality in Windows 7.
I'd hope so. Fortunately, it's my mother's computer, so I don't have to worry about that.
> Second of all, what you claim is an "ambiguity" is actually not ambiguous at all. Mac's windowing system...
Yes, yes. But on XP and Vista, I knew what I was getting intuitively when I clicked a button. On Mac and 7, I'm still not sure what I'll get when I click things. I despise having to go to File->New Window in things, though it is nice that Mac does simulate an MDI and bring -all- the Windows to front when you click the icon, instead of making you select one like 7. Also, alt-tab has been pain-in-the-assified on 7.
> So it doesn't inherit ambiguity. It inherited a feature from Mac that was part of a coherent whole and shoved it onto a different paradigm, introducing that ambiguity. (Kind of like what you do when you try to combine GM and C++.)
> I can't quite understand what you're saying with the extremely poorly written ... I would say that the ribbon interface makes things more consistent and easy to find than the old drop-down menu + toolbars paradigm, and trying to switch back to it is a silly idea.
You just didn't stare at it long enough. Furthermore, if they actually had enough software that I was still forced to use in that shitty selection of theirs, it would seem more fitting for them all to have ribbons. My first thought when I saw Paint was that they were finally catching other programs up with Word. Problem is, 95% of the programs I use stick with the "File | Edit..." style menus. Not to mention that catching others up with Word isn't necessarily a good thing; Word often makes it fuck-impossible to find anything; I never had that problem before. At least Paint doesn't have enough features to really get lost in it. One nice thing about the ribbons was being easily extended as you work, so it doesn't have to show all that shit at once. Of course, try finding that shit if you need it when the program doesn't know you do...
I kinda miss that too. But since they at least mimicked GNOME's beautiful button-based address bar, I won't complain about that.
> First of all, I'm quite sure that you can disable that functionality in Windows 7.
I'd hope so. Fortunately, it's my mother's computer, so I don't have to worry about that.
> Second of all, what you claim is an "ambiguity" is actually not ambiguous at all. Mac's windowing system...
Yes, yes. But on XP and Vista, I knew what I was getting intuitively when I clicked a button. On Mac and 7, I'm still not sure what I'll get when I click things. I despise having to go to File->New Window in things, though it is nice that Mac does simulate an MDI and bring -all- the Windows to front when you click the icon, instead of making you select one like 7. Also, alt-tab has been pain-in-the-assified on 7.
> So it doesn't inherit ambiguity. It inherited a feature from Mac that was part of a coherent whole and shoved it onto a different paradigm, introducing that ambiguity. (Kind of like what you do when you try to combine GM and C++.)
> I can't quite understand what you're saying with the extremely poorly written ... I would say that the ribbon interface makes things more consistent and easy to find than the old drop-down menu + toolbars paradigm, and trying to switch back to it is a silly idea.
You just didn't stare at it long enough. Furthermore, if they actually had enough software that I was still forced to use in that shitty selection of theirs, it would seem more fitting for them all to have ribbons. My first thought when I saw Paint was that they were finally catching other programs up with Word. Problem is, 95% of the programs I use stick with the "File | Edit..." style menus. Not to mention that catching others up with Word isn't necessarily a good thing; Word often makes it fuck-impossible to find anything; I never had that problem before. At least Paint doesn't have enough features to really get lost in it. One nice thing about the ribbons was being easily extended as you work, so it doesn't have to show all that shit at once. Of course, try finding that shit if you need it when the program doesn't know you do...
2265
Announcements / Re: Another quickie
« on: March 25, 2010, 05:12:52 am »
I don't hate them for taking the idea, I hate them for taking the idea badly.
I don't see how it's different; I've used both operating systems. Windows' is slightly more functional than Mac's, but it inherits everything I don't like about the dock, namely ambiguity: Did I mean to open the current FireFox, or launch a new instance?
Also, after extended use, I find the half-ass-stolen feature to maximize your window when dragged to a certain location on the screen REALLY annoying. GNOME's was nice because it allowed you to drag a maximized window out of the way, and only re-maximized it if you dragged it back before letting go. Now every time I need to look at a lower window, I have to be careful not to drag it to the top. It's an easy habit to get into, really, it's just that they're supposed to be catering to veterans as well.
Oh, and did I mention that as I said a few years ago (and was duly flamed by someone, probably Rusky), they have finally done away with "File | Edit | View | History" in all their programs. This is funny because I was reading about the same time I started bitching this HUGE writeup on how consistency is what makes Windows so friendly, and they devoted large chunks of that document to the very menu they have now hidden. That menu was the only reason I could put up with programs, and now I need alt- to get to it. <_<
I don't see how it's different; I've used both operating systems. Windows' is slightly more functional than Mac's, but it inherits everything I don't like about the dock, namely ambiguity: Did I mean to open the current FireFox, or launch a new instance?
Also, after extended use, I find the half-ass-stolen feature to maximize your window when dragged to a certain location on the screen REALLY annoying. GNOME's was nice because it allowed you to drag a maximized window out of the way, and only re-maximized it if you dragged it back before letting go. Now every time I need to look at a lower window, I have to be careful not to drag it to the top. It's an easy habit to get into, really, it's just that they're supposed to be catering to veterans as well.
Oh, and did I mention that as I said a few years ago (and was duly flamed by someone, probably Rusky), they have finally done away with "File | Edit | View | History" in all their programs. This is funny because I was reading about the same time I started bitching this HUGE writeup on how consistency is what makes Windows so friendly, and they devoted large chunks of that document to the very menu they have now hidden. That menu was the only reason I could put up with programs, and now I need alt- to get to it. <_<
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 »