Show Posts

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.


Messages - The 11th plague of Egypt

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 »
46
Off-Topic / Re: Unity3D developers starting to listen?
« on: May 17, 2014, 04:28:08 AM »
I'd also like to have a look at UE4, namely because I got fed up with the merge conflicts that pop up because of Unity's closed source binaries.

Also, many parts, like the level editor, feel like they were made to be handled by hand and not by code.

I have my doubts about the flexibility of Unity's physics engine. It's just an ancient version of Physix under the hood.

47
Off-Topic / Unity3D developers starting to listen?
« on: May 16, 2014, 03:27:27 PM »
Hello, I think you noticed the storm that the release of the new Unreal Engine v.4 brought.
$19 per month, including mobile and access to source code
Takes 5% of your games' gross income

That 5% royalty may not be so cheap, but sure beats Unity's $1500 for Pro + $1500 for iOS Pro + $1500 for Android Pro.
And it's cheaper than Game Maker Studio Professional + plugins.

First the CEO of Unity3D releases an interview stating that UE4 has had no impact on Unity.

Yet now they open a forum topic titled Official: How Can We Serve You Better?

48
General ENIGMA / Re: EDC Partially Fixed
« on: May 12, 2014, 01:00:29 PM »
EDC? What the heck is that?

49
Programming Help / Re: C++ questions!
« on: May 05, 2014, 11:22:58 AM »
If you use Qt, you are more or less invited to use their version of the standard library.
That is, qString instead of string, for example. If you read a qTextField, you get a qString instead of a string.
It's just that it gives you some more functionalities and checks.

You can use the Qt IDE to design the GUI, and it's quite good, so there's no need to fire up Visual Studio at all.
Unlike Java, which adopts the same GUI to rule them all, Qt provides a native look for each platform.
Truth is, sometimes it's not perfectly native, but you won't need any native calls and it will spare you any #ifdef.

License wise, it's the same as using the std library, you can release as closed source unless you mod the Qt library itself.
And even then you would just need to release the changes you made to the library and not your whole program.

LGPL was originally made for libraries.
You can use the library in your program without releasing the code of your program.
If you want to modify the code of the library itself, then you have to release the mod to the library under the same license (LGPL).

What's all the fuss about the dynamic / static linking?
Some people consider static linking as merging the code of your program with the code of the library.
And so they say that you should release the code of your program under the same license of the library.
It's not exactly like that, but use dynamic linking and everything will be fine.
In case you do want to investigate further, here you go
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10130143/gpl-lgpl-and-static-linking
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic

That said, Qt is a HUGE framework, far bigger than Java standard library.
Fortunately, it's truly modular and it's written with a more consistent style.
Make sure you understand the style they are "suggesting" you to use, or you'll be swimming against the tide.

50
Tips, Tutorials, Examples / Re: Travelling salesman problem
« on: May 03, 2014, 06:40:10 AM »
That's not going to scale.
There's a better solution to this, namely farthest neighbor insertion.

It's probably the most performing of the simpler solutions to this problem.

You can play around with it here.
http://bjornson.inhb.de/?p=26

You can have a look at this if you want to see other solutions as well.

51
Tips, Tutorials, Examples / Re: Travelling salesman problem
« on: May 02, 2014, 06:26:34 PM »
What kind of solution did you adopt to solve this?
I've never heard of such "liczykon" script.

52
General ENIGMA / Re: Please vote for ENIGMA's new license
« on: April 28, 2014, 06:07:02 AM »
Atached below three versions of the exception:  ;)
Consider how a single word in the fairly simple wxWidgets exception to the LGPL could make things unclear
Quote
The wxWindows Library Licence has been approved by the Open Source Initiative.

In August 2005, an ambiguity in Clause 2 was removed (replaced "the user's" with "your") and the version bumped to 3.1.

Writing an exception to the GPL is no small task.
Quote
2. As a special exception, the copyright holders of this software give permission for additional uses of the text contained in this release of the software as licensed under the Enigma Engine License
Text? Do you mean the code? The GPL itself consumes whole paragraphs describing what source code is, and how bytecode is not considered source.
Just using the wrong word can lead to troubles.
This is the riskiest way you could attempt to solve the problem, if you ask me.

BTW libGDX, a free/libre game development framework that supports more platforms than Enigma or Studio will ever do, just reached v1.0.
The project started in 2009, and doesn't have many more stable developers than this project has, even though it receives many pull requests on GitHub.
...and it uses Apache 2.0 as its license
http://www.badlogicgames.com/wordpress/?p=3412

53
General ENIGMA / Re: Please vote for ENIGMA's new license
« on: April 26, 2014, 07:31:41 AM »
Thanks for bringing those 2 very nice examples to our attention.

That wxWidgets exception to GPL is a very nice trick. But wxWidgets is a library.
Quote
2. The exception is that you may use, copy, link, modify and distribute
under your own terms, binary object code versions of works based on the
Library.
And you can't adapt the license to fit Enigma either
Quote
              wxWindows Library Licence, Version 3.1
              ======================================

Copyright (c) 1998-2005 Julian Smart, Robert Roebling et al

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this licence document, but changing it is not allowed.

Interestingly, Lazarus license is a workaround to an incompatibility between GPL and the old MPL license.
Such problems that have been solved since the release of MPL 2.0.

54
General ENIGMA / Re: Inheritance Fixes
« on: April 26, 2014, 07:12:47 AM »
Welcome fixes!

55
Developing ENIGMA / Re: Game End Return Value
« on: April 14, 2014, 07:00:30 AM »
Good idea.
Does it also return something?

56
Announcements / Re: Heartbleed
« on: April 13, 2014, 01:38:50 PM »
Technically what Heartbleed enables is for the attacker to look at the server's OpenSSL heap, which may contain private keys or passwords if they look long and hard enough, which would then enable them to listen in on secured connections.

So yeah, good news. :P
Damn, this is one of the best descriptions around.

57
Announcements / Re: Heartbleed
« on: April 12, 2014, 09:13:06 AM »
Good to hear you found a place Josh!

58
General ENIGMA / Re: Please vote for ENIGMA's new license
« on: March 29, 2014, 05:18:02 PM »
Thanks for replying TheExDeus.
Quote
ENIGMA engine - Shouldn't be sellable.
ENIGMA engine + Your game - Should be.
To do this would require a custom license. I think that's a bad idea with the possibility of legal loopholes. Also, do we really want to restrict people to making just games with ENIGMA? The GameMaker community has made a lot of useful applications with GameMaker; not just games. Do we want to restrict the ENIGMA community to games only? Another problem is how do we define a game in legalese?

I'll just comment on the license here.

GPL allows selling, always has and always will.

You can sell LibreOffice on ebay for as much as you want, and nobody can tell you not to try.
It's perfectly legal and allowed by the license.

Though, since the code is available, anybody can freely compile it by himself and redistribute the binary for free.

"Free as in liberty" easily translates to "free as in beer".

Same goes for MPL, Apache, MIT and all other Open Source licenses.
One of the requisites for being eligible to classify as Open Source is actually that you put no restrictions on selling.
"Free Redistribution" is point 1 of the Open Source Definition, look for yourself
http://opensource.org/osd-annotated

59
General ENIGMA / Re: Please vote for ENIGMA's new license
« on: March 29, 2014, 05:07:24 PM »
People please, leaving all rethoric aside, this is not the biggest problem now, it's just icing on the cake.

Of course, it could become a bigger problem if the situation changes, but nobody is going to lose their house in a lawsuit.

Clearly state the license you prefer, and if you are really concerned, try to reach an agreement.

If this topic drowns into the flames of political argument, any possible solution will go down with it.

Reach agreement. Solve problem. Situation better.
Everybody happy.

60
Works in Progress / Re: Attack of the Naked Blockheads 3D
« on: March 26, 2014, 03:09:10 PM »
This page takes half a minute to load on a frikkin 10Mbps connection.

Make use of thumbnails, man!
Then link to the full size image, of course.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 »