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 - Josh @ Dreamland

781
General ENIGMA / Re: Critical Change, Function Renaming
« on: May 09, 2013, 09:52:56 AM »
Quote
they already are, all your draw_sprite calls? They draw a 3D floor with 0 for the z coordinates lolololololol, everything in OpenGL is 3D, everything in our engine is 3D, theres no need for disambiguation, except between what you are drawing not how you are drawing

Oh, good, then; let's just lose the polygon functions and call everything model_*, while we're at it.

782
Announcements / Re: https (Browser security)
« on: May 08, 2013, 09:19:29 PM »
I was speaking of an alternative to a self-signed SSL certificate, rather than an end-all, fix-all policy. I'm looking for cheap alternatives that won't make Firefox bitch.

783
General ENIGMA / Re: Critical Change, Function Renaming
« on: May 07, 2013, 10:00:49 PM »
You're only furthering my point. The function is physics_fixture_shape, not polygon_as_fixture_shape. And yes, if you wanted a generic polygon function, such as _create, you would think to check polygon_*. But if you were thinking about drawing a polygon, you would use draw_polygon, just like every other function in GM that does any drawing (except, of course, the 3d functions, which use the namespace d3d_). None of that "polygon_draw" shit, and none of the "model_draw" shit you're proposing, either.

784
General ENIGMA / Re: Critical Change, Function Renaming
« on: May 07, 2013, 09:01:30 PM »
I had stated my intention to re-think the "D" in "D3d" to stand for "Draw" rather than "Direct." This makes sense, anyway, because you can't name the functions 3d_, and draw3d_/draw_3d_ is too much typing. draw_polygon_ is pretty bad in that department, but at least it's easy to find. No one would think to type polygon_ when looking to draw a polygon. It's great that you believe other systems will be able to use the same polygon objects as the graphics systems. What do you suppose those functions will be called? polygon_use_with_newton()? polygon_set_as_mask_for_object()? No, you're probably thinking along the lines of physics_mask_from_polygon(). Not to imply that any of the names would be that long; those were just examples. Similarly, users would call draw_polygon() if they intended to draw a polygon, just as they call draw_sprite() or  draw_background() to draw a sprite or background, respectively. Now, assuming polygons are a resource, I am unopposed to placing manipulation functions in a polygon_ namespace, so long as the documentation for the functions in the other namespaces are clear on the need for those functions. I am talking, of course, of  polygon_create(), like  sprite_create_from_screen(), etc.

785
General ENIGMA / Re: Critical Change, Function Renaming
« on: May 07, 2013, 04:37:30 PM »
I think net_ is a suitable namespace. I also think draw3d_ is a little verbose, so d3d_ makes a suitable replacement. As far as I'm concerned, model_ is not an acceptable namespace, and neither is poly_. When people want to explore their draw options, they will type draw_ and hit control-space. Your polygon functions won't show up.

786
General ENIGMA / Re: Simplified means to install Enigma on Ubuntu?
« on: May 07, 2013, 04:27:19 PM »
Debs aren't that hard to make; part of the issue is that ENIGMA doesn't get installed to /usr/bin, it goes in ~/, which isn't very conventional. I also don't really plan to change that, for a number of reasons. Now, we could just install it to /usr/bin/enigma and chmod 777 the thing, but that's a bit of a security hole.

Another note is that I would like the server to build the debs, not the software. And then there's the question of what we pack in the debs. The latest stable? The latest revision? The code to check out the latest revision (and so depend on git as well)?

I think a little better organization in the Wiki would do the project well. Why can't the Wiki say what Ideka just said?

787
General ENIGMA / Re: Critical Change, Function Renaming
« on: May 07, 2013, 10:55:39 AM »
if you think that 3D models should be used in 2D, then I suppose we can define draw_model_* to d3d_model_*. I am completely opposed to model_ as a namespace, or poly_ as a namespace. draw_polygon* or d2d_polygon*. The drawing functions are presently divided into two namespaces, draw_ and d3d_. As I said, I'm not opposed to a d2d_, but aside from that, stick to draw_ or d3d_.

788
General ENIGMA / Re: Critical Change, Function Renaming
« on: May 06, 2013, 12:39:04 AM »
By convention, functions meant to be used exclusively in 3D are given the d3d_ prefix. Some of those functions are still applicable for drawing in 2D, such as d3d_transform_*, but there is no reason to lose it for the model functions. I am fine with draw_ being the dimensionality-agnostic drawing namespace, d3d_ (shorthand for draw_3d_) being the 3D drawing namespace, and d2d_ being the 2D drawing namespace, in case someone wants to add wrappers for d2d_model, or whatever.

It might be wise to make certain that for all possible graphics systems, 2D and 3D drawing will both utilize transformation matrices that the user can easily manipulate.

789
General ENIGMA / Re: CG Shader Compiler
« on: May 03, 2013, 08:14:03 PM »
I see no problem here. The only thing developers should be weary of is a set of standards for listing shader parameters. Eg, which shader scripts need how many textures, point lights, directional lights, etc.

790
Announcements / Re: https (Browser security)
« on: May 03, 2013, 05:40:53 PM »
Let me clarify a few points

  • Once your password makes it to our server, it is safe, but it is not stored. Our server only handles your password long enough to screw it up. The server screws it up in two, highly methodical ways, so that two different passwords will not look the same after being screwed up. The screwed up password is what we store on our server. It would take a lot of processing power to get the original password back from the screwed up version, but it only takes a little processing power to do the screwing up. Hence, your password can be checked, but not retrieved.
  • Our server doesn't necessarily tell your computer how to encrypt your data, it just tells it to encrypt it using a special number. The number is special because it was generated as a pair with another number. You can encrypt a message using the number we give you, but you can't decrypt it. No one can except the server. So, other people could send messages to the server pretending to be you, but since only you know your password, they would not succeed. However, if someone pretended to be ENIGMA's server, and they gave you a bogus number, your computer would encrypt your password with their number, and they'd be the only ones who could decrypt it. Then they'd have your password. That's why self-signing is bad. Adding a third party to verify a certificate is valid allows you to ensure that you have the correct number, with which it is safe to encrypt your password.

Thus, self-signed certificates aren't perfect, but they're still better than nothing, because now the hacker actually has to do more than monitor packets going through his server or access point. He'd have to intercept ENIGMA's certificate and replace it with his own, bogus one, and get your computer to use it instead of the real one. So, by all means, use https for logging in. Just do so with awareness of why Firefox is bitching that the connection is not trusted.

All of this, of course, raises profound questions as to why the fuck we don't just distribute a public key to everyone, have them sign their password with it, then just decrypt the bitch before hashing it. If there is a good answer to that question, then by God, I don't know it.

791
Issues Help Desk / Re: Bug with the forum, possibly?
« on: May 03, 2013, 03:18:54 PM »
You need to check the "Save a copy in my outbox" option to see them there. I'm not sure why it takes so long to send; we'll be upgrading the forum software in the near future, so the problem should go away with that. We'll see.

792
General ENIGMA / Re: New logo
« on: May 02, 2013, 11:59:53 PM »
Ace: Stop encouraging them.

Robert: Polyfuck was making fun of you because it was unclear you were making fun of Yoyo.

793
General ENIGMA / Re: DirectX Graphics System Port *Forthevin*
« on: May 02, 2013, 09:19:57 AM »
DirectX will provide more native support for things for which GL needs extensions. Half our userbase won't be able to use OGL framebuffer objects, even though they can use DirectX render targets. Same mechanism, different name; Intel only supports the Microshit naming scheme. After all, why bother adding support for querying a GL capability that's exactly the same as an MS one, if no one's paying you for the GL version?

That said, DX really is an endeavor worth pursuing. It's the "correct" graphics library on Windows.

794
We have twice as many rules at half the size or less.

795
Congrats.

Number of words in a2h's rules: 410
Number of words in Robert's "condensed" rules: 560
Number of bold, red typeface words in a2h's rules: 0
Number of bold, red typeface words in Robert's "less-naziish" rules: 17
Number of (unquoted) exclamation points in a2h's rules: 0
Number of (unquoted) exclamation points in Robert's "less-naziish" rules: 2

I think you failed.