Search Results

Search found 23484 results on 940 pages for 'evidence based'.

Page 1/940 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Empirical evidence for choice of programming paradigm to address a problem

    - by Graham Lee
    The C2 wiki has a discussion of Empirical Evidence for Object-Oriented Programming that basically concludes there is none beyond appeal to authority. This was last edited in 2008. Discussion here seems to bear this out: questions on whether OO is outdated, when functional programming is a bad choice and the advantages and disadvantages of AOP are all answered with contributors' opinions without reliance on evidence. Of course, opinions of established and reputed practitioners are welcome and valuable things to have, but they're more plausible when they're consistent with experimental data. Does this evidence exist? Is evidence-based software engineering a thing? Specifically, if I have a particular problem P that I want to solve by writing software, does there exist a body of knowledge, studies and research that would let me see how the outcome of solving problems like P has depended on the choice of programming paradigm? I know that which paradigm comes out as "the right answer" can depend on what metrics a particular study pays attention to, on what conditions the study holds constant or varies, and doubtless on other factors too. That doesn't affect my desire to find this information and critically appraise it. It becomes clear that some people think I'm looking for a "turn the crank" solution - some sausage machine into which I put information about my problem and out of which comes a word like "functional" or "structured". This is not my intention. What I'm looking for is research into how - with a lot of caveats and assumptions that I'm not going into here but good literature on the matter would - certain properties of software vary depending on the problem and the choice of paradigm. In other words: some people say "OO gives better flexibility" or "functional programs have fewer bugs" - (part of) what I'm asking for is the evidence of this. The rest is asking for evidence against this, or the assumptions under which these statements are true, or evidence showing that these considerations aren't important. There are plenty of opinions on why one paradigm is better than another; is there anything objective behind any of these?

    Read the article

  • Adding interactive graphical elements to text-based browser game with HTML5

    - by st9
    I'm re-writing an old virtual world/browser based game. It is text and HTML form based with some static graphics. The client is HTML and JS. I want to introduce some interactive graphical elements to certain parts of the game, for example a 'customise character' page, with hooks to server side and local data storage. I want to use HTML5/JS, what is the best approach to designing the web-site? For example could I use Boilerplate and then embed these interactive elements in the page? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Empirical evidence regarding testability

    - by Xodarap
    A google scholar search turns up numerous papers on testability, including models for computing testability, recommendations for how ones code can be more testable, etc. They all come with the assertion that more testable code is more stable, but I can't find any studies which actually demonstrate this. Can someone link me to a study evaluating the effect of testable code vs. quality? The closest I can find is Improving the Testability of Object Oriented Systems, which discusses the relationship between design flaws and testability.

    Read the article

  • techniques for an AI for a highly cramped turn-based tactics game

    - by Adam M.
    I'm trying to write an AI for a tactics game in the vein of Final Fantasy Tactics or Vandal Hearts. I can't change the game rules in any way, only upgrade the AI. I have experience programming AI for classic board games (basically minimax and its variants), but I think the branching factor is too great for the approach to be reasonable here. I'll describe the game and some current AI flaws that I'd like to fix. I'd like to hear ideas for applicable techniques. I'm a decent enough programmer, so I only need the ideas, not an implementation (though that's always appreciated). I'd rather not expend effort chasing (too many) dead ends, so although speculation and brainstorming are good and probably helpful, I'd prefer to hear from somebody with actual experience solving this kind of problem. For those who know it, the game is the land battle mini-game in Sid Meier's Pirates! (2004) and you can skim/skip the next two paragraphs. For those who don't, here's briefly how it works. The battle is turn-based and takes place on a 16x16 grid. There are three terrain types: clear (no hindrance), forest (hinders movement, ranged attacks, and sight), and rock (impassible, but does not hinder attacks or sight). The map is randomly generated with roughly equal amounts of each type of terrain. Because there are many rock and forest tiles, movement is typically very cramped. This is tactically important. The terrain is not flat; higher terrain gives minor bonuses. The terrain is known to both sides. The player is always the attacker and the AI is always the defender, so it's perfectly valid for the AI to set up a defensive position and just wait. The player wins by killing all defenders or by getting a unit to the city gates (a tile on the other side of the map). There are very few units on each side, usually 4-8. Because of this, it's crucial not to take damage without gaining some advantage from it. Units can take multiple actions per turn. All units on one side move before any units on the other side. Order of execution is important, and interleaving of actions between units is often useful. Units have melee and ranged attacks. Melee attacks vary widely in strength; ranged attacks have the same strength but vary in range. The main challenges I face are these: Lots of useful move combinations start with a "useless" move that gains no immediate advantage, or even loses advantage, in order to set up a powerful flank attack in the future. And, since the player units are stronger and have longer range, the AI pretty much always has to take some losses before they can start to gain kills. The AI must be able to look ahead to distinguish between sacrificial actions that provide a future benefit and those that don't. Because the terrain is so cramped, most of the tactics come down to achieving good positioning with multiple units that work together to defend an area. For instance, two defenders can often dominate a narrow pass by positioning themselves so an enemy unit attempting to pass must expose itself to a flank attack. But one defender in the same pass would be useless, and three units can defend a slightly larger pass. Etc. The AI should be able to figure out where the player must go to reach the city gates and how to best position its few units to cover the approaches, shifting, splitting, or combining them appropriately as the player moves. Because flank attacks are extremely deadly (and engineering flank attacks is key to the player strategy), the AI should be competent at moving its units so that they cover each other's flanks unless the sacrifice of a unit would give a substantial benefit. They should also be able to force flank attacks on players, for instance by threatening a unit from two different directions such that responding to one threat exposes the flank to the other. The AI should attack if possible, but sometimes there are no good ways to approach the player's position. In that case, the AI should be able to recognize this and set up a defensive position of its own. But the AI shouldn't be vulnerable to a trivial exploit where the player repeatedly opens and closes a hole in his defense and shoots at the AI as it approaches and retreats. That is, the AI should ideally be able to recognize that the player is capable of establishing a solid defense of an area, even if the defense is not currently in place. (I suppose if a good unit allocation algorithm existed, as needed for the second bullet point, the AI could run it on the player units to see where they could defend.) Because it's important to choose a good order of action and interleave actions between units, it's not as simple as just finding the best move for each unit in turn. All of these can be accomplished with a minimax search in theory, but the search space is too large, so specialized techniques are needed. I thought about techniques such as influence mapping, but I don't see how to use the technique to great effect. I thought about assigning goals to the units. This can help them work together in some limited way, and the problem of "how do I accomplish this goal?" is easier to solve than "how do I win this battle?", but assigning good goals is a hard problem in itself, because it requires knowing whether the goal is achievable and whether it's a good use of resources. So, does anyone have specific ideas for techniques that can help cleverize this AI? Update: I found a related question on Stackoverflow: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3133273/ai-for-a-final-fantasy-tactics-like-game The selected answer gives a decent approach to choosing between alternative actions, but it doesn't seem to have much ability to look into the future and discern beneficial sacrifices from wasteful ones. It also focuses on a single unit at a time and it's not clear how it could be extended to support cooperation between units in defending or attacking.

    Read the article

  • Turn-based games [closed]

    - by Blue
    I've been looking for tutorials on turn-based games. I found an incomplete tutorial series by InsugentX about turn-based games. I haven't looked through it, but since it's incomplete, I worry that I won't be able to finish the scripts. I'm looking for tutorials or some good tips or advice to create turn-based games(similar to Worms). Recently I finished watching the WalkerBoys' tutorials so I am familiar with code. Where can I find some info and/or tutorials on creating Turn-based games? I'd prefer it to be video format. How can I create turn-based games (not the entire thing, only the set-up) or a turn-based event like in Worms? To explain more, How do I create 2 parties(1st player, 2nd player) exchanging turns(turn-based games and/or hotseat). While parties have characters similar to Worms(having more than 1 character within each party)? Do I use an array, an enum? I don't have any experience in turn-based games, so I would like to know how to actually make turn-based games. I can't find any reference to help me with construction of a turn-based game code similar to Worms in a programming language I can understand.

    Read the article

  • Is there a market for a Text-based empire-building game?

    - by Vishnu
    I am working on building a text-based in-browser empire building game. The screen will be split into a console and an EXTREMELY rough vector map of your empire (just squares in a bigger square). Commands such as building and expanding would be typed into the console and automatically reflected in the map. Would there be any market for such a game? Would anyone want to play? To clarify, it would be online and everyone's empire would be in the same 'world'.

    Read the article

  • Time based movement Vs Frame rate based movement?

    - by sil3nt
    Hello there, I'm new to Game programmming and SDL, and I have been following Lazyfoo's SDL tutorials. My question is related to time based motion and frame rate based motion, basically which is better or appropriate depending on situations?. Could you give me an example where each of these methods are used?. Another question I have is that, in lazyfoo's two Motion tutorials (FPS based and time based) The time based method showed a much smoother animation while the Frame rate based one was a little hiccupy, meaning you could clearly see the gap between the previous location of the dot and its current position when you compare the two programs. As beginner which method should I stick to?(all I want is smooth animations).

    Read the article

  • Component based game engine issue

    - by Mathias Hölzl
    We are just switching from a hierarchy based game engine to a component based game engine. My problem is that when I load a model which has has a hierarchy of meshes and the way I understand is that a entity in a component based system can not have multiple components of the same type, but I need a "meshComponent" for each mesh in a model. So how could I solve this problem. On this side they implemented a Component based game engine: http://cowboyprogramming.com/2007/01/05/evolve-your-heirachy/

    Read the article

  • Evidence Based Scheduling Tool

    - by Serhat Özgel
    Are there any free tools that implement evidence based scheduling that joel talks about? There lies fogbugz of course but I am looking for a simple and free tool that can apply ebs on some tasks that I give estimates (and actual times which are complete) for.

    Read the article

  • JavaScript or PHP based WYSIWYG vector based image editor

    - by Jeroen Pluimers
    For a PHP based site of a client, I'm looking for a vector based image editor that allows: end user creation of vectored images consisting of objects supports upload of bitmap images to be used as objects inside the vector image supports adding text objects to add to the vector image, and change properties (font name, font style, font size) of the text objects preferably supports layering or grouping of objects inside the vector image integrates nicely with a PHP based site (so a PHP or JavaScript library is preferred) can store the vector image in SVG, EPS or PDF Both commercial and FOSS solutions are OK. Any idea where to find such a library? --jeroen

    Read the article

  • We are moving an Access based corporate front-end into a Web-based App

    - by Max Vernon
    We have an enterprise application with a front end written in Microsoft Access 2003 that has evolved over the past 6 years. The back end data, and a fair amount of back-end logic is contained within several Microsoft SQL Server databases. This front end app consists of around 180 forms, and over 120,000 lines of code, and interacts with VB.Net DLLs that support various critical functions used by our sales force. The current system makes use of 3 monitors to display various information; the Access app uses COM+ to control Microsoft Outlook and Internet Explorer for various purposes. The Access front end sometimes occupies 2 screens, automatically resizing itself based on Windows API-reported screen dimensions. The app also uses a Google map to present data to our agents, and allows two-way interactivity with the map through COM+ connectivity to JavaScript contained in the Google map. At the urging of senior management, we are looking to completely rewrite this application using some web-based technology, such as ASP.Net or perhaps a LAMP stack (the thinking with the LAMP stack thing is "free" is pretty cheap). We want to move to a web-based app so we can eliminate the dependency on our physical location for hiring new sales force members. Currently, our main office is full to capacity, and we need to continue growing the company. Does anyone have any thoughts on what would be the best technology to use for a web-based app of this magnitude? Keeping in mind the app is dependent on back-end services on our existing infrastructure. The app handles financial data and personal customer data, among other things. [I've looked at Best practices for moving large MS Access application towards .Net? and read the answers, and most of the comments. Interesting reading, and has some valid points, but our C.O.O. and contracted Software Architect are pushing for a full web-based app, not a .Net Windows App]

    Read the article

  • NASA Finds Evidence Of Aliens

    - by Gopinath
    OMG! All those Aliens stuff we saw in movies is not baseless. NASA scientists discovered that we are not all alone in this universe. Many other forms of life is distributed on the planets other than Earth. Aliens are real!! This astonishing claim comes from Dr. Richard Hoover, an astrobiologist at NASA, who says that he found solid evidence of alien life in the form of fossils of bacteria in an extremely rare class of meteorite. In an exclusive interview to FoxNews, the scientist said I interpret it as indicating that life is more broadly distributed than restricted strictly to the planet earth. This field of study has just barely been touched — because quite frankly, a great many scientist would say that this is impossible. The exciting thing is that they are in many cases recognizable and can be associated very closely with the generic species here on earth. There are some that are just very strange and don’t look like anything that I’ve been able to identify, and I’ve shown them to many other experts that have also come up stumped. Read more at  FoxNew: NASA Scientist Claims Evidence of Alien Life on Meteorite cc image flickr/earlg This article titled,NASA Finds Evidence Of Aliens, was originally published at Tech Dreams. Grab our rss feed or fan us on Facebook to get updates from us.

    Read the article

  • Event-based server-gameloop in a server based game

    - by Chris
    I know that this site is full of questions about fixed gameloops and variable gameloops and different types of threading. But I coult find barely nothing that is related to server loops. The server has no screen to draw on. It could just run as fast as possible, but of course this makes no sense. But should it really use single "ticks" and send the updates periodically after each tick and wait for the next "tick" to update its state. Is it applicable to replace the gameloop by multilpe events? Suchs as incoming network traffic or timers? I often heared that a gameloop should be determistic, but does it really matter? For instance, when you play a shooter game against humand players and/or AI you proably would never be ably to repeat the same input twice. Is it a good idea to lose determistic behavior if it is nearly impossible to reprodruce the same input twice? So this question is more or less about whether an strictly event-based gameloop is adviseable or not and what are the pros and cons. I could imagene that an event-based gameloop could perform much faster and smoother, since you don't have bug CPU-spikes during the beginning of a new "tick". The fact that I could not find much about an event-based gameloop for servers leads me to the conclusion that inefficient or too complicated to get a real benefit from it. I'm sure if this is enough to get an idea from what I'm interessted to know, but I hope so.

    Read the article

  • How to implement turn-based game engine?

    - by Dvole
    Let's imagine game like Heroes of Might and Magic, or Master of Orion, or your turn-based game of choice. What is the game logic behind making next turn? Are there any materials or books to read about the topic? To be specific, let's imagine game loop: void eventsHandler(); //something that responds to input void gameLogic(); //something that decides whats going to be output on the screen void render(); //this function outputs stuff on screen All those are getting called say 60 times a second. But how turn-based enters here? I might imagine that in gameLogic() there is a function like endTurn() that happens when a player clicks that button, but how do I handle it all? Need insights.

    Read the article

  • Turn-based Strategy Loop

    - by Djentleman
    I'm working on a strategy game. It's turn-based and card-based (think Dominion-style), done in a client, with eventual AI in the works. I've already implemented almost all of the game logic (methods for calculations and suchlike) and I'm starting to work on the actual game loop. What is the "best" way to implement a game loop in such a game? Should I use a simple "while gameActive" loop that keeps running until gameActive is False, with sections that wait for player input? Or should it be managed through the UI with player actions determining what happens and when? Any help is appreciated. I'm doing it in Python (for now at least) to get my Python skills up a bit, although the language shouldn't matter for this question.

    Read the article

  • Estimating time for planning and technical design using Evidence Based Scheduling

    - by Turgs
    I'm at the beginning of a development project in a large organization. The Functional Requirements are currently being worked out and documented with our business stakeholders by our Enterprise Design department. I'm required to produce Technical Design Documents and manage the team to actually build the solution. I'm wanting to try Evidence Based Scheduling, but as I understand, part of that is breaking the job down into small tasks that are less than 14 hours in duration, which requires me to have already done the Technical Design. Therefore, can Evidence Based Scheduling only be used after the Technical Design has been done? How do you then plan and estimate the time it may take to come up with the Technical Design?

    Read the article

  • Component-based design: handling objects interaction

    - by Milo
    I'm not sure how exactly objects do things to other objects in a component based design. Say I have an Obj class. I do: Obj obj; obj.add(new Position()); obj.add(new Physics()); How could I then have another object not only move the ball but have those physics applied. I'm not looking for implementation details but rather abstractly how objects communicate. In an entity based design, you might just have: obj1.emitForceOn(obj2,5.0,0.0,0.0); Any article or explanation to get a better grasp on a component driven design and how to do basic things would be really helpful.

    Read the article

  • Serverside memory efficiency and threading for a turn based game

    - by SkeletorFromEterenia
    Im programming on a turn based war-game for some years now (along with the engine) and Im having quite a hard time at figuring out what the games server architecture should look like, since most game server architecture articles I found focus either on FPS oder MMOGs, which doesn't really fit since I want many matches with 1- 16 players on my server, with each match being played in turn based mode. My chief concern is memory usage, since the most basic approach of loading every game that is being played completely into RAM should be quite inefficient, so is there a suitable strategy for selecting only the needed bits and loading them? Another question I got is how to design the threading on the server, since I think using only a single thread could be a problem due to the fact that the game or part of it might have to be loaded from the database. I would be very happy if you could share your knowledge or point me to material on this topic.

    Read the article

  • Question about component based design: handling objects interaction

    - by Milo
    I'm not sure how exactly objects do things to other objects in a component based design. Say I have an Obj class. I do: Obj obj; obj.add(new Position()); obj.add(new Physics()); How could I then have another object not only move the ball but have those physics applied. I'm not looking for implementation details but rather abstractly how objects communicate. In an entity based design, you might just have: obj1.emitForceOn(obj2,5.0,0.0,0.0); Any article or explanation to get a better grasp on a component driven design and how to do basic things would be really helpful.

    Read the article

  • Text based game in XNA

    - by Sigh-AniDe
    I want to create a text based game, where the player will type up,down, left or right and the sprite will move in that direction. I created the game and at the moment the player moves with the up,left,down and right keys. I would like to change the movement of the sprite from keypresses to text commands, Ive googled a lot on creating text based games in XNA but have had no luck. Could you please help me or guide me in the right direction of how to do this in XNA. All help will greatly be appreciated. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Implementing Database Settings Using Policy Based Management

    - by Ashish Kumar Mehta
    Introduction Database Administrators have always had a tough time to ensuring that all the SQL Servers administered by them are configured according to the policies and standards of organization. Using SQL Server’s  Policy Based Management feature DBAs can now manage one or more instances of SQL Server 2008 and check for policy compliance issues. In this article we will utilize Policy Based Management (aka Declarative Management Framework or DMF) feature of SQL Server to implement and verify database settings on all production databases. It is best practice to enforce the below settings on each Production database. However, it can be tedious to go through each database and then check whether the below database settings are implemented across databases. In this article I will explain it to you how to utilize the Policy Based Management Feature of SQL Server 2008 to create a policy to verify these settings on all databases and in cases of non-complaince how to bring them back into complaince. Database setting to enforce on each user database : Auto Close and Auto Shrink Properties of database set to False Auto Create Statistics and Auto Update Statistics set to True Compatibility Level of all the user database set as 100 Page Verify set as CHECKSUM Recovery Model of all user database set to Full Restrict Access set as MULTI_USER Configure a Policy to Verify Database Settings 1. Connect to SQL Server 2008 Instance using SQL Server Management Studio 2. In the Object Explorer, Click on Management > Policy Management and you will be able to see Policies, Conditions & Facets as child nodes 3. Right click Policies and then select New Policy…. from the drop down list as shown in the snippet below to open the  Create New Policy Popup window. 4. In the Create New Policy popup window you need to provide the name of the policy as “Implementing and Verify Database Settings for Production Databases” and then click the drop down list under Check Condition. As highlighted in the snippet below click on the New Condition… option to open up the Create New Condition window. 5. In the Create New Condition popup window you need to provide the name of the condition as “Verify and Change Database Settings”. In the Facet drop down list you need to choose the Facet as Database Options as shown in the snippet below. Under Expression you need to select Field value as @AutoClose and then choose Operator value as ‘ = ‘ and finally choose Value as False. Now that you have successfully added the first field you can now go ahead and add rest of the fields as shown in the snippet below. Once you have successfully added all the above shown fields of Database Options Facet, click OK to save the changes and to return to the parent Create New Policy – Implementing and Verify Database Settings for Production Database windows where you will see that the newly created condition “Verify and Change Database Settings” is selected by default. Continues…

    Read the article

  • ODI 12c's Mapping Designer - Combining Flow Based and Expression Based Mapping

    - by Madhu Nair
    post by David Allan ODI is renowned for its declarative designer and minimal expression based paradigm. The new ODI 12c release has extended this even further to provide an extended declarative mapping designer. The ODI 12c mapper is a fusion of ODI's new declarative designer with the familiar flow based designer while retaining ODI’s key differentiators of: Minimal expression based definition, The ability to incrementally design an interface and to extract/load data from any combination of sources, and most importantly Backed by ODI’s extensible knowledge module framework. The declarative nature of the product has been extended to include an extensible library of common components that can be used to easily build simple to complex data integration solutions. Big usability improvements through consistent interactions of components and concepts all constructed around the familiar knowledge module framework provide the utmost flexibility. Here is a little taster: So what is a mapping? A mapping comprises of a logical design and at least one physical design, it may have many. A mapping can have many targets, of any technology and can be arbitrarily complex. You can build reusable mappings and use them in other mappings or other reusable mappings. In the example below all of the information from an Oracle bonus table and a bonus file are joined with an Oracle employees table before being written to a target. Some things that are cool include the one-click expression cross referencing so you can easily see what's used where within the design. The logical design in a mapping describes what you want to accomplish  (see the animated GIF here illustrating how the above mapping was designed) . The physical design lets you configure how it is to be accomplished. So you could have one logical design that is realized as an initial load in one physical design and as an incremental load in another. In the physical design below we can customize how the mapping is accomplished by picking Knowledge Modules, in ODI 12c you can pick multiple nodes (on logical or physical) and see common properties. This is useful as we can quickly compare property values across objects - below we can see knowledge modules settings on the access points between execution units side by side, in the example one table is retrieved via database links and the other is an external table. In the logical design I had selected an append mode for the integration type, so by default the IKM on the target will choose the most suitable/default IKM - which in this case is an in-built Oracle Insert IKM (see image below). This supports insert and select hints for the Oracle database (the ANSI SQL Insert IKM does not support these), so by default you will get direct path inserts with Oracle on this statement. In ODI 12c, the mapper is just that, a mapper. Design your mapping, write to multiple targets, the targets can be in the same data server, in different data servers or in totally different technologies - it does not matter. ODI 12c will derive and generate a plan that you can use or customize with knowledge modules. Some of the use cases which are greatly simplified include multiple heterogeneous targets, multi target inserts for Oracle and writing of XML. Let's switch it up now and look at a slightly different example to illustrate expression reuse. In ODI you can define reusable expressions using user functions. These can be reused across mappings and the implementations specialized per technology. So you can have common expressions across Oracle, SQL Server, Hive etc. shielding the design from the physical aspects of the generated language. Another way to reuse is within a mapping itself. In ODI 12c expressions can be defined and reused within a mapping. Rather than replicating the expression text in larger expressions you can decompose into smaller snippets, below you can see UNIT_TAX AMOUNT has been defined and is used in two downstream target columns - its used in the TOTAL_TAX_AMOUNT plus its used in the UNIT_TAX_AMOUNT (a recording of the calculation).  You can see the columns that the expressions depend on (upstream) and the columns the expression is used in (downstream) highlighted within the mapper. Also multi selecting attributes is a convenient way to see what's being used where, below I have selected the TOTAL_TAX_AMOUNT in the target datastore and the UNIT_TAX_AMOUNT in UNIT_CALC. You can now see many expressions at once now and understand much more at the once time without needlessly clicking around and memorizing information. Our mantra during development was to keep it simple and make the tool more powerful and do even more for the user. The development team was a fusion of many teams from Oracle Warehouse Builder, Sunopsis and BEA Aqualogic, debating and perfecting the mapper in ODI 12c. This was quite a project from supporting the capabilities of ODI in 11g to building the flow based mapping tool to support the future. I hope this was a useful insight, there is so much more to come on this topic, this is just a preview of much more that you will see of the mapper in ODI 12c.

    Read the article

  • CIC 2010 - Ghost Stories and Model Based Design

    - by warren.baird
    I was lucky enough to attend the collaboration and interoperability congress recently. The location was very beautiful and interesting, it was held in the mountains about two hours outside Denver, at the Stanley hotel, famous both for inspiring Steven King's novel "The Shining" and for attracting a lot of attention from the "Ghost Hunters" TV show. My visit was prosaic - I didn't get to experience the ghosts the locals promised - but interesting, with some very informative sessions. I noticed one main theme - a lot of people were talking about Model Based Design (MBD), which is moving design and manufacturing away from 2d drawings and towards 3d models. 2d has some pretty deep roots in industrial manufacturing and there have been a lot of challenges encountered in making the leap to 3d. One of the challenges discussed in several sessions was how to get model information out to the non-engineers in the company, which is a topic near and dear to my heart. In the 2D space, people without access to CAD software (for example, people assembling a product on the shop floor) can be given printouts of the design - it's not particularly efficient, and it definitely isn't very green, but it tends to work. There's no direct equivalent in the 3D space. One of the ways that AutoVue is used in industrial manufacturing is to provide non-CAD users with an easy to use, interactive 3D view of their products - in some cases it's directly used by people on the shop floor, but in cases where paper is really ingrained in the process, AutoVue can be used by a technical publications person to create illustrative 2D views that can be printed that show all of the details necessary to complete the work. Are you making the move to model based design? Is AutoVue helping you with your challenges? Let us know in the comments below.

    Read the article

  • Doing powerups in a component-based system

    - by deft_code
    I'm just starting really getting my head around component based design. I don't know what the "right" way to do this is. Here's the scenario. The player can equip a shield. The the shield is drawn as bubble around the player, it has a separate collision shape, and reduces the damage the player receives from area effects. How is such a shield architected in a component based game? Where I get confused is that the shield obviously has three components associated with it. Damage reduction / filtering A sprite A collider. To make it worse different shield variations could have even more behaviors, all of which could be components: boost player maximum health health regen projectile deflection etc Am I overthinking this? Should the shield just be a super component? I really think this is wrong answer. So if you think this is the way to go please explain. Should the shield be its own entity that tracks the location of the player? That might make it hard to implement the damage filtering. It also kinda blurs the lines between attached components and entities. Should the shield be a component that houses other components? I've never seen or heard of anything like this, but maybe it's common and I'm just not deep enough yet. Should the shield just be a set of components that get added to the player? Possibly with an extra component to manage the others, e.g. so they can all be removed as a group. (accidentally leave behind the damage reduction component, now that would be fun). Something else that's obvious to someone with more component experience?

    Read the article

  • Doing powerups in a component-based system

    - by deft_code
    I'm just starting really getting my head around component based design. I don't know what the "right" way to do this is. Here's the scenario. The player can equip a shield. The the shield is drawn as bubble around the player, it has a separate collision shape, and reduces the damage the player receives from area effects. How is such a shield architected in a component based game? Where I get confused is that the shield obviously has three components associated with it. Damage reduction / filtering A sprite A collider. To make it worse different shield variations could have even more behaviors, all of which could be components: boost player maximum health health regen projectile deflection etc Am I overthinking this? Should the shield just be a super component? I really think this is wrong answer. So if you think this is the way to go please explain. Should the shield be its own entity that tracks the location of the player? That might make it hard to implement the damage filtering. It also kinda blurs the lines between attached components and entities. Should the shield be a component that houses other components? I've never seen or heard of anything like this, but maybe it's common and I'm just not deep enough yet. Should the shield just be a set of components that get added to the player? Possibly with an extra component to manage the others, e.g. so they can all be removed as a group. (accidentally leave behind the damage reduction component, now that would be fun). Something else that's obvious to someone with more component experience?

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >