Search Results

Search found 23961 results on 959 pages for 'evidence based scheduling'.

Page 1/959 | 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 Discussion here seems to bear this out: questions on whether OO is outdated, when functional programming is a bad choice and the advantages and disadvantages of AOP are all answered with contributors' opinions without reliance on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

• Alternative to MS Project 2007 for production scheduling?

  - by john c

  OK... Im coming to grips with the fact that MS Project 2007 may not be the correct tool for my production scheduling. We serve 120 to 150 projects a year with durations from 6 weeks to 12 months. The task are simple (6 to 8 per project) and the resource pool is stable (15 to 20 people). It's really an assembly line product but with extremely varied durations. I need to be able to prioritize the projects for production and run projects concurrently to fully utilize my resources. What are the feelings of the stackoverflow community. Am I using the wrong program? I was really hoping to make this simple for non-programer types to input project data into a form and have the schedule software automated enough to make most of the decisions. Is there a better solution available commercially? I'd like to hold on writing a custom spreadsheet as a last resort but if that's the best route then so be it. Thank you so much for your input.

  Read the article

• Scheduling of tasks to a single resource using Prolog

  - by Reed Debaets

  I searched through here as best I could and though I found some relevant questions, I don't think they covered the question at hand: Assume a single resource and a known list of requests to schedule a task. Each request includes a start_after, start_by, expected_duration, and action. The goal is to schedule the tasks for execution as soon as possible while keeping each task scheduled between start_after and start_by. I coded up a simple prolog example that I "thought" should work but I've been unfortunately getting errors during run time: "=/2: Arguments are not sufficiently instantiated". Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated startAfter(1,0). startAfter(2,0). startAfter(3,0). startBy(1,100). startBy(2,500). startBy(3,300). duration(1,199). duration(2,199). duration(3,199). action(1,'noop1'). action(2,'noop2'). action(3,'noop3'). can_run(R,T) :- startAfter(R,TA),startBy(R,TB),T>=TA,T=<TB. conflicts(T,R1,T1) :- duration(R1,D1),T=<D1+T1,T>T1. schedule(R1,T1,R2,T2,R3,T3) :- can_run(R1,T1),\+conflicts(T1,R2,T2),\+conflicts(T1,R3,T3), can_run(R2,T2),\+conflicts(T2,R1,T1),\+conflicts(T2,R3,T3), can_run(R3,T3),\+conflicts(T3,R1,T1),\+conflicts(T3,R2,T2). % when traced I *should* see T1=0, T2=400, T3=200 Edit: conflicts goal wasn't quite right: needed extra TT1 clause. Edit: Apparently my schedule goal works if I supply valid Request,Time pairs ... but I'm stucking trying to force prolog to find valid values for T1..3 when given R1..3?

  Read the article

• How do tight timelines and scheduling pressure affect TCO and delivery time?

  - by JonathanHayward

  A friend's father, who is a software engineering manager, said, emphatically, "The number one cause of scheduling overruns is scheduling pressure." Where does the research stand? Is a moderate amount of scheduling pressure invigorating, or is the manager I mentioned right or wrong, or is it a matter of "the more scheduling pressure you have, the longer the delivery time and the more TCO?" Is it one of those things where ideally software engineering would work without scheduling pressure but practically we have to work with constraints of real-world situations? Any links to software engineering literature would be appreciated.

  Read the article

• Multilevel Queue Scheduling (MQS) with Round Robin

  - by stackuser

  I'm trying to use MQS to create a Gantt chart of 5 processes (P1-P5) as well as their waiting, response, and turnaround times (and averages of those metrics) within a CPU task schedule. Here's the basic table of arrival times and bursts: Here's my actual work version after ticking off the finished processes. The time quantum for each time slice is (2 queues) TQ1=4 and TQ2=3. Note that I'm doing MQS and NOT MLFQ: It just doesn't feel like I'm doing MQS right here, I know this gets a little complex but maybe someone can point out where I'm going totally wrong.

  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

• Understanding Process Scheduling in Oracle Solaris

  - by rickramsey

  The process scheduler in the Oracle Solaris kernel allocates CPU resources to processes. By default, the scheduler tries to give every process relatively equal access to the available CPUs. However, you might want to specify that certain processes be given more resources than others. That's where classes come in. A process class defines a scheduling policy for a set of processes. These three resources will help you understand and manage it process classes: Blog: Overview of Process Scheduling Classes in the Oracle Solaris Kernel by Brian Bream Timesharing, interactive, fair-share scheduler, fixed priority, system, and real time. What are these? Scheduling classes in the Solaris kernel. Brian Bream describes them and how the kernel manages them through context switching. Blog: Process Scheduling at the Thread Level by Brian Bream The Fair Share Scheduler allows you to dispatch processes not just to a particular CPU, but to CPU threads. Brian Bream explains how to use and provides examples. Docs: Overview of the Fair Share Scheduler by Oracle Solaris Documentation Team This official Oracle Solaris documentation set provides the nitty-gritty details for setting up classes and managing your processes. Covers: Introduction to the Scheduler CPU Share Definition CPU Shares and Process State CPU Share Versus Utilization CPU Share Examples FSS Configuration FSS and Processor Sets Combining FSS With Other Scheduling Classes Setting the Scheduling Class for the System Scheduling Class on a System with Zones Installed Commands Used With FSS -Rick Follow me on: Blog | Facebook | Twitter | Personal Twitter | YouTube | The Great Peruvian Novel

  Read the article

• Scheduling Jobs in SQL Server Express - Part 2

  In my previous article Scheduling Jobs in SQL Server Express we saw how to make simple job scheduling in SQL Server 2005 Express work. We limited the scheduling to one time or daily repeats. Sometimes this isn't enough. In this article we'll take a look at how to make a scheduling solution based on Service Broker worthy of the SQL Server Agent itself.

  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

• Open Source Scheduling Software?

  - by Kaiser Advisor

  Hi Everyone, I'm looking for scheduling software to schedule 25 people over 8 work sites. Most are FT and can work up to 40 hours a week, but some are part-time and can only work certain days of the week and up to a certain number of hours a week. There are 3 classes of employees: Managers, Supervisors, and Workers. They should be shuffled so that they spend approximately equal time at each of the 8 work sites and with all classes of employees; i.e., Joe the worker should spend about 1 out of 8 days on each work site, and work with managers, supervisors, and other workers equally. I tried to do this in excel with the solver, but the shuffling requirement makes it way too complicated, so I'm stuck trying to do big parts of this manually with the solver helping out with just the hour provisioning piece. Is there any open source software that could help me? Much appreciated! KA

  Read the article

• Is there a constraint-based scheduling/calendar application?

  - by wonsungi

  Is there a constraint-based scheduling/calendar application? This application would be used to coordinate multiple people's schedules. Two basic use cases: Multiple people need to schedule a time to meet together. Everyone is busy at different days/times. Each person enters blocks of days/times they cannot meet, and the application suggests the best times to meet given a desired time range. Multiple people need to use some common resources for a specific length of time (over some time span like a week), but the exact date/time does not matter. These people enter the resources and time needed, and the application suggests the best way to share these resources. This use case still accounts for people's blocks of busy time. I imagine this program would be graphical, but other interfaces would be acceptable. Also preferable if web-based/works on both PC's and Mac's, but PC-only/Mac-only solutions are acceptable.

  Read the article

• Pella Increases Online Appointment Scheduling and Rapidly Personalizes and Updates Marketing Initiatives

  - by Michael Snow

  Originally posted on Oracle Customers page.Oracle Customer: Pella CorporationLocation:  Pella, IowaIndustry: Industrial Manufacturing Employees:  7,100 Pella Corporation is an innovative leader in creating a better view for homes and businesses by designing, testing, manufacturing, and installing quality windows and doors for new construction, remodeling, and replacement applications. A family-owned company, Pella has an 88-year history of innovation and, today, is the second-largest manufacturer in the country of windows and doors, including patio, entry, and storm doors. The company has 10 manufacturing facilities in United States and window and door showrooms across the United States and Canada. In-home consultations are an important part of Pella’s sales process. Several years ago, the company launched an online appointment scheduling tool to improve customer convenience. While the functionality worked well, the company wanted to increase online conversion rates and decrease the number of incomplete, online appointment schedules. It also wanted to give its business analysts and other line-of-business personnel the ability to update the scheduling tool and interface quickly, without needing IT team intervention and recoding, to better capitalize on opportunities and personalize the interface for specific markets. Pella also looked to reduce IT complexity by selecting a system that integrated easily with its Oracle E-Business Suite Release 12.1 enterprise applications.Pella, which has a large Oracle footprint, selected Oracle WebCenter Sites as the foundation for its new, real-time appointment scheduling application. It used the solution to re-engineer the scheduling process and the information required to set up an appointment. Just a few months after launch, it is seeing improvement in the number of appointments booked online and experiencing fewer abandoned appointments during the scheduling process. As important, Pella can now quickly and easily make changes to images, video, and content displayed on the scheduling tool interface, delivering greater business agility. Previously, such changes required a developer and weeks of coding and testing. Today, a member of Pella’s business analyst team can complete the changes in hours. This capability enables Pella to personalize the Web experience for customers. For example, it can display different products or images for clients in different regions.The solution is also highly scalable. Pella is using Oracle WebCenter Sites for appointment scheduling now and plans to migrate Pella.com, its configurator tool, and dealer microsites onto the platform. Further, Pella plans to leverage the solution to optimize mobile devices. “Moving ahead, we expect to extensively leverage Oracle WebCenter Sites to gain greater flexibility in updating the Web experience, thanks to the ability to make updates quickly without developer resources. Segmentation and targeting capabilities will allow us to create a more personalized experience across both traditional and mobile platforms,” said Teri Lancaster, IT manager, customer experience applications, Pella Corporation. A word from Pella Corporation "Oracle WebCenter Sites?from the start?delivered important benefits. We’ve redesigned the online scheduling process and are seeing more potential customers completing consultation bookings online. More important, the solution opens a world of other possibilities as we plan to migrate Pella.com and our dealer microsites to the platform, and leverage it to optimize the Web experience for our mobile devices.” – Teri Lancaster, IT Manager, Customer Experience Applications, Pella Corporation Oracle Product and Services Oracle WebCenter Sites Why Oracle Pella has a long-standing relationship with Oracle. “We look to Oracle first for a solution. Our Oracle account team came to us with several solutions, and Oracle WebCenter Sites delivered the scalability, ease-of-use, flexibility, and scalability that we required for the appointment scheduling initiative and other Web projects on the horizon, including migrating Pella.com and optimizing our site for mobile platforms,”said Teri Lancaster, IT manager, customer experience applications, Pella Corporation. Implementation Process The Pella implementation team, working with Oracle partner Element Solutions, LLC, integrated the appointment setting application with Pella.com as well as the company’s Oracle E-Business Suite customer relationship management applications. Using Oracle WebCenter Site’s development tools and subversion capabilities to develop the application, the Element Solutions and Pella teams could work remotely and collaboratively, accelerating deployment. Pella went live with the new scheduling tool in just six months. Partner Oracle PartnerElement Solutions, LLC Element Solutions was instrumental at every major stage of the project, including design creation and approval, development, training, and rollout. “Element Solutions was a vital partner for our Oracle WebCenter Sites initiative. The team provided guidance, and more important, critical knowledge transfer at every stage?which equipped us to get the most out of this powerful and versatile solution. We were definitely collaboration partners,” Lancaster said. Resources Pella Corporation Upgrades Enterprise Applications to Continue to Improve Manufacturing Efficiency Thousands of Customers Successfully and Smoothly Upgrade to Oracle E-Business Suite 12.1 for New Functionality, Lower Operating Costs and Improved Shared Operations Managing the Virtual World

  Read the article

• Web Based Asset Scheduling Tool

  - by matthewb

  I am looking for a web based and mobile replacement for google calendar, to track digital assets, inventory. Example would be selling spots on a newsletter, and having a sales team know what's available, and keep track of price. Suggestions?

  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

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