Search Results

Search found 14 results on 1 pages for 'futlib'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • Separating physics and game logic from UI code

    - by futlib
    I'm working on a simple block-based puzzle game. The game play consists pretty much of moving blocks around in the game area, so it's a trivial physics simulation. My implementation, however, is in my opinion far from ideal and I'm wondering if you can give me any pointers on how to do it better. I've split the code up into two areas: Game logic and UI, as I did with a lot of puzzle games: The game logic is responsible for the general rules of the game (e.g. the formal rule system in chess) The UI displays the game area and pieces (e.g. chess board and pieces) and is responsible for animations (e.g. animated movement of chess pieces) The game logic represents the game state as a logical grid, where each unit is one cell's width/height on the grid. So for a grid of width 6, you can move a block of width 2 four times until it collides with the boundary. The UI takes this grid, and draws it by converting logical sizes into pixel sizes (that is, multiplies it by a constant). However, since the game has hardly any game logic, my game logic layer [1] doesn't have much to do except collision detection. Here's how it works: Player starts to drag a piece UI asks game logic for the legal movement area of that piece and lets the player drag it within that area Player lets go of a piece UI snaps the piece to the grid (so that it is at a valid logical position) UI tells game logic the new logical position (via mutator methods, which I'd rather avoid) I'm not quite happy with that: I'm writing unit tests for my game logic layer, but not the UI, and it turned out all the tricky code is in the UI: Stopping the piece from colliding with others or the boundary and snapping it to the grid. I don't like the fact that the UI tells the game logic about the new state, I would rather have it call a movePieceLeft() method or something like that, as in my other games, but I didn't get far with that approach, because the game logic knows nothing about the dragging and snapping that's possible in the UI. I think the best thing to do would be to get rid of my game logic layer and implement a physics layer instead. I've got a few questions regarding that: Is such a physics layer common, or is it more typical to have the game logic layer do this? Would the snapping to grid and piece dragging code belong to the UI or the physics layer? Would such a physics layer typically work with pixel sizes or with some kind of logical unit, like my game logic layer? I've seen event-based collision detection in a game's code base once, that is, the player would just drag the piece, the UI would render that obediently and notify the physics system, and the physics system would call a onCollision() method on the piece once a collision is detected. What is more common? This approach or asking for the legal movement area first? [1] layer is probably not the right word for what I mean, but subsystem sounds overblown and class is misguiding, because each layer can consist of several classes.

    Read the article

  • OpenGL: Filtering/antialising textures in a 2D game

    - by futlib
    I'm working on a 2D game using OpenGL 1.5 that uses rather large textures. I'm seeing aliasing effects and am wondering how to tackle those. I'm finding lots of material about antialiasing in 3D games, but I don't see how most of that applies to 2D games - e.g. antisoptric filtering seems to make no sense, FSAA doesn't sound like the best bet either. I suppose this means texture filtering is my best option? Right now I'm using bilinear filtering, I think: glTexParameterf(GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_TEXTURE_MIN_FILTER, GL_LINEAR); glTexParameterf(GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_TEXTURE_MAG_FILTER, GL_LINEAR); From what I've read, I'd have to use mipmaps to use trilinear filtering, which would drive memory usage up, so I'd rather not. I know the final sizes of all the textures when they are loaded, so can't I somehow size them correctly at that point? (Using some form of texture filtering).

    Read the article

  • What's a good entity hierarchy for a 2D game?

    - by futlib
    I'm in the process of building a new 2D game out of some code I wrote a while ago. The object hierarchy for entities is like this: Scene (e.g. MainMenu): Contains multiple entities and delegates update()/draw() to each Entity: Base class for all things in a scene (e.g. MenuItem or Alien) Sprite: Base class for all entities that just draw a texture, i.e. don't have their own drawing logic Does it make sense to split up entities and sprites up like that? I think in a 2D game, the terms entity and sprite are somewhat synonymous, right? But I do believe that I need some base class for entities that just draw a texture, as opposed to drawing themselves, to avoid duplication. Most entities are like that. One weird case is my Text class: It derives from Sprite, which accepts either the path of an image or an already loaded texture in its constructor. Text loads a texture in its constructor and passes that to Sprite. Can you outline a design that makes more sense? Or point me to a good object-oriented reference code base for a 2D game? I could only find 3D engine code bases of decent code quality, e.g. Doom 3 and HPL1Engine.

    Read the article

  • What to use C++ for?

    - by futlib
    I really love C++. However, I'm struggling to find good uses for it lately. It is still the language to use if you're building huge systems with huge performance requirements. Like backend/infrastructure code at Google and Facebook, or high-end games. But I don't get to do stuff like that. It's also a good choice for code that runs close to the hardware. I'd like to do more low-level stuff, but it isn't part of my job, and I can't think of useful private projects that would involve that. Traditionally, C++ was also a good choice for rich client applications, but those are mostly written in C# and Obj-C lately - and aren't really that important anymore, with everything being a web app. Or a mobile app, which are mostly written in Obj-C and Java. And of course, web-based desktop and mobile apps are quite prominent, too. At my job, I work mostly on web applications, using Java, JavaScript and Groovy. Java is a good/popular choice for non-Google-scale backends, Groovy (or Python, or Ruby or Node.js) is pretty good for the server-side of web apps and JavaScript is the only real choice for the client-side. Even the little games I'm writing in my spare time are lately mostly written in JavaScript, so they can run in the browser. So what would you suggest I could use C++ for? I'm aware that this question is very similar. However, I don't want to learn C++, I was a professional C++ programmer for years. I want to keep doing it and find good new use cases for it. I know that I can use C++ for web apps/games. I could even compile C++ to JavaScript with Emscripten. However, it doesn't seem like a good idea. I'm looking for something C++ is really good at to stay competent in the language. If your answer is: Just give up and forget C++, you'll probably never need it again, so be it.

    Read the article

  • Android: Layouts and views or a single full screen custom view?

    - by futlib
    I'm developing an Android game, and I'm making it so that it can run on low end devices without GPU, so I'm using the 2D API. I have so far tried to use Android's mechanisms such as layouts and activities where possible, but I'm beginning to wonder if it's not easier to just create a single custom view (or one per activity) and do all the work there. Here's an example of how I currently do things: I'm using a layout to display the game's background as an image view and the square game area, which is a custom view, centered in the middle. What would you say? Should I continue to use layouts where possible or is it more common/reasonable to just use a large custom view? I'm thinking that this would probably also make it easier to port my code to other platforms.

    Read the article

  • Is there an alternative to SDL 1.3 for a C++ game that should run on iOS and Android?

    - by futlib
    I've used SDL for many desktop games, always as the cross-platform glue for: Creating a window Processing input Rendering images Rendering fonts Playing sounds/music It has never disappointed me at those tasks. But when it comes to graphics, I prefer to work with the OpenGL API directly, even though all of our games are 2D. In the project I'm currently working on, I've made sure to only use the API subset supported by both OpenGL 1.3 and OpenGL 1.0, so making the thing run on Android should be easy, I thought. Turns out there is no official Android or iOS port of SDL yet. However, there's one in SDL 1.3, which is still in development. SDL 1.3 doesn't seem very appealing to me for three reasons: It's been in development for at least 4 years, and I have no idea when it will be done, not to mention stable. It's not ported to as many platforms as SDL 1.2. From what I've seen, it uses OpenGL for drawing, so I suppose the community will move away from directly using OpenGL. So I'm wondering if I should use a different library for our current project - it doesn't matter much if I need to port my existing code from SDL 1.2 to SDL 1.3 or to some other library. We're planning to release on Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, iOS and Android, so good support for these platforms is essential. Is there anything stable that does what I want?

    Read the article

  • When to use typedef?

    - by futlib
    I'm a bit confused about if and when I should use typedef in C++. I feel it's a balancing act between readability and clarity. Here's a code sample without any typedefs: int sum(std::vector<int>::const_iterator first, std::vector<int>::const_iterator last) { static std::map<std::tuple<std::vector<int>::const_iterator, std::vector<int>::const_iterator>, int> lookup_table; std::map<std::tuple<std::vector<int>::const_iterator, std::vector<int>::const_iterator>, int>::iterator lookup_it = lookup_table.find(lookup_key); if (lookup_it != lookup_table.end()) return lookup_it->second; ... } Pretty ugly IMO. So I'll add some typedefs within the function to make it look nicer: int sum(std::vector<int>::const_iterator first, std::vector<int>::const_iterator last) { typedef std::tuple<std::vector<int>::const_iterator, std::vector<int>::const_iterator> Lookup_key; typedef std::map<Lookup_key, int> Lookup_table; static Lookup_table lookup_table; Lookup_table::iterator lookup_it = lookup_table.find(lookup_key); if (lookup_it != lookup_table.end()) return lookup_it->second; ... } The code is still a bit clumsy, but I get rid of most nightmare material. But there's still the int vector iterators, this variant gets rid of those: typedef std::vector<int>::const_iterator Input_iterator; int sum(Input_iterator first, Input_iterator last) { typedef std::tuple<Input_iterator, Input_iterator> Lookup_key; typedef std::map<Lookup_key, int> Lookup_table; static Lookup_table lookup_table; Lookup_table::iterator lookup_it = lookup_table.find(lookup_key); if (lookup_it != lookup_table.end()) return lookup_it->second; ... } This looks clean, but is it still readable? When should I use a typedef? As soon as I have a nightmare type? As soon as it occurs more than once? Where should I put them? Should I use them in function signatures or keep them to the implementation?

    Read the article

  • How to avoid circular dependencies between Player and World?

    - by futlib
    I'm working on a 2D game where you can move up, down, left and right. I have essentially two game logic objects: Player: Has a position relative to the world World: Draws the map and the player So far, World depends on Player (i.e. has a reference to it), needing its position to figure out where to draw the player character, and which portion of the map to draw. Now I want to add collision detection to make it impossible for the player to move through walls. The simplest way I can think of is to have the Player ask the World if the intended movement is possible. But that would introduce a circular dependency between Player and World (i.e. each holds a reference to the other), which seems worth avoiding. The only way I came up with is to have the World move the Player, but I find that somewhat unintuitive. What is my best option? Or is avoiding a circular dependency not worth it?

    Read the article

  • Does it make sense to use jQuery in modern-webkit-only web applications?

    - by futlib
    I'm lately working on a few mobile web apps for Android (2.3+) and iOS (4+). Their browsers support most of ECMAScript5, which is very powerful, and I wanted to use language features where possible, resorting to jQuery only when I had to. Turns out the only thing I use jQuery for is to have a shorter alternative for document.querySelectorAll. Might as well get rid of it. If I only have to support modern WebKit browsers, is it a good idea to get rid of jQuery (and other general-purpose libraries)? They are a layer of indirection, after all. (The apps don't have to make AJAX calls so far, I guess that's one thing that's going to get ugly. But is it worth keeping jQuery just for that?)

    Read the article

  • Why am I seeing so many instantiable classes without state?

    - by futlib
    I'm seeing a lot of instantiable classes in the C++ and Java world that don't have any state. I really can't figure out why people do that, they could just use a namespace with free functions in C++, or a class with a private constructor and only static methods in Java. The only benefit I can think of is that you don't have to change most of your code if you later decide that you want a different implementation in certain situations. But isn't that a case of premature design? It could be turned into a class later, when/if it becomes appropriate. Am I getting this wrong? Is it not OOP if I don't put everything into objects (i.e. instantiated classes)? Then why are there so many utility namespaces and classes in the standard libraries of C++ and Java? Update: I've certainly seen a lot examples of this in my previous jobs, but I'm struggling to find open source examples, so maybe it's not that common after all. Still, I'm wondering why people do it, and how common it is.

    Read the article

  • update(100) behaves slightly different than 10 times update(10) - is that a problem? [on hold]

    - by futlib
    While looking into some test failures, I've identified an curious issue with my update logic. This: game.update(100); Behaves slightly different from: for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) game.update(10); The concrete example here is a rotating entity. It rotates by exactly 360 degrees in the first case, but only by about 352 in the second. This leads to slight variations in how things move, depending on the frame rate. Not enough to be noticeable in practice, but I did notice it when writing tests. Now my question is: Should this be fully deterministic, i.e. the outcome of update(1) * n should equal update(n) exactly? Or is it normal to have some variance and I should make my test assertions more generous?

    Read the article

  • When to use Bash, when Python/Perl/Ruby? [closed]

    - by futlib
    What's your rationale for when to write a Bash script and when to use a more powerful scripting language (Python, Perl, Ruby, ...)? I'm finding that very simple scripts are nicer with Bash, but many of those get quite fancy over time, and it never seems like a good idea to rewrite the whole thing. That's why I'm leaning towards always using Python for all scripting. But since Bash seems to be the the lingua franca of Linux scripting, is that something a responsible system administrator would do?

    Read the article

  • How to not check in Eclipse specific project files?

    - by futlib
    I don't want to force people into using a specific IDE for development, so our projects look basically like this: SomeProject src lib build.xml No IDE specific files whatsoever. However, many people prefer Eclipse and it is their valid complain that it is annoyingly difficult to set up an Eclipse project from an Ant build file if that project is checked into a VCS. That's a very old bug, so I don't really expect it to be fixed soon. I don't want all those weird Eclipse project files in the project root, but if it was the only way, I would accept having the eclipse project files in a subdirectory "eclipse". I thought Eclipse's linked resources were capable of just that, but I was wrong, it doesn't really work. How do you solve this problem? Are you checking in the .settings directory. etc. into your project's root?

    Read the article

  • How to force a line break after each image in Safari Reader?

    - by futlib
    I was unable to activate Safari Reader in a local HTML file, so I cannot give you a running example but only describe my problem: The markup of my blog posts is basically this: <div class="post"> <div class="post-header">Hello, World</div> <div class="post-body"> <p>Look at this picture:</p> <p><img src="http://37prime.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/safari_icon.png"/></p> <p>Isn't that a nice picture?</p> </div> </div> This looks as expected in all browsers, including Safari. In Safari Reader however, the third paragraph "Isn't that a nice picture?" is floating around the image, instead of being on a paragraph of it's own. Has anybody experienced a similar problem?

    Read the article

1