Search Results

Search found 7399 results on 296 pages for 'character entities'.

Page 180/296 | < Previous Page | 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187  | Next Page >

  • What data should be cached in a multiplayer server, relative to AI and players?

    - by DevilWithin
    In a virtual place, fully network driven, with an arbitrary number of players and an arbitrary number of enemies, what data should be cached in the server memory, in order to optimize smooth AI simulation? Trying to explain, lets say player A sees player B to E, and enemy A to G. Each of those players, see player A, but not necessarily each other. Same applies to enemies. Think of this question from a topdown perspective please. In many cases, for example, when a player shoots his gun, the server handles the sound as a radial "signal" that every other entity within reach "hear" and react upon. Doing these searches all the time for a whole area, containing possibly a lot of unrelated players and enemies, seems to be an issue, when the budget for each AI agent is so small. Should every entity cache whatever enters and exits from its radius of awareness? Is there a great way to trace the entities close by without flooding the memory with such caches? What about other AI related problems that may arise, after assuming the previous one works well? We're talking about environments with possibly hundreds of enemies, a swarm.

    Read the article

  • Architecture a for a central renderer rather than self-rendering

    - by The Communist Duck
    For the architectural side of rendering, there's two main ways: having each object render itself, and having a single renderer which renders everything. I'm currently aiming for the second idea, for the following reasons: The list can be sorted to only use shaders once. Else each object would have to bind the shader, because it's not sure if it's active. The objects could be sorted and grouped. Easier to swap APIs. With a few macro lines, it can be easy to swap between a DirectX renderer and an OpenGL renderer (not a reason for my project, but still a good point) Easier to manage rendering code Of course, if anyone has strong recommendations for the first method, I will listen to them. But I was wondering how make this work. First idea The renderer has a list of pointers to the renderable components of each entity, which register themselves on RenderCompoent creation. However, I'm worrying that this may end up as a lot of extra pointer weight. But I can sort the list of pointers every so often. Second idea The entire list of entities is passed to the renderer each render call. The renderer then sorts the list (each call, or maybe once?) and gets what it wants. That's a lot of passing and/or sorting, however. Other ideas ??? PROFIT Anyone got ideas? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Alternatives to Pessimistic Locking in Cluster Applications

    - by amphibient
    I am researching alternatives to database-level pessimistic locking to achieve transaction isolation in a cluster of Java applications going against the same database. Synchronizing concurrent access in the application tier is clearly not a solution in the present configuration because the same database transaction can be invoked from multiple JVMs concurrently. Currently, we are subject to occasional race conditions which, due to the optimistic locking we have in place via Hibernate, cause a StaleObjectStateException exception and data loss. I have a moderately large transaction within the scope of my refactoring project. Let's describe it as updating one top-level table row and then making various related inserts and/or updates to several of its child entities. I would like to insure exclusive access to the top-level table row and all of the children to be affected but I would like to stay away from pessimistic locking at the database level for performance reasons mostly. We use Hibernate for ORM. Does it make sense to start a single (perhaps synchronous) message queue application into which this method could be moved to insure synchronized access as opposed to each cluster node using its own, which is a clear race condition hazard? I am mentioning this approach even though I am not confident in it because both the top-level table row and its children could also be updated from other system calls, not just the mentioned transaction. So I am seeking to design a solution where the top-level table row and its children will all somehow be pseudo-locked (exclusive transaction isolation) but at the application and not the database level. I am open to ideas and suggestions, I understand this is not a very cut and dried challenge.

    Read the article

  • Enterprise Manager Extensibility Exchange – Version 1.1 Now Available!

    - by Joe Diemer
    Since its announcement at Oracle OpenWorld 2012, the Enterprise Manager Extensibility Exchange is becoming the source to access Enterprise Manager entities, including plug-ins, connectors, deployment procedures, assemblies, templates, and more.  Based on feedback, the Exchange has recently been updated so Enterprise Manager administrators can find and access Oracle and partner-built plug-ins and connectors easier. The Exchange enables anyone to contribute an Enterprise Manager entity through the “Contribute” tab, where information about the entity is captured and placed on the Exchange once it is approved.  The Exchange encourages comment through the Enterprise Manager Forum.  An Oracle partner can build a plug-in by accessing the Extensibility Development Kit (EDK) found at the Development Resources tab.  Oracle partners and customers can can also engage a partner that has built its practice specializing in plug-in development and deployment.  One of those partners is Blue Medora, which has effectively used the EDK to build plug-ins to manage non-Oracle targets.  Next week Blue Medora will be a "Guest Blogger" and tell a great story about heterogeneous datacenter management.Partners can also have their plug-ins validated through the Oracle Validated Integration (OVI) program.  NetApp is an example of a partner that recently built an Enterprise Manager plug-in and has validated it through the program.  Check back here in two weeks for their blog post describing the value of an Enterprise Manager "OVI" plug-in as well as discuss specifics the NetApp storage plug-in.  Check out the NetApp Enterprise Manager Validated Integration datasheet in the meantime. The Enterprise Manager Exchange is located at http://www.oracle.com/goto/EMExtensibility. Stay Connected: Twitter |  Facebook |  YouTube |  Linkedin |  Newsletter

    Read the article

  • Should components have sub-components in a component-based system like Artemis?

    - by Daniel Ingraham
    I am designing a game using Artemis, although this is more of philosophical question about component-based design in general. Let's say I have non-primitive data which applies to a given component (a Component "animal" may have qualities such as "teeth" or "diet"). There are three ways to approach this in data-driven design, as I see it: 1) Generate classes for these qualities using "traditional" OOP. I imagine this has negative implications for performance, as systems then must be made aware of these qualities in order to process them. It also seems counter to the overall philosophy of data-driven design. 2) Include these qualities as sub-components. This seems off, in that we are now confusing the role of components with that of entities. Moreover out of the box Artemis isn't capable of mapping these subcomponents onto their parent components. 3) Add "teeth", "diet", etc. as components to the overall entity alongside "animal". While this feels odd hierarchically, it may simply be a peculiarity of component-based systems. I suspect 3 is the correct way to think about things, but I was curious about other ideas.

    Read the article

  • Sample domain model for online store

    - by Carel
    We are a group of 4 software development students currently studying at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology. Currently, we are tasked with developing a web application that functions as a online store. We decided to do the back-end in Java while making use of Google Guice for persistence(which is mostly irrelevant for my question). The general idea so far to use PHP to create the website. We decided that we would like to try, after handing in the project, and register a business to actually implement the website. The problem we have been experiencing is with the domain model. These are mostly small issues, however they are starting to impact the schedule of our project. Since we are all young IT students, we have virtually no experience in the business world. As such, we spend quite a significant amount of time planning the domain model in the first place. Now, some of the issues we're picking up is say the reference between the Customer entity and the order entity. Currently, we don't have the customer id in the order entity and we have a list of order entities in the customer entity. Lately, I have wondered if the persistence mechanism will put the client id physically in the order table, even if it's not in the entity? So, I started wondering, if you load a customer object, it will search the entire order table for orders with the customer's id. Now, say you have 10 000 customers and 500 000 orders, won't this take an extremely long time? There are also some business processes that I'm not completely clear on. Finally, my question is: does anyone know of a sample domain model out there that is similar to what we're trying to achieve that will be safe to look at as a reference? I don't want to be accused of stealing anybody's intellectual property, especially since we might implement this as a business.

    Read the article

  • 3D space game development

    - by user1693061
    I want to develop a 3D game (sci-fi type with spaceships) which can be played on multiplayer mode and by multiplayer i mean around 10 players for start as it will be a personal testing project and mostly educational. I have been searching for some days about the available languages and engines but i am kinda confused. Since i have been learning Java for my 1st year in I.T university and i have pretty good understanding i thought i would go with the Java language and develop that game on an applet so it could be played on a browser. After going through an applet game tutorial i understood how graphics work on an applet. So.. 1st question: Could an applet carry the burden of a 3D game especially on multiplayer? My thinking: It's a space game so the graphics should not be such a big problem since it wont be that crowded with entities apart from ships, planets and some effects. If the java applet is not the way for my project i would't mind "developing it on desktop"(i mean not making it a browser game). 2nd question: Should i use Unity engine for my purpose(space game)? If not name other language/engine combo.

    Read the article

  • Being stupid to get better productivity?

    - by loki2302
    I've spent a lot of time reading different books about "good design", "design patterns", etc. I'm a big fan of the SOLID approach and every time I need to write a simple piece of code, I think about the future. So, if implementing a new feature or a bug fix requires just adding three lines of code like this: if(xxx) { doSomething(); } It doesn't mean I'll do it this way. If I feel like this piece of code is likely to become larger in the nearest future, I'll think of adding abstractions, moving this functionality somewhere else and so on. The goal I'm pursuing is keeping average complexity the same as it was before my changes. I believe, that from the code standpoint, it's quite a good idea - my code is never long enough, and it's quite easy to understand the meanings for different entities, like classes, methods, and relations between classes and objects. The problem is, it takes too much time, and I often feel like it would be better if I just implemented that feature "as is". It's just about "three lines of code" vs. "new interface + two classes to implement that interface". From a product standpoint (when we're talking about the result), the things I do are quite senseless. I know that if we're going to work on the next version, having good code is really great. But on the other side, the time you've spent to make your code "good" may have been spent for implementing a couple of useful features. I often feel very unsatisfied with my results - good code that only can do A is worse than bad code that can do A, B, C, and D. Are there any books, articles, blogs, or your ideas that may help with developing one's "being stupid" approach?

    Read the article

  • Generic rule parser for RPG board game rules - how to do it?

    - by burzum
    I want to build a generic rule parser for pen and paper style RPG systems. A rule can involve usually 1 to N entities 1 to N roles of a dice and calculating values based on multiple attributes of an entity. For example: Player has STR 18, his currently equipped weapon gives him a bonus of +1 STR but a malus of DEX -1. He attacks a monster entity and the game logic now is required to run a set of rules or actions: Player rolls the dice, if he gets for example 8 or more (base attack value he needs to pass is one of his base attributes!) his attack is successfully. The monster then rolls the dice to calculate if the attack goes through it's armor. If yes the damage is taken if not the attack was blocked. Besides simple math rules can also have constraints like applying only to a certain class of user (warrior vs wizzard for example) or any other attribute. So this is not just limited to mathematical operations. If you're familiar with RPG systems like Dungeon and Dragons you'll know what I'm up to. My issue is now that I have no clue how to exactly build this the best possible way. I want people to be able to set up any kind of rule and later simply do an action like selecting a player and a monster and run an action (set of rules like an attack). I'm asking less for help with the database side of things but more about how to come up with a structure and a parser for it to keep my rules flexible. The language of choice for this is php by the way.

    Read the article

  • Models, collections...and then what? Processes?

    - by Dan
    I'm a LAMP-stack dev who's been more on the JavaScript side the last few years and really enjoying the Model + Collection approach to data entities that BackboneJS, etc. uses. It's helped me organize my code in such a way that it is extremely portable, keeping all my properties and methods in the scope (model, collection, etc.) in which they apply. One thing that keeps bugging me though is how to organize the next level up, the 'process layer' as you might call it, that can potentially operate on instances of either models or collections or whatever else. Where should methods like find() (which returns a collection) and create() (which returns a model) reside? I know some people would put a create() in the Collection prototype, but while a collection operates on models I don't think it's exactly right to create them. And while a find() would return a collection I don't think it correct to have that action within the collection prototype itself (it should be a layer up). Can anyone offer some examples of any patterns that employ some kind of OOP-friendly 'process' layer? I'm sorry if this is a fairly well-known discussion but I'm afraid I can't seem to find the terminology to search for.

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVVM Handling multiple Data Transfer Objects on a single page

    - by meffect
    I have an asp.net mvc "edit" page which allows the user to make edits to the parent entity, and then also "create" child entities on the same page. Note: I'm making these data transfer objects up. public class CustomerViewModel { public int Id { get; set; } public Byte[] Timestamp { get; set; } public string CustomerName { get; set; } public etc.. public CustomerOrderCreateViewModel CustomerOrderCreateViewModel { get; set; } } In my view I have two html form's. One for Customer "edit" Http Posts, and the other for CustomerOrder "create" Http Posts. In the view page, I load the CustomerOrder "create" form in using: <div id="CustomerOrderCreate"> @Html.Partial("Vendor/_CustomerOrderCreatePartial", Model.CustomerOrderCreateViewModel) </div> The CustomerOrder html form action posts to a different controller HttpPost ActionResult than the Customer "edit" Action Result. My concern is this, on the CustomerOrder controller, in the HttpPost ActionResult [HttpPost] public ActionResult Create(CustomerOrderCreateViewModel vm) { if (!ModelState.IsValid) { return [What Do I Return Here] } ...[Persist to database code]... } I don't know what to return if the model state isn't valid. Right now it's not a problem, because jquery unobtrusive validation handles validation on the client. But what if I need more complex validation (ie: the server needs to handle the validation).

    Read the article

  • How are objects modelled in a functional programming language?

    - by Giorgio
    In an answer to this question (written by Pete) there are some considerations about OOP versus FP. In particular, it is suggested that FP languages are not very suitable for modelling (persistent) objects that have an identity and a mutable state. I was wondering if this is true or, in other words, how one would model objects in a functional programming language. From my basic knowledge of Haskell I thought that one could use monads in some way, but I really do not know enough on this topic to come up with a clear answer. So, how are entities with an identity and a mutable persistent state normally modelled in a functional language? EDIT Here are some further details to clarify what I have in mind. Take a typical Java application in which I can (1) read a record from a database table into a Java object, (2) modify the object in different ways, (3) save the modified object to the database. How would this be implemented e.g. in Haskell? I would initially read the record into a record value (defined by a data definition), perform different transformations by applying functions to this initial value (each intermediate value is a new, modified copy of the original record) and then write the final record value to the database. Is this all there is to it? How can I ensure that at each moment in time only one copy of the record is valid / accessible? One does not want to have different immutable values representing different snapshots of the same object to be accessible at the same time.

    Read the article

  • Doubt related to PHP Cookies

    - by Richa
    Hey guys! I have a doubt, I will appreciate if you can clear it . COOKIES What are cookies? When described as entities, which is how cookies are often referenced in conversation, you can be easily misled. Cookies are actually just an extension of the HTTP protocol. Specifically, there are two additional HTTP headers: Set-Cookie and Cookie.The operation of these cookies is best described by the following series of events: Client sends an HTTP request to server. Server sends an HTTP response with Set-Cookie: foo=bar to client. Client sends an HTTP request with Cookie: foo=bar to server. Server sends an HTTP response to client. Thus, the typical scenario involves two complete HTTP transactions. In step 2, the server is asking the client to return a particular cookie in future requests. In step 3, if the user’s preferences are set to allow cookies, and if the cookie is valid for this particular request, the browser requests the resource again but includes the cookie. Now my question is....... why you cannot determine whether a user’s preferences are set to allow cookies during the first request????

    Read the article

  • How to customize the initrd embedded in or coming with the kernel image

    - by STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED
    I would like to add some tools and not just kernel modules into the initrd (initramfs-based). Now I'm aware of how to unpack and how to pack the initrd with cpio and have even written a hook for /etc/initramfs-tools/hooks in the past to integrate a third-party kernel module. However, while the available script libraries seem to be geared towards the integration of modules, none of them seems to be for integration of other entities (in particular programs and their dependencies). What options do I have to automate the integration of some useful tools for recovery into the initrd? I'm talking about the "rescue" system that the system drops into if it is unable to mount the root drive given to it by the boot loader. Please note that I don't want the SquashFS approach as is used for Live-CDs because for the issue at hand it will be by far sufficient to include some relatively small tools that aid in recovery of the system (when it gets stuck in initrd and can't boot further). Also, the machines when they run into the issue that we have had in the past tend to boot into the rescue system, but there a few tools are missing to kick the system back on trail ...

    Read the article

  • Need help understanding Mocks and Stubs

    - by Theomax
    I'm new to use mocking frameworks and I have a few questions on the things that I am not clear on. I'm using Rhinomocks to generate mock objects in my unit tests. I understand that mocks can be created to verify interactions between methods and they record the interactions etc and stubs allow you to setup data and entities required by the test but you do not verify expectations on stubs. Looking at the recent unit tests I have created, I appear to be creating mocks literally for the purpose of stubbing and allowing for data to be setup. Is this a correct usage of mocks or is it incorrect if you're not actually calling verify on them? For example: user = MockRepository.GenerateMock<User>(); user.Stub(x => x.Id = Guid.NewGuid()); user.Stub(x => x.Name = "User1"); In the above code I generate a new user mock object, but I use a mock so I can stub the properties of the user because in some cases if the properties do not have a setter and I need to set them it seems the only way is to stub the property values. Is this a correct usage of stubbing and mocking? Also, I am not completely clear on what the difference between the following lines is: user.Stub(x => x.Id).Return(new Guid()); user.Stub(x => x.Id = Guid.NewGuid());

    Read the article

  • Translating an object along its heading

    - by Kuros
    I am working on a simulation that requires me to have several objects moving around in 3D space (text output of their current position on the grid and heading is fine, I do not need graphics), and I am having some trouble getting objects to move along their relative headings. I have a basic understanding of vectors and matrices. I am using a vector to represent their position, and I am also using Euler Angles. I can translate one of my entities with a matrix along whatever axis, and I can alter their heading. For example, if I have an entity at (order is XYZ) 1, 1, 1, with a heading of 0, I can apply a translation matrix to get them to talk to 1, 1, 2 fine. However, if I change their heading to 270, they still walk to 1, 1, 3, instead of 2, 1, 2 as I desire. I have a feeling that my problem lies in not translating my matrix from world space to object space, but I am not sure how to go about that. How can I do this? Addition: I am using 3D vectors to represent their current position and their heading (using the three euler angles). For now, all I want to do is have an entity walk in a square, reporting their current position at each step. So, assuming it starts at 10, 10, 10 I want it to walk as follows: 10,10,10 -> 10, 10, 15 10, 10, 15 -> 5, 10, 15 5, 10, 15 -> 5, 10, 10 5, 10, 10 -> 10, 10, 10 My 1 Z unit translation matrix is as follows: [1 0 0 0] [0 1 0 0] [0 0 1 1] [0 0 0 1] My rotation matrix is as follows: [0 0 1 0] [0 1 0 0] [-1 0 0 0] [0 0 0 1]

    Read the article

  • How far do I take Composition?

    - by whiterook6
    (Although I'm sure this is a common problem I really don't know what to search for. Composition is the only thing I could come up with.) I've read over and over that multiple inheritance and subclassing is really, really bad, especially for game entities. If I have three types of motions, five types of guns, and three types of armoring, I don't want to have to make 45 different classes to get all the possible combinations; I'm going to add a motion behavior, gun behavior, and armor behavior to a single generic object. That makes sense. But how far do I take this? I can have as many different types of behaviors as I can imagine: DamageBehavior, MotionBehavior, TargetableBehavior, etc. If I add a new class of behaviors then I need to update all the other classes that use them. But what happens when I have functionality that doesn't really fit into one class of behaviors? For example, my armor needs to be damageable but also updateable. And should I be able to have use more than one type of behavior on an entity at a time, such as two motion behaviors? Can anyone offer any wisdom or point me in the direction of some useful articles? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How would you model an objects representing different phases of an entity life cycle?

    - by Ophir Yoktan
    I believe the scenario is common mostly in business workflows - for example: loan management the process starts with a loan application, then there's the loan offer, the 'live' loan, and maybe also finished loans. all these objects are related, and share many fields all these objects have also many fields that are unique for each entity the variety of objects maybe large, and the transformation between the may not be linear (for example: a single loan application may end up as several loans of different types) How would you model this? some options: an entity for each type, each containing the relevant fields (possibly grouping related fields as sub entities) - leads to duplication of data. an entity for each object, but instead of duplicating data, each object has a reference to it's predecessor (the loan doesn't contain the loaner details, but a reference to the loan application) - this causes coupling between the object structure, and the way it was created. if we change the loan application, it shouldn't effect the structure of the loan entity. one large entity, with fields for the whole life cycle - this can create 'mega objects' with many fields. it also doesn't work well when there's a one to many or many to many relation between the phases.

    Read the article

  • Learning how to design knowledge and data flow [closed]

    - by max
    In designing software, I spend a lot of time deciding how the knowledge (algorithms / business logic) and data should be allocated between different entities; that is, which object should know what. I am asking for advice about books, articles, presentations, classes, or other resources that would help me learn how to do it better. I code primarily in Python, but my question is not really language-specific; even if some of the insights I learn don't work in Python, that's fine. I'll give a couple examples to clarify what I mean. Example 1 I want to perform some computation. As a user, I will need to provide parameters to do the computation. I can have all those parameters sent to the "main" object, which then uses them to create other objects as needed. Or I can create one "main" object, as well as several additional objects; the additional objects would then be sent to the "main" object as parameters. What factors should I consider to make this choice? Example 2 Let's say I have a few objects of type A that can perform a certain computation. The main computation often involves using an object of type B that performs some interim computation. I can either "teach" A instances what exact parameters to pass to B instances (i.e., make B "dumb"); or I can "teach" B instances to figure out what needs to be done when looking at an A instance (i.e., make B "smart"). What should I think about when I'm making this choice?

    Read the article

  • The Real Value Of Certification

    - by Brandye Barrington
    I read a quote recently by Rich Hein of CIO.com "Certifications are, like most things in life: The more you put into them, the more you will get out." This is what we tell candidates all the time. The real value in obtaining a certification is the time spent preparing for the exam. All the hours spent reading books, practicing in hands-on environments, asking questions and searching for answers is valuable. It's valuable preparation for the exam, but it's also valuable preparation for your future job role and for your career. If your goal is just to pass an exam, you've missed a very important part of the value of certification.We receive so many questions through different forms of social media on whether or not certification will help candidates get jobs or get better jobs. Surveys conducted by us and by independent entities all point to the job and salary benefits of certification. However, a key part of that equation is whether a candidate can actually perform successfully in a job role. If preparation time was used to practice and learn and master new skills rather than to memorize a brain dump, the candidate will probably perform successfully in their job role, and job opportunities and higher salary will likely follow. Candidates who do not show that initiative, will not likely reap the full benefits of certification.Keep this in mind as you approach your next certification exam. You are preparing for a career, not an exam. This may help you to be more appreciative of the long hours spent studying!

    Read the article

  • Is the Entity Component System architecture object oriented by definition?

    - by tieTYT
    Is the Entity Component System architecture object oriented, by definition? It seems more procedural or functional to me. My opinion is that it doesn't prevent you from implementing it in an OO language, but it would not be idiomatic to do so in a staunchly OO way. It seems like ECS separates data (E & C) from behavior (S). As evidence: The idea is to have no game methods embedded in the entity. And: The component consists of a minimal set of data needed for a specific purpose Systems are single purpose functions that take a set of entities which have a specific component I think this is not object oriented because a big part of being object oriented is combining your data and behavior together. As evidence: In contrast, the object-oriented approach encourages the programmer to place data where it is not directly accessible by the rest of the program. Instead, the data is accessed by calling specially written functions, commonly called methods, which are bundled in with the data. ECS, on the other hand, seems to be all about separating your data from your behavior.

    Read the article

  • Should this code/logic be included in Business Objects class or a separate class?

    - by aspdotnetuser
    I have created a small application which has a three tier architecture and I have business object classes to represent entities such as User, Orders, UserType etc. In these classes I have methods that are executed when the Constuctor method of, for example, User is called. These methods perform calculations and generate details that setup data for attributes that are part of each User object. Here is the structure for the project in Visual Studio: Here is some code from the business object class User.cs: Public Class User { public string Name { get; set; } public int RandomNumber { get; set; } etc public User { Name = GetName(); RandomNumber = GetRandomNumber(); } public string GetName() { .... return name; } public int GetRandomNumber() { ... return randomNumber; } } Should this logic be included in the Business Object classes or should it be included in a Utilities class of some kind? Or in the business rules?

    Read the article

  • Use a SQL Database for a Desktop Game

    - by sharethis
    Developing a Game Engine I am planning a computer game and its engine. There will be a 3 dimensional world with first person view and it will be single player for now. The programming language is C++ and it uses OpenGL. Data Centered Design Decision My design decision is to use a data centered architecture where there is a global event manager and a global data manager. There are many components like physics, input, sound, renderer, ai, ... Each component can trigger and listen to events. Moreover, each component can read, edit, create and remove data. The question is about the data manager. Whether to Use a Relational Database Should I use a SQL Database, e.g. SQLite or MySQL, to store the game data? This contains virtually all game content like items, characters, inventories, ... Except of meshes and textures which are even more performance related, so I will keep them in memory. Is a SQL database fast enough to use it for realtime reading and writing game informations, like the position of a moving character? I also need to care about cross-platform compatibility. Aside from keeping everything in memory, what alternatives do I have? Advantages Would Be The advantages of using a relational database like MySQL would be the data orientated structure which allows fast computation. I would not need objects for representing entities. I could easily query data of objects near the player needed for rendering. And I don't have to take care about data of objects far away. Moreover there would be no need for savegames since the hole game state is saved in the database. Last but not least, expanding the game to an online game would be relative easy because there already is a place where the hole game state is stored.

    Read the article

  • State Changes in a Component Based Architecture [closed]

    - by Maxem
    I'm currently working on a game and using the naive component based architecture thingie (Entities are a bag of components, entity.Update() calls Update on each updateable component), while the addition of new features is really simple, it makes a few things really difficult: a) multithreading / currency b) networking c) unit testing. Multithreading / Concurrency is difficult because I basically have to do poor mans concurrency (running the entity updates in separate threads while locking only stuff that crashes (like lists) and ignoring the staleness of read state (some states are already updated, others aren't)) Networking: There are no explicit state changes that I could efficiently push over the net. Unit testing: All updates may or may not conflict, so automated testing is at least awkward. I was thinking about these issues a bit and would like your input on these changes / idea: Switch from the naive cba to a cba with sub systems that work on lists of components Make all state changes explicit Combine 1 and 2 :p Example world update: statePostProcessing.Wait() // ensure that post processing has finished Apply(postProcessedState) state = new StateBag() Concurrently( () => LifeCycleSubSystem.Update(state), // populates the state bag () => MovementSubSystem.Update(state), // populates the state bag .... }) statePostProcessing = Future(() => PostProcess(state)) statePostProcessing.Start() // Tick is finished, the post processing happens in the background So basically the changes are (consistently) based on the data for the last tick; the post processing can a) generate network packages and b) fix conflicts / remove useless changes (example: entity has been destroyed - ignore movement etc.). EDIT: To clarify the granularity of the state changes: If I save these post processed state bags and apply them to an empty world, I see exactly what has happened in the game these state bags originated from - "Free" replay capability. EDIT2: I guess I should have used the term Event instead of State Change and point out that I kind of want to use the Event Sourcing pattern

    Read the article

  • From release to business

    - by geneotech
    So let's say that I've finished programming a simple, indie MMO game similiar to Tibia. I've got a stable server application that is ready to launch, i've got a tested bug-free working client application that is ready to play and the game's official website (ready to host) with payment system and client that is ready to download for free. Let's say none of them break copyright laws, and no matter how impossible it sounds, let's for now say it's true. My game divides accounts into two groups - free and premium. If someone gets premium, he's granted access to all possible game features, that of course, need server authorisation to work properly. Let's say that the "premium account" can be bought on the website for a fixed money/month. Free accounts mean that everyone can actually play, but without paying, you get limited access. This is what the mentioned payment system will be for. Well, I'm completely novice to these business entities issues, so in short: what, in terms of law, are steps from here to the state where my game earns money in a fully legal way ? Also, is there for example, something like verification if game gives the user what it actually offers when paying on its website ? I live in Europe, if it changes something.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187  | Next Page >