Search Results

Search found 28898 results on 1156 pages for 'turn based tactics'.

Page 2/1156 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Game server for an android/iOS turn-based board-game

    - by Cyril
    I am currently programming an iPhone game and I would like to create an online multiplayer mode. In the future, this app will be port to Android devices, so I was wondering how to create the game-server? First at all, which language should I choose? How to make a server able to communicate both with programs written in objective-c and Java? Then, how to effectively do it? Is it good if I open a socket by client (there'll be 2)? What kind of information should I send to the server? to the clients?

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Android - Turn off display without triggering sleep/lock screen - Turn on with Touchscreen

    - by NebulaSleuth
    I have been trying to find a way to turn off the display, and wake up from the user touching the touch screen. The device is in an embedded environment where the device is a tablet and the user does not have access to anything except the touch screen (no buttons at all). It is connected to power so the battery won't be a problem, but when I detect no activity I want to turn off the screen so it isn't staring them in the face all day and doesn't reduce the life the LCD backlight. I maintain a wakelock permanently and decide when to sleep myself. The problem is that when I turn off the screen using : WindowManager.LayoutParams params = getWindow().getAttributes(); params.screenBrightness = 0; getWindow().setAttributes(params); The activity gets paused and stopped. And the unit does not respond to a touch to wake it up. You need to press the power button. At that point the "slide to unlock" shows up. I want to turn off the display, and then stay running so I can detect a touch screen event and turn the display back on. I also tried turning the display to a brightness of 0.1, which works on some devices, but the device I need it to work on, only "dims" the display. I also tried this: // First Remove my FULL wakelock //then aquire a partial wake lock (which should turn off the display) PowerManager.WakeLock wl = manager.newWakeLock(PowerManager.PARTIAL_WAKE_LOCK, "Your Tag"); wl.acquire(); however this method does not turn off the display.

    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

  • How to update entity states and animations in a component-based game

    - by mivic
    I'm trying to design a component-based entity system for learning purposes (and later use on some games) and I'm having some troubles when it comes to updating entity states. I don't want to have an update() method inside the Component to prevent dependencies between Components. What I currently have in mind is that components hold data and systems update components. So, if I have a simple 2D game with some entities (e.g. player, enemy1, enemy 2) that have Transform, Movement, State, Animation and Rendering components I think I should have: A MovementSystem that moves all the Movement components and updates the State components And a RenderSystem that updates the Animation components (the animation component should have one animation (i.e. a set of frames/textures) for each state and updating it means selecting the animation corresponding to the current state (e.g. jumping, moving_left, etc), and updating the frame index). Then, the RenderSystem updates the Render components with the texture corresponding to the current frame of each entity's Animation and renders everything on screen. I've seen some implementations like Artemis framework, but I don't know how to solve this situation: Let's say that my game has the following entities. Each entity have a set of states and one animation for each state: player: "idle", "moving_right", "jumping" enemy1: "moving_up", "moving_down" enemy2: "moving_left", "moving_right" What are the most accepted approaches in order to update the current state of each entity? The only thing that I can think of is having separate systems for each group of entities and separate State and Animation components so I would have PlayerState, PlayerAnimation, Enemy1State, Enemy1Animation... PlayerMovementSystem, PlayerRenderingSystem... but I think this is a bad solution and breaks the purpose of having a component-based system. As you can see, I'm quite lost here, so I'd very much appreciate any help.

    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

  • Any multiplayer webgame engine based on Flex

    - by Hongyu Ouyang
    My team is developing a multiplayer webgame (like a virtual world) in a short time(several months using after-school time), and I wonder if there are any webgame engine based on Flex. When I googled it I got many results related to HTML5, but I doubted if it is suitable for quick development. Do anyone have the experience of developing a webgame using A good engine? Are there any engine recommended? I prefer actionscript and flex to a javascript or HTML5 solution.

    Read the article

  • Component-based Rendering

    - by Kikaimaru
    I have component Renderer, that Draws Texture2D (or sprite) According to component-based architecture i should have only method OnUpdate, and there should be my rendering code, something like spriteBatch.Draw(Texture, Vector2.Zero, Color.White) But first I need to do spriteBatch.Begin();. Where should i call it? And how can I make sure it's called before any Renderer components OnUpdate method? (i need to do more stuff then just Begin() i also need to set right rendertarget for camera etc.)

    Read the article

  • What platform to use for browser based turn based strategy game

    - by sunwukung
    I want to write a browser based strategy game that can be played by two players in separate locations. The game itself is predominantly turn based. To that end, I want to determine the correct platform on which to build this game. To prevent gamers "gaming" the system, the business logic needs to reside in the server. I could arguably use AJAX for a large part of the games functionality, but at two key points in the game loop, the opposing player can "counter" the current players move. In addition, when it's time for the players to swap, AJAX polling is likely to fall short, so it's starting to look like WebSockets is going to be a requirement to pull this off smoothly. So, the remaining question is regarding the back end. I'd kinda like to build this in Python/Flask - but this is primarily out of wanting to tackle a project with that language, not neccessarily because it's the appropriate tool for the job. The next most likely candidate has got to be NodeJS given it's (apparently) tighter integration with the WebSockets protocol. My question, then, is regarding the best platform on which to pursue this objective.

    Read the article

  • On Page SEO Tactics

    Here, I would like to discuss with you the subject of on-page search engine optimization (SEO) tactics. SEO is two-pronged, on-page and off-page. On-page is what is says, on the page of your website.

    Read the article

  • Turning a board game idea into a browser based, slow paced gameplay

    - by guillaume31
    Suppose I want to create a strategy game with global mutable state shared between all players (think game board). But unlike a board game, I don't want it to be real time action and/or turn-based. Instead, players should be able to log in at any time of the day and spend a fixed number of action points per day as they wish. As opposed to a few hours, game sessions would run over a few weeks. This is meant to reward good strategy rather than time spent playing (as an alternative, hardcore players could always play multiple games in parallel instead) as well as all kind of issues related to live playing like disconnections and synchronization. The game should remain addictive still have a low time investment footprint for casual players. So far so good, but this still leaves open the question of when to solve actions and when they should be visible. I want to avoid "ninja play" like doing all your moves just a few minutes before daily point reset to take other players by surprise, or people spamming F5 to place a well-timed action which would defeat the whole point of a non real-time game. I thought of a couple of approaches to that : Resolve all events in a single scheduled process running once a day. This basically means a "blind" gameplay where players can take actions but don't see their results immediately. The thing is, I played a similar browser game a few years ago and didn't like the fact that you feel disconnected and powerless until there's that deus ex machina telling you what really happened during all that time. You see the world evolve in large increments of one day, which often doesn't seem like seeing it evolve at all. For actions that have an big impact on the game or on other players (attacks, big achievements), make them visible to everyone immediately but delay their effect by something like 24 hours. Opposing players could be notified when such an event happens, so that they can react to it. Do you have any other ideas how I could go about solving this ? Are there any known approaches in similar existing games ?

    Read the article

  • component Initialization in component-based game architectures

    - by liortal
    I'm develping a 2d game (in XNA) and i've gone slightly towards a component-based approach, where i have a main game object (container) that holds different components. When implementing the needed functionality as components, i'm now faced with an issue -- who should initialize components? Are components usually passed in initialized into an entity, or some other entity initialized them? In my current design, i have an issue where the component, when created, requires knowledge regarding an attached entity, however these 2 events may not happen at the same time (component construction, attaching to a game entity). I am looking for a standard approach or examples of implementations that work, that overcome this issue or present a clear way to resolve it

    Read the article

  • Using heavyweight ORM implementation for light based games

    - by Holland
    I'm just about to engulf myself in an MVC-based/Component architecture in C#, using MySQL's connector/Net for the data storage, and probably some NHibernate/FluentNHibernate Object-relational-mapping to map out the data structure. The goal is to build a scalable 2D RPG. Then I think about it...and I can't help but think this seems a little "heavy weight" for a 2D RPG, especially one which, while I plan to incorporate a lot of functionality and entertaining gameplay, may be ported to something like Windows Phone or Android in the future. Yet, on the other hand even a 2-Dimensional RPG can become very complicated, and therefore must incorporate a lot of functionality. While this can be accomplished with text/XML/JSON for data storage, is there a better way? Is something such as Object-Relational-Mapping useful in such an application? So, what do you think? Would you say that there is a place for such technologies? I don't know what to think...

    Read the article

  • Appropriate level of granularity for component-based architecture

    - by Jon Purdy
    I'm working on a game with a component-based architecture. An Entity owns a set of Component instances, each of which has a set of Slot instances with which to store, send, and receive values. Factory functions such as Player produce entities with the required components and slot connections. I'm trying to determine the best level of granularity for components. For example, right now Position, Velocity, and Acceleration are all separate components, connected in series. Velocity and Acceleration could easily be rewritten into a uniform Delta component, or Position, Velocity, and Acceleration could be combined alongside such components as Friction and Gravity into a monolithic Physics component. Should a component have the smallest responsibility possible (at the cost of lots of interconnectivity) or should related components be combined into monolithic ones (at the cost of flexibility)? I'm leaning toward the former, but I could use a second opinion.

    Read the article

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