Search Results

Search found 16410 results on 657 pages for 'game component'.

Page 3/657 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Can I remove the systems from a component entity system?

    - by nathan
    After reading a lot about entity/component based engines. I feel like there is no real definition for this kind of engine. Reading this thread: Implementing features in an Entity System and the linked article made me think a lot. I did not feel that comfortable using System concept so I'll write something else, inspired by this pattern. I'd like to know if you think it's a good way to organize game code and what improvements can be made. Regarding a more strict implementation of entity/component based engine, is my solution viable? Do I risk getting stuck at any point due to the lack of flexibility of this implementation (or anything else)? My engine, as for entity/component patterns has entities and components, no systems since the game logic is handled by components. Also, I think the main difference is the fact that my engine will use inherence and OOP concepts in general, I mean, I don't try to minimize them. Entity: an entity is an abstract class. It holds his position, width and height, scale and a list of linked components. The current implementation can be found here (java). Every frame, the entity will be updated (i.e all the components linked to this entity will be updated), and rendered, if a render component is specified. Component: like for entity, a component is an abstract class that must be extended to create new components. The behavior of an entity is created through his components collection. The component implementation can be found here. Components are updated when the owning entity is updated or for only one specific component (render component), rendered. Here is an example of a logic component (i.e not a renderable component, a component that's updated each frame) in charge of listening for keyboard events and a render component in charge of display a plain sprite (i.e not animated).

    Read the article

  • Simple 2d game pathfinding

    - by Kooi Nam Ng
    So I was trying to implement a simple pathfinding on iOS and but the outcome seems less satisfactory than what I intended to achieve.The thing is units in games like Warcraft and Red Alert move in all direction whereas units in my case only move in at most 8 directions as these 8 directions direct to the next available node.What should I do in order to achieve the result as stated above?Shrink the tile size? The screenshot intended for illustration. Those rocks are the obstacles whereas the both ends of the green path are the starting and end of the path.The red line is the path that I want to achieve. http://i.stack.imgur.com/lr19c.jpg

    Read the article

  • Game Timer In C++

    - by user1870398
    I need to be able to find out how many milliseconds since that last update. Is there any way I can find it out with time rather then a thread that counts like I did below? #include <iostream> #include<windows.h> #include<time.h> #include<process.h> using namespace std; int Timer = 0; int LastTimer = 0; bool End = false; void Update(int Ticks) { } void UpdateTimer() { while (true) { LastTimer = Timer; Timer++; Sleep(1); if (End) break; } } int WINAPI WinMain(HINSTANCE par1, HINSTANCE par2, LPSTR par3, int par4) { _beginthread(UpdateTimer, 0, NULL); while(true) { if (Timer == 1000) Timer = 0; Update(Timer - LastTimer); } }

    Read the article

  • Making a game "resize-safe"

    - by CPP_Person
    It's one thing to get the graphics aligned perfectly, it's another to do this for every single resolution and not take too much time and/or make the code unreadable due to size. Games like Battlefield 3 and Minecraft seem to manage this. But what do they do to keep things from stretching or going off the screen? I don't know any algorithms to do this. I'd like some help on this topic. I've always programmed games that only handle a single resolution, so help would be appreciate.

    Read the article

  • Balancing game difficulty against player progression

    - by Raven Dreamer
    It seems that the current climate of games seems to cater to an obvious progression of player power, whether that means getting a bigger, more explosive gun in Halo, leveling up in an RPG, or unlocking new options in Command and Conquer 4. Yet this concept is not exclusive to video or computer games -- even in Dungeons and Dragons players can strive to acquire a +2 sword to replace the +1 weapon they've been using. Yet as a systems designer, the concept of player progression is giving me headache after headache. Should I balance around the players exact capabilities and give up on a simple linear progression? (I think ESIV:Oblivion is a good example of this) Is it better to throw the players into an "arms race" with their opponents, where if the players don't progress in an orderly manner, it is only a matter of time until gameplay is unbearably difficult? (4th Edition DnD strikes me as a good example of this) Perhaps it would make most sense to untether the core gameplay mechanics from progression at all -- give them flashier, more interesting (but not more powerful!) ways to grow?

    Read the article

  • How was your experience working as a game tester?

    - by MrDatabase
    I'm currently an independent game developer. I'm open to the idea of working on a team in the game industry. I'm under the impression that being a "game tester" is a relatively easy way to get a job... however that job may be somewhat undesirable. So how was your experience working as a tester in the game industry? Some interesting experiences could include: Did the game tester position lead to other more desirable positions? How were the relationships between testers and developers? Did you write any code? (test "frameworks", unit tests etc) If bugs made it into production was any (potentially unfair) blame put on the testers?

    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

  • Alchemy like game for the web, open source. Any ideas for element combinations?

    - by JohnDel
    I created a web game like the Android game Alchemy. It's open source and in the back-end you can create your own elements / your own game. I was wondering what elements - ideas would be good to implement as a prototype / demo? Some ideas are: Colors Programming languages Chemical Compounds Same as the original alchemy Evolution of biological organisms What do you think? Any specific combination ideas?

    Read the article

  • How or why would this mechanic (not) work to bring game balance to a singleplayer RPG? [closed]

    - by 0xFFF1
    Mechanic details The player, the monsters, and the merchants act as three separate parties. The player needs to beat up monsters for exp points and resources to sell and to buy potions from merchants to continue to fight. The monsters need healing and reviving to survive (also bought from merchants) and the merchants need potion ingredients from the player and the monsters to make potions to sell. These potions are only able to be processed in such bulk by merchants thus their potions would be cheaper than making them yourself. Only the monsters can farm ingredients in bulk. Only the player is or has to be overly aggressive (in bulk). Monsters can farm and produce "Level up candies" that do the work of exp. they are eaten right away after they are made and are never stockpiled or held for fear of the player and merchants who want to sell to the player. The monsters will defend themselves. Reviving is very expensive. The merchants can be found either with a concerned expression or a grinning expression based on how much profit they are making compared to their morale standing. The economies of each monster town and merchant city are distinct but interconnected. Magic Swords are worth a lot. So what I need to know is what concerns would there be to design a game around this mechanic and/or design this mechanic around a developing game. which would fare better? Is game balance an issue here? (how strong the monsters get or how quickly they die off based on the player's input into the system), Or is game balance solely in the hands of the player? (he decides if he overkills monsters or get underleveled.) What do I need to think about to make sure it isn't too easy or too hard to swing the amount/strength of monsters compared to the player and the amount of profit the merchants get vs the player. Would indicating how out of whack things are getting in game help with this?

    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

  • Are there existing FOSS component-based frameworks?

    - by Tesserex
    The component based game programming paradigm is becoming much more popular. I was wondering, are there any projects out there that offer a reusable component framework? In any language, I guess I don't care about that. It's not for my own project, I'm just curious. Specifically I mean are there projects that include a base Entity class, a base Component class, and maybe some standard components? It would then be much easier starting a game if you didn't want to reinvent the wheel, or maybe you want a GraphicsComponent that does sprites with Direct3D, but you figure it's already been done a dozen times. A quick Googling turns up Rusher. Has anyone heard of this / does anyone use it? If there are no popular ones, then why not? Is it too difficult to make something like this reusable, and they need heavy customization? In my own implementation I found a lot of boilerplate that could be shoved into a framework.

    Read the article

  • Are there existing FOSS component-based frameworks?

    - by Tesserex
    The component based game programming paradigm is becoming much more popular. I was wondering, are there any projects out there that offer a reusable component framework? In any language, I guess I don't care about that. It's not for my own project, I'm just curious. Specifically I mean are there projects that include a base Entity class, a base Component class, and maybe some standard components? It would then be much easier starting a game if you didn't want to reinvent the wheel, or maybe you want a GraphicsComponent that does sprites with Direct3D, but you figure it's already been done a dozen times. A quick Googling turns up Rusher. Has anyone heard of this / does anyone use it? If there are no popular ones, then why not? Is it too difficult to make something like this reusable, and they need heavy customization? In my own implementation I found a lot of boilerplate that could be shoved into a framework.

    Read the article

  • Alternative to Game State System?

    - by Ricket
    As far as I can tell, most games have some sort of "game state system" which switches between the different game states; these might be things like "Intro", "MainMenu", "CharacterSelect", "Loading", and "Game". On the one hand, it totally makes sense to separate these into a state system. After all, they are disparate and would otherwise need to be in a large switch statement, which is obviously messy; and they certainly are well represented by a state system. But at the same time, I look at the "Game" state and wonder if there's something wrong about this state system approach. Because it's like the elephant in the room; it's HUGE and obvious but nobody questions the game state system approach. It seems silly to me that "Game" is put on the same level as "Main Menu". Yet there isn't a way to break up the "Game" state. Is a game state system the best way to go? Is there some different, better technique to managing, well, the "game state"? Is it okay to have an intro state which draws a movie and listens for enter, and then a loading state which loops on the resource manager, and then the game state which does practically everything? Doesn't this seem sort of unbalanced to you, too? Am I missing something?

    Read the article

  • As an indie game dev, what processes are the best for soliciting feedback on my design/spec/idea? [closed]

    - by Jess Telford
    Background I have worked in a professional environment where the process usually goes like the following: Brain storm idea Solidify the game mechanics / design Iterate on design/idea to create a more solid experience Spec out the details of the design/idea Build it Step 3. is generally done with the stakeholders of the game (developers, designers, investors, publishers, etc) to reach an 'agreement' which meets the goals of all involved. Due to this process involving a series of often opposing and unique view points, creative solutions can surface through discussion / iteration. This is backed up by a process for collating the changes / new ideas, as well as structured time for discussion. As a (now) indie developer, I have to play the role of all the stakeholders (developers, designers, investors, publishers, etc), and often find myself too close to the idea / design to do more than minor changes, which I feel to be local maxima when it comes to the best result (I'm looking for the global maxima, of course). I have read that ideas / game designs / unique mechanics are merely multipliers of execution, and that keeping them secret is just silly. In sharing the idea with others outside the realm of my own thinking, I hope to replicate the influence other stakeholders have. I am struggling with the collation of changes / new ideas, and any kind of structured method of receiving feedback. My question: As an indie game developer, how and where can I share my ideas/designs to receive meaningful / constructive feedback? How can I successfully collate the feedback into a new iteration of the design? Are there any specialized websites, etc?

    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 Every Developer Should Know About MSI Components

    - by Alois Kraus
    Hopefully nothing. But if you have to do more than simple XCopy deployment and you need to support updates, upgrades and perhaps side by side scenarios there is no way around MSI. You can create Msi files with a Visual Studio Setup project which is severely limited or you can use the Windows Installer Toolset. I cannot talk about WIX with my German colleagues because WIX has a very special meaning. It is funny to always use the long name when I talk about deployment possibilities. Alternatively you can buy commercial tools which help you to author Msi files but I am not sure how good they are. Given enough pain with existing solutions you can also learn the MSI Apis and create your own packaging solution. If I were you I would use either a commercial visual tool when you do easy deployments or use the free Windows Installer Toolset. Once you know the WIX schema you can create well formed wix xml files easily with any editor. Then you can “compile” from the wxs files your Msi package. Recently I had the “pleasure” to get my hands dirty with C++ (again) and the MSI technology. Installation is a complex topic but after several month of digging into arcane MSI issues I can safely say that there should exist an easier way to install and update files as today. I am not alone with this statement as John Robbins (creator of the cool tool Paraffin) states: “.. It's a brittle and scary API in Windows …”. To help other people struggling with installation issues I present you the advice I (and others) found useful and what will happen if you ignore this advice. What is a MSI file? A MSI file is basically a database with tables which reference each other to control how your un/installation should work. The basic idea is that you declare via these tables what you want to install and MSI controls the how to get your stuff onto or off your machine. Your “stuff” consists usually of files, registry keys, shortcuts and environment variables. Therefore the most important tables are File, Registry, Environment and Shortcut table which define what will be un/installed. The key to master MSI is that every resource (file, registry key ,…) is associated with a MSI component. The actual payload consists of compressed files in the CAB format which can either be embedded into the MSI file or reside beside the MSI file or in a subdirectory below it. To examine MSI files you need Orca a free MSI editor provided by MS. There is also another free editor called Super Orca which does support diffs between MSI and it does not lock the MSI files. But since Orca comes with a shell extension I tend to use only Orca because it is so easy to right click on a MSI file and open it with this tool. How Do I Install It? Double click it. This does work for fresh installations as well as major upgrades. Updates need to be installed via the command line via msiexec /i <msi> REINSTALL=ALL REINSTALLMODE=vomus   This tells the installer to reinstall all already installed features (new features will NOT be installed). The reinstallmode letters do force an overwrite of the old cached package in the %WINDIR%\Installer folder. All files, shortcuts and registry keys are redeployed if they are missing or need to be replaced with a newer version. When things did go really wrong and you want to overwrite everything unconditionally use REINSTALLMODE=vamus. How To Enable MSI Logs? You can download a MSI from Microsoft which installs some registry keys to enable full MSI logging. The log files can be found in your %TEMP% folder and are called MSIxxxx.log. Alternatively you can add to your msiexec command line the option msiexec …. /l*vx <LogFileName> Personally I find it rather strange that * does not mean full logging. To really get all logs I need to add v and x which is documented in the msiexec help but I still find this behavior unintuitive. What are MSI components? The whole MSI logic is bound to the concept of MSI components. Nearly every msi table has a Component column which binds an installable resource to a component. Below are the screenshots of the FeatureComponents and Component table of an example MSI. The Feature table defines basically the feature hierarchy.  To find out what belongs to a feature you need to look at the FeatureComponents table where for each feature the components are listed which will be installed when a feature is installed. The MSI components are defined in the  Component table. This table has as first column the component name and as second column the component id which is a GUID. All resources you want to install belong to a MSI component. Therefore nearly all MSI tables have a Component_ column which contains the component name. If you look e.g. a the File table you see that every file belongs to a component which is true for all other tables which install resources. The component table is the glue between all other tables which contain the resources you want to install. So far so easy. Why is MSI then so complex? Most MSI problems arise from the fact that you did violate a MSI component rule in one or the other way. When you install a feature the reference count for all components belonging to this feature will increase by one. If your component is installed by more than one feature it will get a higher refcount. When you uninstall a feature its refcount will drop by one. Interesting things happen if the component reference count reaches zero: Then all associated resources will be deleted. That looks like a reasonable thing and it is. What it makes complex are the strange component rules you have to follow. Below are some important component rules from the Tao of the Windows Installer … Rule 16: Follow Component Rules Components are a very important part of the Installer technology. They are the means whereby the Installer manages the resources that make up your application. The SDK provides the following guidelines for creating components in your package: Never create two components that install a resource under the same name and target location. If a resource must be duplicated in multiple components, change its name or target location in each component. This rule should be applied across applications, products, product versions, and companies. Two components must not have the same key path file. This is a consequence of the previous rule. The key path value points to a particular file or folder belonging to the component that the installer uses to detect the component. If two components had the same key path file, the installer would be unable to distinguish which component is installed. Two components however may share a key path folder. Do not create a version of a component that is incompatible with all previous versions of the component. This rule should be applied across applications, products, product versions, and companies. Do not create components containing resources that will need to be installed into more than one directory on the user’s system. The installer installs all of the resources in a component into the same directory. It is not possible to install some resources into subdirectories. Do not include more than one COM server per component. If a component contains a COM server, this must be the key path for the component. Do not specify more than one file per component as a target for the Start menu or a Desktop shortcut. … And these rules do not even talk about component ids, update packages and upgrades which you need to understand as well. Lets suppose you install two MSIs (MSI1 and MSI2) which have the same ComponentId but different component names. Both do install the same file. What will happen when you uninstall MSI2?   Hm the file should stay there. But the component names are different. Yes and yes. But MSI uses not use the component name as key for the refcount. Instead the ComponentId column of the Component table which contains a GUID is used as identifier under which the refcount is stored. The components Comp1 and Comp2 are identical from the MSI perspective. After the installation of both MSIs the Component with the Id {100000….} has a refcount of two. After uninstallation of one MSI there is still a refcount of one which drops to zero just as expected when we uninstall the last msi. Then the file which was the same for both MSIs is deleted. You should remember that MSI keeps a refcount across MSIs for components with the same component id. MSI does manage components not the resources you did install. The resources associated with a component are then and only then deleted when the refcount of the component reaches zero.   The dependencies between features, components and resources can be described as relations. m,k are numbers >= 1, n can be 0. Inside a MSI the following relations are valid Feature    1  –> n Components Component    1 –> m Features Component      1  –>  k Resources These relations express that one feature can install several components and features can share components between them. Every (meaningful) component will install at least one resource which means that its name (primary key to stay in database speak) does occur in some other table in the Component column as value which installs some resource. Lets make it clear with an example. We want to install with the feature MainFeature some files a registry key and a shortcut. We can then create components Comp1..3 which are referenced by the resources defined in the corresponding tables.   Feature Component Registry File Shortcuts MainFeature Comp1 RegistryKey1     MainFeature Comp2   File.txt   MainFeature Comp3   File2.txt Shortcut to File2.txt   It is illegal that the same resource is part of more than one component since this would break the refcount mechanism. Lets illustrate this:            Feature ComponentId Resource Reference Count Feature1 {1000-…} File1.txt 1 Feature2 {2000-….} File1.txt 1 The installation part works well but what happens when you uninstall Feature2? Component {20000…} gets a refcount of zero where MSI deletes all resources belonging to this component. In this case File1.txt will be deleted. But Feature1 still has another component {10000…} with a refcount of one which means that the file was deleted too early. You just have ruined your installation. To fix it you then need to click on the Repair button under Add/Remove Programs to let MSI reinstall any missing registry keys, files or shortcuts. The vigilant reader might has noticed that there is more in the Component table. Beside its name and GUID it has also an installation directory, attributes and a KeyPath. The KeyPath is a reference to a file or registry key which is used to detect if the component is already installed. This becomes important when you repair or uninstall a component. To find out if the component is already installed MSI checks if the registry key or file referenced by the KeyPath property does exist. When it does not exist it assumes that it was either already uninstalled (can lead to problems during uninstall) or that it is already installed and all is fine. Why is this detail so important? Lets put all files into one component. The KeyPath should be then one of the files of your component to check if it was installed or not. When your installation becomes corrupt because a file was deleted you cannot repair it with the Repair button under Add/Remove Programs because MSI checks the component integrity via the Resource referenced by its KeyPath. As long as you did not delete the KeyPath file MSI thinks all resources with your component are installed and never executes any repair action. You get even more trouble when you try to remove files during an upgrade (you cannot remove files during an update) from your super component which contains all files. The only way out and therefore best practice is to assign for every resource you want to install an extra component. This ensures painless updatability and repairs and you have much less effort to remove specific files during an upgrade. In effect you get this best practice relation Feature 1  –> n Components Component   1  –>  1 Resources MSI Component Rules Rule 1 – One component per resource Every resource you want to install (file, registry key, value, environment value, shortcut, directory, …) must get its own component which does never change between versions as long as the install location is the same. Penalty If you add more than one resources to a component you will break the repair capability of MSI because the KeyPath is used to check if the component needs repair. MSI ComponentId Files MSI 1.0 {1000} File1-5 MSI 2.0 {2000} File2-5 You want to remove File1 in version 2.0 of your MSI. Since you want to keep the other files you create a new component and add them there. MSI will delete all files if the component refcount of {1000} drops to zero. The files you want to keep are added to the new component {2000}. Ok that does work if your upgrade does uninstall the old MSI first. This will cause the refcount of all previously installed components to reach zero which means that all files present in version 1.0 are deleted. But there is a faster way to perform your upgrade by first installing your new MSI and then remove the old one.  If you choose this upgrade path then you will loose File1-5 after your upgrade and not only File1 as intended by your new component design.   Rule 2 – Only add, never remove resources from a component If you did follow rule 1 you will not need Rule 2. You can add in a patch more resources to one component. That is ok. But you can never remove anything from it. There are tricky ways around that but I do not want to encourage bad component design. Penalty Lets assume you have 2 MSI files which install under the same component one file   MSI1 MSI2 {1000} - ComponentId {1000} – ComponentId File1.txt File2.txt   When you install and uninstall both MSIs you will end up with an installation where either File1 or File2 will be left. Why? It seems that MSI does not store the resources associated with each component in its internal database. Instead Windows will simply query the MSI that is currently uninstalled for all resources belonging to this component. Since it will find only one file and not two it will only uninstall one file. That is the main reason why you never can remove resources from a component!   Rule 3 Never Remove A Component From an Update MSI. This is the same as if you change the GUID of a component by accident for your new update package. The resulting update package will not contain all components from the previously installed package. Penalty When you remove a component from a feature MSI will set the feature state during update to Advertised and log a warning message into its log file when you did enable MSI logging. SELMGR: ComponentId '{2DCEA1BA-3E27-E222-484C-D0D66AEA4F62}' is registered to feature 'xxxxxxx, but is not present in the Component table.  Removal of components from a feature is not supported! MSI (c) (24:44) [07:53:13:436]: SELMGR: Removal of a component from a feature is not supported Advertised means that MSI treats all components of this feature as not installed. As a consequence during uninstall nothing will be removed since it is not installed! This is not only bad because uninstall does no longer work but this feature will also not get the required patches. All other features which have followed component versioning rules for update packages will be updated but the one faulty feature will not. This results in very hard to find bugs why an update was only partially successful. Things got better with Windows Installer 4.5 but you cannot rely on that nobody will use an older installer. It is a good idea to add to your update msiexec call MSIENFORCEUPGRADECOMPONENTRULES=1 which will abort the installation if you did violate this rule.

    Read the article

  • Level Editor + Game -> Duplicating rendering/game specific code?

    - by Utkarsh Sinha
    I've been reading about how to design code for a game. One thing I haven't been able to figure out is - how do you manage writing an outside-game level editor (not an 'in-game level editor') without 'copying' code from the game? For example, you might have to copy all code about the different types of entities you can have. You'll have to add the game rendering code. My guess is this can be done by making a DLL out of the 'engine' part of the game. Then, share it between the actual game and the level editor. Or is there a better/easier way to do this?

    Read the article

  • Entity Component System, weapon

    - by Heorhiy
    I'm new to game programming and currently trying to understand Entity Component System design by implementing simple 2d game. By ECS I mean design, described here for example In my game I have different kind of weapons: automatic, gun, grenade, etc... Each type of weapon has it's own affect area (gun shots along the straight line and grenade explodes and covers some spherical area) , damage impact, visual effect and bullet amount, delay between shots. So I don't completely understand how to implement weapons. Should weapon be an Entity or it should be a component? And how the player should pick up a weapon, switch between different types of weapons and etc.

    Read the article

  • Any good C++ Component/Entity frameworks?

    - by Pat
    (Skip to the bold if you want to get straight to my question :) ) I've been dabbling in the different technologies available out there to use. I tried Unity and component based design, managing to get a little guy up and running around a map with basic pathfinding. I really loved how easy it was to program using components, but I wanted a bit more control and something more 2D friendly, so I went with LibGDX. I looked around and found 2 good frameworks for Java, which are Artemis and Apollo. I didn't like Artemis much, so I went with Apollo, which I loved. I managed to integrate it with Box2D and get a little guy running around bouncing balls. Great! But since I want to try out most of the options, there is still C++/SFML that I haven't tried yet. Coming from a Java/C# background, I've always wanted to get my hands dirty with C++. But then, after some looking around, I noticed there aren't any Component-Based frameworks for me to use. There's a somewhat done porting of Artemis, but, aside from not being completely finished, I didn't quite like Artemis even in Java. I found Apollo's approach much more.. logical. So, my question is, are there any good Component/Entity frameworks for C++ that I can use that are similar to Artemis, or preferably, Apollo?

    Read the article

  • Any good tutorials or resources for learning how to design a scalable and "component" based game 'fr

    - by CodeJustin.com
    In short I'm creating a 2D mmorpg and unlike my last "mmo" I started developing I want to make sure that this one will scale well and work well when I want to add new in-game features or modify existing ones. With my last attempt with an avatar chat within the first few thousand lines of code and just getting basic features added into the game I seen my code quality lowering and my ability to add new features or modify old ones was getting lower too as I added more features in. It turned into one big mess that some how ran, lol. This time I really need to buckle down and find a design that will allow me to create a game framework that will be easy to add and remove features (aka things like playing mini-games within my world or a mail system or buddy list or a new public area with interactive items). I'm thinking that maybe a component based approach MIGHT be what I'm looking for but I'm really not sure. I have read documents on mmorpg design and 2d game engine architecture but nothing really explained a way of designing a game framework that will basically let me "plug-in" new features into the main game and use the resources of the main game without changing much within my 'main game code'. Hope someone understands what I mean, any help will is appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Evoland: A Video Game About Video Game History

    - by Jason Fitzpatrick
    Browser-based Evoland is, hands down, one of the more clever video game concepts to come across our desk. The game itself is a history of video games–as you play the game the game evolves from a limited 8-bit monochrome adventure into a modern game. You start off unable to do anything but move right and collect a treasure chest. That treasure chest unlocks the left key (keys are configured in a WASD style keypad) which in turn allows you to move around a simple monochromatic forest clearing to unlock the rest of the movement keys. From there you begin unlocking more game features, effectively evolving the game from monochrome to 16 and then 64 bit color and unlocking various game play features. The game itself is short and can be played in about the same time you could watch a video covering the basics of various game changes over the last 30 years but actually playing the game and watching the evolution in progress is far more rewarding. Hit up the link below to take it for a spin. Evoland [via Boing Boing] How To Switch Webmail Providers Without Losing All Your Email How To Force Windows Applications to Use a Specific CPU HTG Explains: Is UPnP a Security Risk?

    Read the article

  • How do I choose the scaling factor of a 3D game world?

    - by concept3d
    I am making a 3D tank game prototype with some physics simulation, am using C++. One of the decisions I need to make is the scale of the game world in relation to reality. For example, I could consider 1 in-game unit of measurement to correspond to 1 meter in reality. This feels intuitive, but I feel like I might be missing something. I can think of the following as potential problems: 3D modelling program compatibility. (?) Numerical accuracy. (Does this matter?) Especially at large scales, how games like Battlefield have huge maps: How don't they lose numerical accuracy if they use 1:1 mapping with real world scale, since floating point representation tend to lose more precision with larger numbers (e.g. with ray casting, physics simulation)? Gameplay. I don't want the movement of units to feel slow or fast while using almost real world values like -9.8 m/s^2 for gravity. (This might be subjective.) Is it ok to scale up/down imported assets or it's best fit with a world with its original scale? Rendering performance. Are large meshes with the same vertex count slower to render? I'm wondering if I should split this into multiple questions...

    Read the article

  • Entity Type specific updates in entity component system

    - by Nathan
    I am currently familiarizing myself with the entity component paradigm. For an example, take a collision system, that detects if entities collide and if they do let them explode. So the collision system has to test collision based on the position component and then set the state of those entities to exploding. But what if the "effect" (setting the state to exploding) is different for different entities? For example, a ship fades out while for an asteroid a particle system must be created. Since entities and components are only data, this must happen in some system. The collision system could do it, but then it must switch over the entity type, which in my opinion is a cumbersome and difficult to extend solution. So how do I trigger "entity type dependend" updates on an entity?

    Read the article

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