Search Results

Search found 14199 results on 568 pages for 'dirty bird design'.

Page 92/568 | < Previous Page | 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99  | Next Page >

• Do you need all that data?

  - by BuckWoody

  I read an amazing post over on ars technica (link: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/the-software-brains-behind-the-particle-colliders.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss) abvout the LHC, or as they are also known, the "particle colliders". Beyond just the pure scientific geek awesomeness, these instruments have the potential to collect more data than you can (or possibly should) store. Actually, this problem has a lot in common with a BI system. There's so much granular detail available in the source systems that a designer has to decide how, and how much, to roll up the data. Whenver you do that, you lose fidelity, but in many cases that's OK. Take, for example, your car's speedometer. You don't actually need to track each and every point of speed as it happens. You only need to know that you're hovering around the speed limit at a certain point in time. Since this is the way that humans percieve data, is there some lesson we should take in the design of data "flows" - and what implications does this have for new technologies like StreamInsight? Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | reddit! | kick it! | live it!

  Read the article

• Game Components, Game Managers and Object Properties

  - by George Duckett

  I'm trying to get my head around component based entity design. My first step was to create various components that could be added to an object. For every component type i had a manager, which would call every component's update function, passing in things like keyboard state etc. as required. The next thing i did was remove the object, and just have each component with an Id. So an object is defined by components having the same Ids. Now, i'm thinking that i don't need a manager for all my components, for example i have a SizeComponent, which just has a Size property). As a result the SizeComponent doesn't have an update method, and the manager's update method does nothing. My first thought was to have an ObjectProperty class which components could query, instead of having them as properties of components. So an object would have a number of ObjectProperty and ObjectComponent. Components would have update logic that queries the object for properties. The manager would manage calling the component's update method. This seems like over-engineering to me, but i don't think i can get rid of the components, because i need a way for the managers to know what objects need what component logic to run (otherwise i'd just remove the component completely and push its update logic into the manager). Is this (having ObjectProperty, ObjectComponent and ComponentManager classes) over-engineering? What would be a good alternative?

  Read the article

• Cost to licence characters or ships for a game

  - by Michael Jasper

  I am producing a game pitch document for a university game design class, and I am looking for examples of licencing cost for using characters or ships from other IP holders in a game. For example: cost of using an X-Wing in a game, licencing from Lucas cost of using the Enterprise in a game, licencing from Paramount cost of using the Space Shuttle (if any), licencing from Nasa EDIT The closest information I can find is from an article about Nights of the Old Republic, but isn't nearly specific enough for my needs: What Kotick means by Lucas being the principal beneficiary of the success of The Old Republic is that there are most likely clauses in the license agreement that give percentages, points, or another denomination of revenue out to Lucas and his people just for the Star Wars name, and that amount is presumed to be a great deal of money. Kotick is saying that because the cost of the license is so prohibitive, as he has personally had experience with in his position as CEO of Activision Blizzard, that EA will not be able to be profitable because of the hemorrhaging of money to the licensor. EDIT 2 Another vague source stating that FOX uses a "five-figure rule" (assuming between $10,000 - $99,000) It seems FOX, like most studios, will not license individuals to create new works based upon their products. They will only commission individuals of their choosing if they elect to branch out into expanded product lines related to those licenses. Alternately, they are open to making the licencing available to large corporations with access to global markets, but only if those corporations agree to what Ms Friedman called a "five-figure guarantee". Presumably this means that the corporation seeking the licensing must agree to pay a 5-figure sum for that license, and be confident that their product will sell enough volume to recoup that fee, and to produce sufficient profits to make the acquisition worth their while. Thank you!

  Read the article

• Structuring database for multi-object "activity" and "following" functionalities

  - by romaninsh

  I am working on a web application which operate with different types of objects such as user, profiles, pages etc. All objects have unique object_id. When objects interact it may produce "activity", such as user posting on the page or profile. Activity may be related to multiple objects through their object_id. Users may also follow "objects" and they need to be able to see stream of relevant activity. Could you provide me with some data structure suggestions which would be efficient and scalable? My goal is to show activity limited to the objects which user is following I am not limited by relational databases. Update As I'm getting advices on ORM and how index things, I'd like to again, stress my question. According to my current design model the database structure looks like this: As you can see - it's quite easy to implement database like that. Activity and Follower tables do contain much larger amount of records than the upper level but it's tolerable. But when it comes for me to create a "timeline" table, it becomes a nightmare. For every user I need to reference all the object activities which he follows. In terms of records it easily gets out of control. Please suggest me how to change this structure to avoid timeline creation and also be abel to quickly retrieve activity for any given user. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Browser-based GUI for a python application

  - by ack__

  I want to create a web/browser-based GUI for a command-line python application. The goal is to make use of HTML/JS technologies to create this GUI. As the application itself, it needs to run on Linux and Windows, and the interface will be accessible only from localhost (not exposed to internet). The GUI will contain 5 to 10 pages. I don't want a traditional desktop GUI that includes HTML/JS, but just a bunch of html files and some kind of controller between those and the application. I also want to make use of asynchronous programming (ajax like) so I can load and print data in the GUI without refreshing the whole page. I'd probably use jQuery for that and a couple other things. How would you recommend to design this? Performance is not the key here, I'm rather looking at reliability, portability and simplicity. I'm thinking of using a lightweight python HTTP server / framework (like CherryPy) and maybe later a Python templating system (at the begining it will just be a couple pages). EDIT: I'm looking for ideas/recommendations how to build this, not for alternatives to browser/web-based GUI.

  Read the article

• Character progression through leveling, skills or items?

  - by Anton

  I'm working on a design for an RPG game, and I'm having some doubts about the skill and level system. I'm going for a more casual, explorative gaming experience and so thought about lowering the game complexity by simplifying character progression. But I'm having trouble deciding between the following: Progression through leveling, no complex skill progression, leveling increases base stats. Progression through skills, no leveling or base stat changes, skills progress through usage. Progression through items, more focus on stat-changing items, items confer skills, no leveling. However, I'm uncertain what the effects on gameplay might be in the end. So, my question is this: What would be the effects of choosing one of the above alternatives over the others? (Particularly with regards to the style and feel of the gameplay) My take on it is that the first sacrifices more frequent rewards and customization in favor of a simpler gameplay; the second sacrifices explicit customization and player control in favor of more frequent rewards and a somewhat simpler gameplay; while the third sacrifices inventory simplicity and a player metric in favor of player control, customization and progression simplicity. Addendum: I'm not really limiting myself to the above three, they are just the ones I liked most and am primarily interested in.

  Read the article

• Designing a Content-Based ETL Process with .NET and SFDC

  - by Patrick

  As my firm makes the transition to using SFDC as our main operational system, we've spun together a couple of SFDC portals where we can post customer-specific documents to be viewed at will. As such, we've had the need for pseudo-ETL applications to be implemented that are able to extract metadata from the documents our analysts generate internally (most are industry-standard PDFs, XML, or MS Office formats) and place in networked "queue" folders. From there, our applications scoop of the queued documents and upload them to the appropriate SFDC CRM Content Library along with some select pieces of metadata. I've mostly used DbAmp to broker communication with SFDC (DbAmp is a Linked Server provider that allows you to use SQL conventions to interact with your SFDC Org data). I've been able to create [console] applications in C# that work pretty well, and they're usually structured something like this: static void Main() { // Load parameters from app.config. // Get documents from queue. var files = someInterface.GetFiles(someFilterOrRegexPattern); foreach (var file in files) { // Extract metadata from the file. // Validate some attributes of the file; add any validation errors to an in-memory // structure (e.g. List<ValidationErrors>). if (isValid) { var fileData = File.ReadAllBytes(file); // Upload using some wrapper for an ORM or DAL someInterface.Upload(fileData, meta.Param1, meta.Param2, ...); } else { // Bounce the file } } // Report any validation errors (via message bus or SMTP or some such). } And that's pretty much it. Most of the time I wrap all these operations in a "Worker" class that takes the needed interfaces as constructor parameters. This approach has worked reasonably well, but I just get this feeling in my gut that there's something awful about it and would love some feedback. Is writing an ETL process as a C# Console app a bad idea? I'm also wondering if there are some design patterns that would be useful in this scenario that I'm clearly overlooking. Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• Is there a pattern or best practice for passing a reference type to multiple classes vs a static class?

  - by Dave

  My .NET application creates HTML files, and as such, the structure looks like variable myData BuildHomePage() variable graph = new BuildGraphPage(myData) variable table = BuildTablePage(myData) BuildGraphPage and BuildTablePage both require access data, the myData object. In the above example, I've passed the myData object to 2 constructors. This is what I'm doing now, in my current project. The myData object, and it's properties are all readonly. The problem is, the number of pages which will require this object has grown. In the real project, there are currently 4, but the new spec is to have about 20. Passing this object to the constructor of each new object and assigning it to a field is a little time consuming, but not a hardship! This poses the question whether it's better practice to continue as I have, or to refactor and create a new static class for myData which can be referenced from any where in my project. I guess my abilities to use Google are poor, because I did try and find an appropriate pattern as I am sure this type of design must be common place but my results returned nothing. Is there a pattern which is suited, or do best practices lean towards one implementation over another.

  Read the article

• Highly scalable and dynamic "rule-based" applications?

  - by Prof Plum

  For a large enterprise app, everyone knows that being able to adjust to change is one of the most important aspects of design. I use a rule-based approach a lot of the time to deal with changing business logic, with each rule being stored in a DB. This allows for easy changes to be made without diving into nasty details. Now since C# cannot Eval("foo(bar);") this is accomplished by using formatted strings stored in rows that are then processed in JavaScript at runtime. This works fine, however, it is less than elegant, and would not be the most enjoyable for anyone else to pick up on once it becomes legacy. Is there a more elegant solution to this? When you get into thousands of rules that change fairly frequently it becomes a real bear, but this cannot be that uncommon of a problem that someone has not thought of a better way to do this. Any suggestions? Is this current method defensible? What are the alternatives? Edit: Just to clarify, this is a large enterprise app, so no matter which solution works, there will be plenty of people constantly maintaining its rules and data (around 10). Also, The data changes frequently enough to say that some sort of centralized server system is basically a must.

  Read the article

• What are the factors affecting a new programming language?

  - by Saurav Sengupta

  I am developing a new general-purpose programming language of my own design. It's currently my own personal project. I have read of some experts saying that new languages do not usually survive (unfortunately I can't find a reference to that right now). What are the most substantial problems that a new language faces? The language syntax is similar to C/Python families, it does not use S-expressions, and it is an imperative language, but I'm doing first-class functions in it to provide the facilities of currying. In particular, I am concentrating on translating the source language to an intermediate language for execution by an interpreter, but I'm not in a position to translate to native code yet. What would be the issues with that? I've not personally used many non-native code languages, so I'm not well aware of the performance issues on today's machines. I also can't decide upon a lexer and parser generator. What would be the pros and cons of Flex and Yacc vs. hand-made? And what benefits will LLVM provide? I need to get the interpreter ready as quickly as possible. Finally, what factors will affect the language's use post release? I am planning a small library of essentials and full documentation for the first phase.

  Read the article

• Command-Query-Separation and multithreading safe interfaces

  - by Tobias Langner

  I like the command query separation pattern (from OOSC / Eiffel - basically you either return a value or you change the state of the class - but not both). This makes reasoning about the class easier and it is easier to write exception safe classes. Now, with multi threading, I run into a major problem: the separation of the query and the command basically invalidates the result from the query as anything can happen between those 2. So my question is: how do you handle command query separation in an multi-threaded environment? Clarification example: A stack with command query separation would have the following methods: push (command) pop (command - but does not return a value) top (query - returns the value) empty (query) The problem here is - I can get empty as status, but then I can not rely on top really retrieving an element since between the call of empty and the call of top, the stack might have been emptied. Same goes for pop & top. If I get an item using top, I can not be sure that the item that I pop is the same. This can be solved using external locks - but that's not exactly what I call threadsafe design.

  Read the article

• VBO and shaders confusion, what's their connection?

  - by Jeffrey

  Considering OpenGL 2.1 VBOs and 1.20 GLSL shaders: When creating an entity like "Zombie", is it good to initialize just the VBO buffer with the data once and do N glDrawArrays() calls per each N zombies? Is there a more efficient way? (With a single call we cannot pass different uniforms to the shader to calculate an offset, see point 3) When dealing with logical object (player, tree, cube etc), should I always use the same shader or should I customize (or be able to customize) the shaders per each object? Considering an entity class, should I create and define the shader at object initialization? When having a movable object such as a human, is there any more powerful way to deal with its coordinates than to initialize its VBO object at 0,0 and define an uniform offset to pass to the shader to calculate its real position? Could you make an example of the Data Oriented Design on creating a generic zombie class? Is the following good? Zombielist class: class ZombieList { GLuint vbo; // generic zombie vertex model std::vector<color>; // object default color std::vector<texture>; // objects textures std::vector<vector3D>; // objects positions public: unsigned int create(); // return object id void move(unsigned int objId, vector3D offset); void rotate(unsigned int objId, float angle); void setColor(unsigned int objId, color c); void setPosition(unsigned int objId, color c); void setTexture(unsigned int, unsigned int); ... void update(Player*); // move towards player, attack if near } Example: Player p; Zombielist zl; unsigned int first = zl.create(); zl.setPosition(first, vector3D(50, 50)); zl.setTexture(first, texture("zombie1.png")); ... while (running) { // main loop ... zl.update(&p); zl.draw(); // draw every zombie }

  Read the article

• What is a good basic/flexible cms for a small website? [closed]

  - by Samuel

  Possible Duplicate: Which Content Management System (CMS) should I use? I'm designing a very basic portfolio website for an artist. It features a blog, portfolio, cv and contact page. I've handcoded the basics of this site in php/java, as it is a very small website (and I like coding by hand). But I need a simple cms backend for the dynamic parts of the website (the blog/portfolio). The big systems (ruby, joomla, wordpress) are far too invasive for my liking (and frankly a bit beyond my capabilities). Wordpress for example, requires too much adaptation of the design to the wordpress structure, and ruby is far too extensive for a simple site like this (in my opinion). So what I'm looking for is a (preferably open source) cms that has a simple backend for the artist to use as a blogger, with a mysql database for the content, that will allow me to insert content with simple tags (using smarty tags for example), but is otherwise not too invasive or demanding in terms of the required page structure. Does anyone know of a good cms that fits this description? p.s.: I have tried phpnews and cmsmadesimple, but phpnews was a litte too basic (but very close too what I'm looking for) and cmsmadesimple was way too slow (but otherwise also pretty close too what I wanted, though a bit too extensive).

  Read the article

• Intelligence as a vector quantity

  - by Senthil Kumaran

  I am reading this wonderful book called "Coders at Work: Reflections on the Craft of Programming" by Peter Seibel and I am at part wherein the conversation is with Joshua Bloch and I found this answer which is an important point for a programmer. The paragraph, goes something like this. There's this problem, which is, programming is so much of an intellectual meritocracy and often these people are the smartest people in the organization; therefore they figure they should be allowed to make all the decisions. But merely the fact they are the smartest people in the organization does not mean that they should be making all the decisions, because intelligence is not a scalar quantity; it's a vector quantity. Here at the last sentence, I fail to get the insight which is he trying to share. Can someone explain it in a little further as what he means by a vector quantity, possibly trying to present the same insight. Further down, I get the point that he is not taking about having an organization where non-technical people (sometimes clueless) can be managers of the technical people for some reason that they can spend more time to write emails well, because the very next statement following the above paragraph was. And if you lack empathy or emotional intelligence, then you shouldn't be designing APIs or GUIs or languages. I understand that he is saying that in Software engineering, programmers should know how the users will see their product and design for them. I felt the above paragraph was very interesting.

  Read the article

• How was Git designed?

  - by Mark Canlas

  My workplace recently switched to Git and I've been loving (and hating!) it. I really do love it, and it is extremely powerful. The only part I hate is that sometimes it's too powerful (and maybe a bit terse/confusing). My question is... How was Git designed? Just using it for a short amount of time, you get the feel that it can handle many obscure workflows that other version control systems could not. But it also feels elegant underneath. And fast! This is no doubt in part to Linus's talent. But I'm wondering, was the overall design of git based off of something? I've read about BitKeeper but the accounts are scant on technical details. The compression, the graphs, getting rid of revision numbers, emphasizing branching, stashing, remotes... Where did it all come from? Linus really knocked this one out of the park and on pretty much the first try! It's quite good to use once you're past the learning curve.

  Read the article

• Different methods of ammo resupply

  - by Chris Mantle

  I'm writing a small game at the moment. Presently, I have one or two design elements that aren't locked down yet, and I wanted to ask for input on one of these. For dramatic effect, the player's character in my game is immobilised, alone and has a supposedly limited amount of ammo for their weapons. However, I would like to periodically resupply the player with ammo (for the purpose of balancing the level of difficulty and to allow the player to continue if they're doing well). I'm trying to think of a method of resupply that's different to the more familiar strategies of making ammo magically appear or having the antagonists drop some when they die. I'd like to emphasise the notion of the player's isolation as much as possible, and finding a way of 'sneaking' ammo to the player without removing too much of that emphasis is basically what I'm trying to think of (it's definitely a valid argument that resupplying the player removes it anyway) I have considered a sort of simple in-game 'store', where kills get you points that you can spend on ammo for your favourite weapon. This might work well, and may also be good for supporting a simple micro-transaction business model within the game. However, you'd have to pause the game often to make purchases, which would interrupt the action, and it works against the notion of isolation. Any thoughts?

  Read the article

• Auto update for application hosted on multiple servers on cloud

  - by mots_g

  I'm working on an application which will run on multiple Amazon EC2 instances. I wish to incorporate auto update feature for my application. The updater should update all the Ec2 instances. Also, there is a central server which governs the creation/termination of EC2 instances as per load. The central server creates a EC2 new instance from a pre-configured custom AMI (custom image which has our application pre-installed). Also, once there is an update, the pre-configured AMI needs to be updated too else it would create new instances which are not updated. Should the central server notify all the ec2 instances for an update and then the instances update themselves?Or should the application on Ec2 instance have a check for periodically updating themselves? Also how should the Amazon custom AMI be updated? Should a new instance be created from it, updated and then a new AMI be re-created and then new images be created from this AMI? What is the best way to incorporate an auto update feature for this architecture? The central server is written in Java and the application running on the cloud is written in C++. Is there a good framework available that can be used for this architecture? Please let me know on what I could be missing in the design and how it would help me to have a nice, extensible and fail safe auto update architecture. Thanks

  Read the article

• Programming and Ubiquitous Language (DDD) in a non-English domain

  - by Sandor Drieënhuizen

  I know there are some questions already here that are closely related to this subject but none of them take Ubquitous Language as the starting point so I think that justifies this question. For those who don't know: Ubiquitous Language is the concept of defining a (both spoken and written) language that is equally used across developers and domain experts to avoid inconsistencies and miscommunication due to translation problems and misunderstanding. You will see the same terminology show up in code, conversations between any team member, functional specs and whatnot. So, what I was wondering about is how to deal with Ubiquitous Language in non-English domains. Personally, I strongly favor writing programming code in English completely, including comments but ofcourse excluding constants and resources. However, in a non-English domain, I'm forced to make a decision either to: Write code reflecting the Ubiquitous Language in the natural language of the domain. Translate the Ubiquitous Language to English and stop communicating in the natural language of the domain. Define a table that defines how the Ubiquitous Language translates to English. Here are some of my thoughts based on these options: 1) I have a strong aversion against mixed-language code, that is coding using type/member/variable names etc. that are non-English. Most programming languages 'breathe' English to a large extent and most of the technical literature, design pattern names etc. are in English as well. Therefore, in most cases there's just no way of writing code entirely in a non-English language so you end up with a mixed languages. 2) This will force the domain experts to start thinking and talking in the English equivalent of the UL, something that will probably not come naturally to them and therefore hinders communication significantly. 3) In this case, the developers communicate with the domain experts in their native language while the developers communicate with each other in English and most importantly, they write code using the English translation of the UL. I'm sure I don't want to go for the first option and I think option 3 is much better than option 2. What do you think? Am I missing other options?

  Read the article

• Link to article on website libraries

  - by acidzombie24

  I just started another website and it has taken me 30mins to copy/paste my other website and delete stuff because I don't have a template. Theres lots of features I copied over that I haven't seen in libraries/templates. But I don't really know any libraries/templates. This site is ASP.NET. Some things I have is a string.format that escapes strings for HTML (so <hi> is text instead of a tag). Other features are adding or removing items in the url query, a class to pass in a ASP.NET error and log or convert it into a row in a db (I know about elmah but during development on my last site it wasn't Mono compatible), a mini AJAX library for success/fail/redirect/etc, a class to pass in a ASP.NET error and log or convert it into a row in a db and anything else I would use in every site. I don't like my (library) design because I wasn't expecting to do more then 2-3 websites and I am on my 5th. I don't know proper ASP.NET either so what is an article that explains how to make a great library/template for websites?

  Read the article

• Pattern for Accessing MySQL connection

  - by Dipan Mehta

  We have an application which is C++ trying to access MySQL database. There are several (about 5 or so) threads in the application (with Boost library for threading) and in each thread has a few objects, each of which is trying to access Database for its' own purpose. It has a simple ORM kind of model but that really is not an important factor here. There are three potential access patterns i can think of: There could be single connection object per application or thread and is shared between all (or group). The object needs to be thread safe and there will be contentions but MySQL will not be fired with too many connections. Every object could initiate connection on its own. The database needs to take care of concurrency (which i think MySQL can) and the design could be much simpler. There could be two possibilities here. a. either object keeps a persistent connection for its life OR b. object initiate connection as and when needed. To simplify the contention as in case of 1 and not to create too many sockets as in case of 2, we can have group/set based connections. So there could be there could be more than one connection (say N), each of this connection could be shared connection across M objects. Naturally, each of the pattern has different resource cost and would work under different constraints and objectives. What criteria should i use to choose the pattern of this for my own application? What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of each of these pattern over the other? Are there any other pattern which is better? PS: I have been through these questions: mysql, one connection vs multiple and MySQL with mutiple threads and processes But they don't quite answer exactly what i am trying to ask.

  Read the article

• What web technology could I use which would support a decision tree?

  - by Rami Alhamad

  I am a big game development fan but I haven't done any commercial work in the past. I have been asked by a non-profit to look at developing a game similar to the award-winning www.playspent.org They want the following features: support 5 scenarios mobile isn't important but compatibility with older browsers would be a big bonus they want it to be visual and audible bonus is to have it easily modifiable support 4 languages I don't have much knowledge of Flash and would rather avoid using it as a solution. I started breaking down the problem into segments that I will need to examine, they are as follows: ability to read the game flow from a file that they can produce (xml, etc.) db design to store decision tree language challenge browser compatibility I am leaning towards an Google app engine/GWT solution but I am not sure what technology is best for this. I am really hoping to get your opinion/recommendation on my approach and on what technology is best. A special thanks (and beer if you live in Toronto) will be awarded to anyone who can help give me a ballpark estimate on how much such a game should go for. I know it's tough to estimate but any rough figure will help (how much would you charge for building something like playspent.org?) Thanks in advance

  Read the article

• Constructs for wrapping a hardware state machine

  - by Henry Gomersall

  I am using a piece of hardware with a well defined C API. The hardware is stateful, with the relevant API calls needing to be in the correct order for the hardware to work properly. The API calls themselves will always return, passing back a flag that advises whether the call was successful, or if not, why not. The hardware will not be left in some ill defined state. In effect, the API calls advise indirectly of the current state of the hardware if the state is not correct to perform a given operation. It seems to be a pretty common hardware API style. My question is this: Is there a well established design pattern for wrapping such a hardware state machine in a high level language, such that consistency is maintained? My development is in Python. I ideally wish the hardware state machine to be abstracted to a much simpler state machine and wrapped in an object that represents the hardware. I'm not sure what should happen if an attempt is made to create multiple objects representing the same piece of hardware. I apologies for the slight vagueness, I'm not very knowledgeable in this area and so am fishing for assistance of the description as well!

  Read the article

• Optimization ended up in casting an object at each method call

  - by Aybe

  I've been doing some optimization for the following piece of code : public void DrawLine(int x1, int y1, int x2, int y2, int color) { _bitmap.DrawLineBresenham(x1, y1, x2, y2, color); } After profiling it about 70% of the time spent was in getting a context for drawing and disposing it. I ended up sketching the following overload : public void DrawLine(int x1, int y1, int x2, int y2, int color, BitmapContext bitmapContext) { _bitmap.DrawLineBresenham(x1, y1, x2, y2, color, bitmapContext); } Until here no problems, all the user has to do is to pass a context and performance is really great as a context is created/disposed one time only (previously it was a thousand times per second). The next step was to make it generic in the sense it doesn't depend on a particular framework for rendering (besides .NET obvisouly). So I wrote this method : public void DrawLine(int x1, int y1, int x2, int y2, int color, IDisposable bitmapContext) { _bitmap.DrawLineBresenham(x1, y1, x2, y2, color, (BitmapContext)bitmapContext); } Now every time a line is drawn the generic context is casted, this was unexpected for me. Are there any approaches for fixing this design issue ? Note : _bitmap is a WriteableBitmap from WPF BitmapContext is from WriteableBitmapEx library DrawLineBresenham is an extension method from WriteableBitmapEx

  Read the article

• Examples of 2D side-scrollers that achieve open non-linear feel?

  - by Milosz Falinski

  I'm working on a 2.5D platformer prototype that aims for an open feel while maintaining familiar core mechanics. Now, there's some obvious challenges with creating a non constricted feel in a spatially constricted environment. What I'm interested in, is examples of how game designers deal with the "here's a level, beat the bad guys/puzzles to get to the next level" design that seems so natural to most platformers (eg. Mario/Braid/Pid/Meat Boy to name a few). Some ideas for achieving openness I've come across include: One obvious successful example is Terraria, which achieves openness simply through complexity and flexibility of the game-system Another example that comes to mind is Cave Story. Game is non-linear, offers multiple choices and side-stories Mario, Rayman and some other 'classics' with a top-down level selection. I actually really dislike this as it never did anything for me emotionally and just seems like a bit of a lazy way to do things. Note: I've not actually had much experience with most of the 'classical' console platformers, apart from the obvious Marios/Zeldas/Metroids, since I've grown up on adventure games. By that I mean, it's entirely possible that I simply missed some games that solve the problem really well and are by some considered obvious 'classics'.

  Read the article

• Should I create my own Assert class based on these reasons?

  - by Mike

  The main reason I don't like Debug.Assert is the fact that these assertions are disabled in Release. I know that there's a performance reason for that, but at least in my situation I believe the gains would outweigh the cost. (By the way, I'm guessing this is the situation in most cases). And yes, I know that you can use Trace.Assert instead. But even though that would work, I find the name Trace distracting, since I don't see this as tracing. The other reason to create my own class is laziness I guess, since I could write methods for the most usual cases like Assert.IsNotNull, Assert.Equals and so forth. The second part of my question has to do with using Environment.FailFast in this class. Would that be a good idea? I do like the ideas put forth in this document. That's pretty much where I got the idea from. One last point. Does creating a design like this imply having an untestable code path, as described in this answer by Eric Lippert on a different (but related) question?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99  | Next Page >