What are you working on? V5

[Spoco]

[QUOTE=garry;18858907]I was just thinking of bitwise flags.

Usually it's done like (FLAG | FLAGTWO | ANOTHERFLAG) right?

I was thinking of making a class so you would do Flags().Flag().FlagTwo().AnotherFlag().Get()

Is that insanity? The idea is that Flags() would return the flag class, which you'd then call .Flag() on to add that flag to it, and it would return itself - then you would call FlagTwo() on it to add to it, etc etc[/QUOTE]

It's usually done like you said, because it's the fastest way of doing it. You're proposing an overcomplicated implementation. What is it that you're looking for with that approach?

[s0ul0r]

[QUOTE=Xerios3;18871773]Playing around in my Animation Editor :3:

[IMG]http://i46.tinypic.com/21kwiza.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]
lol :D
Did you release it yet?

[Xerios]

Well I could release it if ya want to try it out =)

[Eleventeen]

[img]http://i46.tinypic.com/wt9lbp.png[/img]

Amount of Undo[b]'s[/b]: 1

...

That is the incorrect use of apostrophes.

[mechanarchy]

[QUOTE=Xerios3;18880675]Well I could release it if ya want to try it out =)[/QUOTE]

Sounds good, I'd be interested in having a play with it.

Although it has no real use in my current game project whatsoever, which I should probably keep working on and stop getting distracted from. So close, yet so far - Menu system and everything else is up, it's just the game that's not quite finished.

[CarlBooth]

[QUOTE=Eleventeen;18880894]That is the incorrect use of apostrophes.[/QUOTE]

Also, a[b]m[/b]ount is spelled wrong.

[MuThing]

-snip-

[tjl]

progress on Hunch for Android

[img]http://lh3.ggpht.com/_uB00Lk70aKY/SyOWCJ9L-oI/AAAAAAAAAVc/jIoQnYDzQ2g/hunchBETAinEmulator.png[/img]

This is being pulled from [url=http://hunch.com/do-i-spend-too-much-time-online/]here[/url]

Still so much more work to do :(

[Xerios]

Here ya go, have fun & all

[url]http://drop.io/tpxycla7439/asset/rageeffectanimator-rar[/url] ( Doesn't have the annoying waiting times like the last file host )

Requirements
- XNA 3.1
- .NET framework 3.5 or something, anyway you probably already have that

Some unclear stuff :
- Clicking on Animation line on the top sends you to Animation Proprieties
- Right click hold on a bone = rotate bone, rotate towards the mouse position
- Those weird things on the top under the animation name = frames, clicking them shows more options
- Clicking a bone gets you more options, for framed sprites you can change the frame
- Mouse scroll = Zoom

Any kind of advice or improvements appreciated =)

[editline]02:10PM[/editline]

As for spelling mistakes, I'll fix them later

[s0ul0r]

Well uhm, the link doesn't work for me oO

[CarlBooth]

Nor Me.

[quote=MEGAUPLOAD]The file you are trying to access is temporarily unavailable.[/quote]

[garry]

[QUOTE=Spoco;18880380]It's usually done like you said, because it's the fastest way of doing it. You're proposing an overcomplicated implementation. What is it that you're looking for with that approach?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it is overcomplicated. I was just thinking out loud.

[Xerios]

Aww damn you megaupload, let me reupload it to another host

[editline]04:01PM[/editline]

Done !

[url]http://hotfile.com/dl/20416247/5c316ce/RageEffectAnimator.rar.html[/url]

[aixxe]

[QUOTE=Xerios3;18882615]Aww damn you megaupload, let me reupload it to another host

[editline]04:01PM[/editline]

Done !

[url]http://hotfile.com/dl/20416247/5c316ce/RageEffectAnimator.rar.html[/url][/QUOTE]

Waited an entire minute just to download 0.1MB. :v:

[Xerios]

[QUOTE=Diaklu;18882917]Waited an entire minute just to download 0.1MB. :v:[/QUOTE]

Yeah, file hosting sites suck these days =/
I don't really see the use of that time wait thing

[mechanarchy]

[QUOTE=Xerios3;18883021]Yeah, file hosting sites suck these days =/
I don't really see the use of that time wait thing[/QUOTE]

If it's 0.1MB it'd almost be easier to just use the rar-in-image trick... RAR it up, choose a suitable image and then just append the rar to the end of the picture. Picture should render fine, and RAR loads when you open it with WinRAR. Then you can upload the "image" wherever you want... tinypic would probably be easiest, IMO.

[s0ul0r]

[QUOTE=Xerios3;18883021]Yeah, file hosting sites suck these days =/
I don't really see the use of that time wait thing[/QUOTE]

Simple, ip-renewal doesn't really help.
You still have to wait 60 seconds without having premium.

[editline]04:35PM[/editline]

Oh also, would you mind uploading the source code of the animator? :)

[Xerios]

Well, anyways I reuploaded to a host that doesn't require you to wait that long

[editline]04:41PM[/editline]

[url]http://drop.io/tpxycla7439/asset/rageeffectanimator-rar[/url]

[editline]04:47PM[/editline]

[QUOTE=s0ul0r;18883182]
Oh also, would you mind uploading the source code of the animator? :)[/QUOTE]

For the editor : no, anyways there isn't much you can do with it

For the animation system itself : give me some time, I still haven't implemented the editor's improvements/changes into my own game. I'll post it once I finish re-implementing it

[garry]

If you want free file hosting: [url]http://sites.google.com/[/url]

[Xerios]

[QUOTE=garry;18883426]If you want free file hosting: [url]http://sites.google.com/[/url][/QUOTE]

Ah cool, didn't know about that =)

[Blade]

The C++ standards piss anyone else off?

The more I use C++ the more I hate the gay standards.

std::string[] throws an out of range assert meaning you cannot catch it while std::string.at throws an actual catchable exception. WTF!

C++ doesn't even feel like the language it is supposed to. Are exceptions platform specific or something? Why are more standard classes not using them? It causes retardedly redundant code.

[ZeekyHBomb]

For an exception you need to check stuff, so you use the at-function if you need the exception.
If you are sure that nothing can happen you use the operator[], so the program doesn't get slowed down by checking the out-of-range stuff.

[garry]

What are you doing with std::string that makes it go out of range?

[Blade]

[QUOTE=ZeekyHBomb;18883903]For an exception you need to check stuff, so you use the at-function if you need the exception.
If you are sure that nothing can happen you use the operator[], so the program doesn't get slowed down by checking the out-of-range stuff.[/QUOTE]

1, checking out of range is nothing.
2, it still checks for out of range unless specified otherwise.

[editline]11:41AM[/editline]
Also it seems backwards. If you need a non checked then why wouldn't that one be .at()?

[QUOTE=garry;18883920]What are you doing with std::string that makes it go out of range?[/QUOTE]

Parser

[cpp] else if (str[i] == '"')
{
try
{
i++;
do
{
if (str[i] == '\\')
stok += str[i++];
stok += str[i++];

} while (str[i] != '"');

i++;

AddAndClearToken(stok, ret, par);
}
catch(...)
{
throw std::exception("String missing end!");
}
}[/cpp]

vs

[cpp] else if (str[i] == '"')
{
i++;
do
{
if (i < str.length())
{
if (str[i] == '\\')
stok += str[i++];
}
else
throw std::exception("String missing end!");

if (i < str.length())
stok += str[i++];
else
throw std::exception("String missing end!");

} while (i < str.length() && str[i] != '"');

if (i >= str.length() || str[i] != '"')
throw std::exception("String missing end!");

i++;

AddAndClearToken(stok, ret, par);
}
[/cpp]

Easier than constantly checking if it is out of range when it already does check.

[editline]11:31AM[/editline]

idk, maybe it is because I have used C# quiet a bit. Although when using C# you realize how retardedly coded the standard libraries are. The boost guys should rewrite it(although haven't used boost a lot but it seems nicer).

[nullsquared]

[QUOTE=high;18883766]The C++ standards piss anyone else off?

The more I use C++ the more I hate the gay standards.

std::string[] throws an out of range assert meaning you cannot catch it while std::string.at throws an actual catchable exception. WTF!

C++ doesn't even feel like the language it is supposed to. Are exceptions platform specific or something? Why are more standard classes not using them? It causes retardedly redundant code.[/QUOTE]

Please do not make comments about a language if you have no idea what you're talking about.

at() will throw an exception. operator[]() will [b]not[/b] throw an exception, it will only assert() that the index is within bounds (assert()s don't exist in release mode). Pretty much all the standard classes use them to signify errors.

[ZeekyHBomb]

Checking out-of-range is something, that can add up.
You can use iterators to go through each character of a string or sub-string.
And operator[] does not check out-of-range. assert is NULL and void in release-mode.

got ninja'd..

[Blade]

[QUOTE=nullsquared;18884510]Please do not make comments about a language if you have no idea what you're talking about.

at() will throw an exception. operator[]() will [b]not[/b] throw an exception, it will only assert() that the index is within bounds (assert()s don't exist in release mode). Pretty much all the standard classes use them to signify errors.[/QUOTE]

I don't hate C++. I hate the retarded standards.

Also I already know that [] will not throw an exception. I am talking about how retardedly put together the std classes are.

[nullsquared]

[QUOTE=high;18884674]I don't hate C++. I hate the retarded standards.[/quote]
This has nothing to do with hate. Plus, "the standards" [b]are[/b] C++. C++ isn't a separate entity from "the standards."

[quote]
Also I already know that [] will not throw an exception. I am talking about how retardedly put together the std classes are.[/QUOTE]

... they're not "retardedly" put together. Either prove it or go away.

[iPope]

Got room changing, player moving, level loading done today. Now I feel like I've worked on my own project time to create a text adventure for Ludum Dare.

[Blade]

[QUOTE=nullsquared;18884813]This has nothing to do with hate. Plus, "the standards" [b]are[/b] C++. C++ isn't a separate entity from "the standards."

... they're not "retardedly" put together. Either prove it or go away.[/QUOTE]

Not going to bother arguing with you and your linux butt buddies. Pointless to when all you use is C++ so you have gotten used to its shit.