[QUOTE=BlkDucky;36055991]To be fair, this is funny. Image macros that don't require any actual effort are... eh.[/QUOTE]
If you don't overuse it, alot is extremely suitable for alot of situations.
[QUOTE=ief014;36056325][url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1185781?p=36056103#post36056103[/url]
"Metro is the future, and the only thing Microsoft really cares about."
you have to be shitting me[/QUOTE]
At least that's only for VS11 Express.
[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;36056383]At least that's only for VS11 Express.[/QUOTE]
Some of us don't have $499
[QUOTE=esalaka;36056403]Some of us don't have $499[/QUOTE]
I didn't pay a cent (directly) for my copy. They have a service for colleges called "MSDN Academic Alliance" (although I think they recently changed the name a bit and got rid of some older software), with it and Windows for free. I'm not sure about the licencing, though.
I was really happy with it, since one of my classes required Visio, and that's on there too.
[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;36056474]I didn't pay a cent (directly) for my copy. They have a service for colleges called "MSDN Academic Alliance" (although I think they recently changed the name a bit and got rid of some older software), with it and Windows for free. I'm not sure about the licencing, though.
I was really happy with it, since one of my classes required Visio, and that's on there too.[/QUOTE]
not everyone has msdn
Install Linux and use one of the many free IDEs, windows is going down the toilet.
[QUOTE=danharibo;36056679]Install Linux and use one of the many free IDEs[/QUOTE]
Or vim or emacs
meanwhile, i'm working on a sharpen filter
[url]http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/126200[/url] (warning: anime)
it's a bit subtle and there's plenty of room for improvement (larger window, better 2d pass, etc)
[editline]22nd May 2012[/editline]
and it doesn't work on photographic content
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36056517]not everyone has msdn[/QUOTE]
A good portion of colleges/school districts seem to be on DreamSpark, though, and all you need is proof you actually go there (.edu email, student ID, etc.) to get free software. It's 99 dollars for an institution for a year, so it really should be available for everyone.
[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;36056971]A good portion of colleges/school districts seem to be on DreamSpark, though, and all you need is proof you actually go there (.edu email, student ID, etc.) to get free software. It's 99 dollars for an institution for a year, so it really should be available for everyone.[/QUOTE]
not everyone is in college/university
[QUOTE=Ohfoohy;36053855]I know some VB, I've made a few programs with it before. How exactly would I go about doing it?[/QUOTE]
First you'd need to get to the developer tab in Excel:
[url]http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/excel-help/show-the-developer-tab-or-run-in-developer-mode-HA010173052.aspx[/url]
Then you'd add a form, and I'm pretty sure you can figure out the rest. You might want to take a look at this guide about VB in Excel: [url]http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee814737.aspx[/url]
If you need any more help, just ask.
[editline]22nd May 2012[/editline]
Also god damn it.
When my main kernel function looks like this:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/SVaB3.png[/img]
I get a blank screen.
But when it looks like this, with all the code from os_clear_screen in the function itself:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/kajf3.png[/img]
I get the correct result
[img]http://i.imgur.com/UzrZK.png[/img]
fucking assembly
[QUOTE=supersnail11;36057047][editline]22nd May 2012[/editline]
Also god damn it.
When my main kernel function looks like this:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/SVaB3.png[/img]
I get a blank screen.
But when it looks like this, with all the code from os_clear_screen in the function itself:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/kajf3.png[/img]
I get the correct result
[img]http://i.imgur.com/UzrZK.png[/img]
fucking assembly[/QUOTE]
did you forget a retn in os_clear_screen?
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36057008]not everyone is in college/university[/QUOTE]
Actually, DreamSpark includes high schools and middle schools if they're willing to pay for it (and if you're beyond education already/not going to college because of other reasons, you probably can save up for it or find a better deal on an older version). I know a few of the school districts around where I live have it.
[QUOTE=synthiackup;36057138]did you forget a retn in os_clear_screen?[/QUOTE]
i feel stupid now
[QUOTE=supersnail11;36057359]i feel stupid now[/QUOTE]
We all make mistakes, and it's usually the small and annoying ones that gets us in the end :)
[QUOTE=supersnail11;36057359]i feel stupid now[/QUOTE]
I find programming something that you don't actually know how to make is a continual roller-coaster of feeling like the greatest programmer on earth and the biggest idiot to have ever lived.
That's actually one of the reasons I'm a bit worried about getting a job in the industry, even though I've just spent 3 years and £10k on a degree to let me do just that.
I don't want to lose those feelings to the mundanity of cranking out corporate code day in day out. :/
[QUOTE=Ziks;36057790]Fog!
[img]http://puu.sh/wd6p[/img]
[img]http://puu.sh/wd7h[/img][/QUOTE]
Are you making GTA:SA II or something?
[QUOTE=Darkwater124;36057872]Are you making GTA:SA II or something?[/QUOTE]
I guess I'm just seeing how far I can get trying to make Open Theft Auto: San Andreas or something like that. I know I'll never manage it, but I'm enjoying it so far.
The part I'm enjoying most is that I [I]only[/I] need to program, I don't need to worry about making art assets.
[editline]22nd May 2012[/editline]
Also it's nice to see San Andreas at my laptop's native resolution and at a decent framerate.
[QUOTE=supersnail11;36057047]
Also god damn it.
When my main kernel function looks like this:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/SVaB3.png[/img]
I get a blank screen.
But when it looks like this, with all the code from os_clear_screen in the function itself:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/kajf3.png[/img]
I get the correct result
[img]http://i.imgur.com/UzrZK.png[/img]
fucking assembly[/QUOTE]
you want to set ecx to 80*25*2 because each char on screen has an attribute byte as well
I just realised I'm not culling anything behind the camera. Is there a more efficient way of working out what's outside of the field of view than comparing angles?
[QUOTE=Ziks;36058309]I just realised I'm not culling anything behind the camera. Is there a more efficient way of working out what's outside of the field of view than comparing angles?[/QUOTE]
If you only want to cull objects behind the camera you can multiply all positions by the camera's look vector and compare the result of each object and the camera. If the former is smaller don't draw it.
The fastest precise check is similar I think. You'd have to transform everything into view space and then check the relative position on the axes and correct for object size.
I don't think it would be faster than just letting the graphics card cull the triangles in this case.
If your object has a large amount of vertices there's a way to render a bounding object first and only draw the complicated object if any pixels or vertices passed. I can't remember what it's called right now.
Frustum culling. Anything more complicated is for sorting between things inside the frustum.
[QUOTE=Tamschi;36058654]If you only want to cull objects behind the camera you can multiply all positions by the camera's look vector and compare the result of each object and the camera. If the former is smaller don't draw it.
The fastest precise check is similar I think. You'd have to transform everything into view space and then check the relative position on the axes and correct for object size.
I don't think it would be faster than just letting the graphics card cull the triangles in this case.
If your object has a large amount of vertices there's a way to render a bounding object first and only draw the complicated object if any pixels or vertices passed. I can't remember what it's called right now.[/QUOTE]
I thought any vertex outside the view frustrum was culled anyways or had its location changed to the boundary of the frustrum if it was still part of the scene.
I'll probably go with just culling things behind the camera by checking the sign of the dot product of the object's relative position and the camera's normal then.
[editline]22nd May 2012[/editline]
Or I'll leave any more optimising like that until I start noticing framerate problems.
Actually i'm wrong ignore.
Just implemented something I felt GTA really needed at times: models and textures are now loaded on a separate thread, so the game is completely smooth when entering an unloaded area.
[QUOTE=darkrei9n;36058766]I thought any vertex outside the view frustrum was culled anyways or had its location changed to the boundary of the frustrum if it was still part of the scene.[/QUOTE]
DirectX and OpenGL should not draw anything that is outside of the view, you are correct. However you are still "drawing" these objects (by calling the draw function) which has some overhead that can be avoided by doing frustum or occlusion culling.
You have to do it properly or else the overhead of the culling will outweigh the overhead of a few extra draw calls.
-snipo-
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
