What are you working on? October 2015

[Torrunt]

[QUOTE=timvdlinde;48900372]Is there already a downloadable version?

thx[/QUOTE]

No, I haven't released it yet. I'm planning on putting it on Steam Greenlight and possibly Early Access. Still have some work to do before it's even ready for early access. Haven't even figured out what I'm going to name the thing.

[Xonax]

[QUOTE=Xonax;48900504]My player collision box is messed up.
When I crouch at the very bottom, the collision is the same as the normal player collision box. Meaning I can't go any further than the set collision for the standing up image.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/QRwFRJF.png[/img]

It seems to work with collisions that are above the bottom though.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/VK6HWe0.png[/img]

Does anyone have any idea's?

(I posted this in the WDYNHW thread as well)

[editline]14th October 2015[/editline]

Wait, I think it could be this that is interfering with it.

	if love.keyboard.isDown('up', 'w') then
		if player.y > 0 then
			player.y = player.y - (player.speed*dt)
		end
	elseif love.keyboard.isDown('down', 's') then
		if player.y < (love.graphics.getHeight() - player.img:getHeight()) then
			player.y = player.y + (player.speed*dt)
		end
	end
	
	if love.keyboard.isDown('left', 'a') then
		if player.x > 0 then
			player.x = player.x - (player.speed*dt)
		end
	elseif love.keyboard.isDown('right', 'd') then
		if player.x < (love.graphics.getWidth() - player.img:getWidth()) then
			player.x = player.x + (player.speed*dt)
		end
	end

Specifically
"if player.y < (love.graphics.getHeight() - player.img:getHeight()) then" and "if player.x < (love.graphics.getWidth() - player.img:getWidth()) then"[/QUOTE]

Right I think I managed to fix this, I want your guys opinion on it.

So I went in and replaced the player.img (in the code above) with player.crouchimg (the image that shows him crouched) so now when I move it gets the dimension for him being crouched. Now the results are this.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/i4rBnC0.png[/img]
Far Left is the Normal Position at the very bottom, as you can see he goes through the boundary but I don't think it's a problem as those are where doorways are and I plan to use them.

Middle is the Crouch Position at the very bottom on top of the collision box, as you can see he is now crouching on the box unlike he was before where he would hover above it.

And on the Far Right is the Crouch Position at the very bottom of the doorway, he is out of the world.
The way you can get that is if you go all the way down to the doorway limits as the Standing Position and then Crouch. If you un crouch he returns back into the world in the same position as the standing position in the Far left.

[helifreak]

[QUOTE=proboardslol;48900759]Really? I haven't played Minecraft in a while; have they released that as the main product? Does it still run on JVM? Can you write C++ for JVM?

[editline]14th October 2015[/editline]

Like how does that work?[/QUOTE]

It's available in the Windows 10 store, currently it's just a port of the pocket edition features. Xbox live integration and whatnot because Microsoft. It's not the main product yet.

I doubt it will take off like the original did since the modding scene is really what is keeping it going at this point. The major modders probably aren't going to bother porting their mods over (which is fair enough) if the C++ version ever gets mod support.

[Ziks]

[vid]http://files.facepunch.com/ziks/2015/October/14/2015-10-14-1607-29.mp4[/vid]

Added some little faces made by [url=https://facepunch.com/member.php?u=637771]Ryleigh[/url].

[Tommyx50]

[QUOTE=proboardslol;48900759]Really? I haven't played Minecraft in a while; have they released that as the main product? Does it still run on JVM? Can you write C++ for JVM?

[editline]14th October 2015[/editline]

Like how does that work?[/QUOTE]

No, you cannot run C++ through the JVM. You can't even run Java through the JVM, you can only run JVM bytecode through the JVM.

Minecraft's main version is still on Java, but they are porting the mobile version (written in C++) to the PC, and will probably try unifying all the versions eventually once the C++ version gets up to feature parity instead of having 2 separate codebases.

[AwesomeX]

Made the Stone Axe weapon/tool.

[IMG_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/hjWIJIe.png[/IMG_thumb]

[URL]https://skfb.ly/HHuH[/URL]

Also made a logo :buckteeth:

[IMG_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/grAsIUe.png[/IMG_thumb]
[IMG_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/sBqaUJG.png[/IMG_thumb]

[proboardslol]

[QUOTE=Tommyx50;48901476]No, you cannot run C++ through the JVM. You can't even run Java through the JVM, you can only run JVM bytecode through the JVM.

Minecraft's main version is still on Java, but they are porting the mobile version (written in C++) to the PC, and will probably try unifying all the versions eventually once the C++ version gets up to feature parity instead of having 2 separate codebases.[/QUOTE]

Well of course, that's what I meant. Is there a C++ compiler for JVM bytecode?

[Tamschi]

[QUOTE=proboardslol;48901874]Well of course, that's what I meant. Is there a C++ compiler for JVM bytecode?[/QUOTE]

I doubt there's a fully functional one, since afaik the JVM is pretty limited in terms of features.
It's of course possible to emulate all language features, but I don't think it would run reasonably fast.

[profan]

[QUOTE=Tommyx50;48901476]No, you cannot run C++ through the JVM. You can't even run Java through the JVM, you can only run JVM bytecode through the JVM.

Minecraft's main version is still on Java, but they are porting the mobile version (written in C++) to the PC, and will probably try unifying all the versions eventually once the C++ version gets up to feature parity instead of having 2 separate codebases.[/QUOTE]

To be pedantic, you can call into native code in Java through the JNI, but crossing the boundary is usually very slow and tends to trip up the JIT because it wrecks some assumptions it can otherwise make :v:

Yes, I know that's not what you meant, but... still :v:

[Tommyx50]

[QUOTE=proboardslol;48901874]Well of course, that's what I meant. Is there a C++ compiler for JVM bytecode?[/QUOTE]

Maybe, but why would you ever want that? Why would you ever remotely want to compile C++ code to JVM bytecode? The entire point of C++ is that it's fast native code, (at the expense of needing to do low-level stuff like memory management), and the entire point of Java is for cross-platform and easier to write code. Compiling C++ code to JVM is the worst of both worlds... writing complex C++ code for the speed of the JVM...

[Map in a box]

[QUOTE=Tamschi;48901953]I doubt there's a fully functional one, since afaik the JVM is pretty limited in terms of features.
It's of course possible to emulate all language features, but I don't think it would run reasonably fast.[/QUOTE]

GCC can do it

[DarKSunrise]

[QUOTE=Map in a box;48903223]GCC can do it[/QUOTE]

wtf why

[Map in a box]

[QUOTE=DarKSunrise;48903418]wtf why[/QUOTE]

i don't see what the big issue is, it can also do java to native code. seems more like overreactions from javahaters.
and I hate java.

[Karmah]

Today I've learned how to apply a few filtering techniques to shadows to reduce their aliasing and make them appear better.
I've implemented Percentage-closer filtering (PCF), Stratified Poisson filtering (SPF), and a combination of the two (SPPCF).

PCF had a noticeable effect, but didn't seem to do a great job at reducing the aliasing, rather everything just looked blurred (with a 3x3 kernel).
SPF does a really good job of masking the aliasing at the expense of visual noise. I think this one has the best trade off, as it can be made to mask the rough edges of really low resolution textures quite well (256x256 shadow maps could even be viable!)
SPPCF did work, however it didn't result in much of a change, and really killed performance.

In the image below, an example scene can be seen in 3 rendering conditions (raw/pcf/spf) while using 3 different size shadow maps (256/512/1024):
[t]http://i.imgur.com/4yuhH1u.png[/t]

And in the last image, an example of SPF using a little VS a lot of noise to mask shadow aliasing:
[t]http://i.imgur.com/6LLnux4.png[/t]

[Map in a box]

[QUOTE=Rocket;48903529]That's less javahaters and more C++ haters. I mean, why would you prefer to write for the JVM in a language that is worse than Java?[/QUOTE]

no language is worse than java except javascript and Go.

[WillKirkby]

So I sadly can't talk about exactly what I've been working on for this game (non-disclosure stuff yay), but have the trailer that we just showed off at NYCC: (am I allowed to post this?)

[video=youtube;mBvhzBh5BZI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBvhzBh5BZI[/video]

[Tommyx50]

[QUOTE=Rocket;48903822]Most of the problems with Java are due to the JVM or the standard library, and using C++ doesn't fix either of those. But Java's syntax is far superior to C++'s.[/QUOTE]

... what?

Have you ever even written C++?

In what ways is Java's syntax "far superior"?

[Map in a box]

[QUOTE=Rocket;48903822]Most of the problems with Java are due to the JVM or the standard library, and using C++ doesn't fix either of those. But Java's syntax is far superior to C++'s.[/QUOTE]

java is like a language from the 90s because its had very little language additions since then because ORACLE~~~~~~

[cartman300]

[QUOTE=Tommyx50;48904013]... what?

Have you ever even written C++?

In what ways is Java's syntax "far superior"?[/QUOTE]

Have you?

[img]http://i.imgur.com/RLCuLv5.png[/img]

[Enternode]

Who the fuck uses

for(; ; )

[marvincmarvin]

[QUOTE=TeamEnternode;48904105]Who the fuck uses

for(; ; )

[/QUOTE]

shorter than

while(true)

[Enternode]

Yeah, it's not it's syntax

It's almost everything else

[editline]14th October 2015[/editline]

[QUOTE=marvincmarvin;48904116]shorter than

while(true)

[/QUOTE]

That's breaking readability over a couple of letters but ok

[Dilbert]

[QUOTE=TeamEnternode;48904105]Who the fuck uses

for(; ; )

[/QUOTE]

I often see people omit a statement within a for loop, especially in C89.

void func ()
{
   int i = 0;

   for (; i < 10; i++)
   {

   }
}

[Map in a box]

[QUOTE=Rocket;48904108]Java's syntax is C#'s without a few fancy features. The syntax is not the issue with Java.

[editline]14th October 2015[/editline]

People who think they're clever.[/QUOTE]

Yes, the issue IS with the syntax. Its very old and dated. It has barely ANY fancy features.
Oracle's response on why they will never add operator overloading was the final straw with me and Java.
The issue is also with its performance, its GC is pretty terrible and you can't have any explicit control over it except triggering a GC event.
The company behind it is quite terrible, too, so good luck getting people to actually use your java application with all of the recent java scares.

[Asgard]

[QUOTE=cartman300;48904089]Have you?

[img]http://i.imgur.com/RLCuLv5.png[/img][/QUOTE]

That's fair and totally not biased. Great post!

[Enternode]

[QUOTE=elevate;48904130]I often see people omit a statement within a for loop, especially in C89.

void func ()
{
    int i = 0;
   ...
   for ( ; i < 10; i++)
   {
       ...
   }
}

[/QUOTE]

Yeah but if you omit all of them then what the fuck is the point in using it over a while loop?

while(true)

[Dilbert]

[QUOTE=TeamEnternode;48904149]Yeah but if you omit all of them then what the fuck is the point in using it over a while loop?

while(true)

[/QUOTE]

Code golf!

[Enternode]

[QUOTE=Map in a box;48904142]Yes, the issue IS with the syntax. Its very old and dated. It has barely ANY fancy features.
Oracle's response on why they will never add operator overloading was the final straw with me and Java.
The issue is also with its performance, its GC is pretty terrible and you can't have any explicit control over it except triggering a GC event.
The company behind it is quite terrible, too, so good luck getting people to actually use your java application with all of the recent java scares.[/QUOTE]

Java has a lot of stupid shit, and I'm only scraping the surface because I have little to no experience with it:

-No pointers. These "references" are stupid I want my goddamn pointers
-Why is the main function a member class I mean goddamn can you be any more of an OOP Nazi?
-I can only think of one major game that uses Java. And it has fucking blocks for graphics.
-Setting up any Java IDE is much more of a bitch than it needs to be.

[Enternode]

[QUOTE=Rocket;48904179]Sun (and now Oracle) won't add operator overloading for language design reasons, which has been the case for a while. That's not going to change. But the syntax is still being updated, and is still getting fancy features - not as many as C#, but there's still some.

These are not syntax.[/QUOTE]

Correct. He wasn't talking about Syntax in those sentences though. If you take your majicifying glass here and look at the beginning of the sentence:

[quote]The issue is also with its performance,[/quote]

[cartman300]

Personally i dislike the lack of unsigned types in java.