What are you working on? - Developers

[QUOTE=crazymonkay;49605485]Hey guys, So after 4 months of work, I have finally submitted my first game on Greenlight: [URL="http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=608460285"]http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=608460285[/URL] I know it does not have a lot of content by any stretch of the imagination, but my game design professor really pushed me to get it out in the open. If I had my way this game would never have seen the light of day for at least several years. Its probably better this way, really. This game was made solely by 2 programmers, neither of which are qualified artists by any means, which is the main reason content is so scarce. Anyways, I would greatly appreciate you guys leaving your honest opinions (and votes), and if you like it, please share![/QUOTE] I pressed all the good buttons, good luck!

[QUOTE=crazymonkay;49605485]Hey guys, So after 4 months of work, I have finally submitted my first game on Greenlight: [URL="http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=608460285"]http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=608460285[/URL] I know it does not have a lot of content by any stretch of the imagination, but my game design professor really pushed me to get it out in the open. If I had my way this game would never have seen the light of day for at least several years. Its probably better this way, really. This game was made solely by 2 programmers, neither of which are qualified artists by any means, which is the main reason content is so scarce. Anyways, I would greatly appreciate you guys leaving your honest opinions (and votes), and if you like it, please share![/QUOTE] I'd totally play this. Looks really fun!

[QUOTE=crazymonkay;49605485]Hey guys, So after 4 months of work, I have finally submitted my first game on Greenlight: [URL="http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=608460285"]http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=608460285[/URL] I know it does not have a lot of content by any stretch of the imagination, but my game design professor really pushed me to get it out in the open. If I had my way this game would never have seen the light of day for at least several years. Its probably better this way, really. This game was made solely by 2 programmers, neither of which are qualified artists by any means, which is the main reason content is so scarce. Anyways, I would greatly appreciate you guys leaving your honest opinions (and votes), and if you like it, please share![/QUOTE] Looks sweet, voted up.

I released an unfinished version of my Tower Defense Card Game with the ugliest UI ever. You can try it out here: [url]http://pixelhunter.itch.io/arcane-defense-prototype[/url] I doubt i am going to finish it because every time i try to add a new feature, there are 3 new bugs in the game. I have to learn how to plan ahead. Also i can't think of any new card ideas.

ignore the music, i just picked a random aphex twin track. [video]https://youtu.be/y5POZmbPsy4[/video] finished the dialog/cutscene system! it's pretty straightforward. players press spacebar, dialog goes forward. first of all, what do you guys think of the dialog? is it acceptable? does it suck? I want your honest opinions. i wrote the dialog myself and i am not sure whether its good or not because im biased. help me improve my game. now, time to add a combat system to the game. The player will not have Health Points like most games: instead, you'll have PING. The higher your ping gets, the more and more input lag you'll experience. If you exceed 500ms, you are disconnected (you die.)

[QUOTE=Tamschi;49595421]I'll try to put this nicely: This video is basically FemFreq for programming and I wouldn't have expected you of all people to fall for this empty garbage. (I watched it all.) Apart from some blatantly dishonest rhetoric (e.g. preemptively dismissing criticism), what Will is presenting here is a [I]superficially[/I] appealing and [I]internally[/I] consistent idea that has barely any grounding due to the sheer number of assumptions he makes. To me it seems he started with his conclusion and then built arguments to support it, which [I]sometimes[/I] is fine (e.g. in lawyering and certain political systems) but in science, economy and general advisory is fundamentally dishonest. He even redefines OOP and misrepresents the status quo to make it look worse than it really is. There are [I]many[/I] instances where he bases assertions about a general case on observation of a special one. In the end, what Will presents is a perhaps interesting [I]philosophy[/I] based on his opinion, but due to the video's fallacious nature it's just another fashionable guideline exactly like the ones he spends most of the video complaining about. All that said, I didn't rate your post dumb because I disagree with you or purely because the video is so bad, but because you're reposting an opinion presented as fact without adding any qualifiers. It's a completely useless argument and I'm glad to see most people here aren't falling for it (if maybe sometimes for the wrong reasons). (If this looks harsh it's because I'm passionate about intellectual honesty. Bad or misleading advice is something that needs to be stopped in its tracks as quickly as possible, as far as that's even possible at all.)[/QUOTE] I think you misunderstood what he said. [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM1iUe6IofM#t=18m10s[/url] This is where what he's actually saying starts. He starts with the original definition of what OOP was and then explains on top of that definition. That definition is different from what people actually do but not really. What people end up doing is even worse than his definition. What he's doing is taking the best way he can present this idea and explaining why it's bad. The status quo and what people actually do is worse than this and leads to exactly the same (and even worse) problems. So in essence he's actually doing something that very few people do, which is assume the best of someone else's argument (in this case assuming the best of OOP) and then arguing against that best form. I don't see how I can respond to you more though because you didn't present any actual concrete examples of what he said that was wrong, so I can't explain to you why I think he isn't wrong.

horse thing [img]http://i.imgur.com/WAm9IA9.gif[/img]

[QUOTE=Fourier;49605189]Yeah dude post it now![/QUOTE] Okay well now is going to be several hours because I was at my sister campus for a class, then got back and instead of using pilfered code I'm building my own new code, using symplectic algorithms since I am time stepping in minutes for a three body system (earth, moon, rocket) and everything VERY quickly went to shit lol. Need some sort of stability and using euler approximations results in inaccurate approximation, causing the moon to orbit in a very obvious ellipse (not the right way either). This is fun math. I like this math. Now if only this what I had been doing last year :v [editline]25th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Darwin226;49605303]I forgot to say this on your last post but don't feel to pressured to learn OOP. You seem to be more interested in scientific applications of programming and those rarely consist of architecturally complex systems. I seriously doubt you'll find someone dumping an OOP heavy project on you in that field of study.[/QUOTE] Sorta what I had figured. I'm learning python veryyyy slowly since Anaconda seems nice. And Matlab is irritating me now, simulink is great but that's about it and I haven't done systems integration or testing on any electrical systems in a while anyways Edit: what sort of maths did you focus on or most enjoy in your schooling?

[QUOTE=crazymonkay;49605485]Hey guys, So after 4 months of work, I have finally submitted my first game on Greenlight: [URL]http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=608460285[/URL] I know it does not have a lot of content by any stretch of the imagination, but my game design professor really pushed me to get it out in the open. If I had my way this game would never have seen the light of day for at least several years. Its probably better this way, really. This game was made solely by 2 programmers, neither of which are qualified artists by any means, which is the main reason content is so scarce. Anyways, I would greatly appreciate you guys leaving your honest opinions (and votes), and if you like it, please share![/QUOTE] To be blunt: because you talked the game down almost didn't even click the link. It looks great and you shouldn't be talking badly about it. Promote with the same effort you obviously put into building it! [B]EDIT [/B] [QUOTE=PixelHunter;49606620]I released an unfinished version of my Tower Defense Card Game with the ugliest UI ever. You can try it out here: [URL]http://pixelhunter.itch.io/arcane-defense-prototype[/URL] I doubt i am going to finish it because every time i try to add a new feature, there are 3 new bugs in the game. I have to learn how to plan ahead. Also i can't think of any new card ideas.[/QUOTE] You too? Guys, believe in yourselves! That is not bad work.

So I've been jumping around a lot lately with my game. And I think I finally got something that I can continue with. Basically I figured out that for the type of game I want to create "Frost" a low poly look just won't work, I've tried it, and it doesn't quite look right in first person. So then I went to a more realistic approach, which I think I'll go with. The problem then is, I want to get a game out that's playable, and it's an absolute chore to try and balance decent artwork alongside the game itself. So for now, I'm gonna say, "fuck it" and just use some Valve assets, along with my own, until I have a working game. Then I'll get to replacing the art with my own. Expect some cool screenshots and h'wat not soon.

-snip-

Oh god help the math goes deeper I'm following a trail of breadcrumbs in arxiv.org looking for the perfect integrator Verlet is great but we must go deeper. Also parallellas are really good at this sort of vectorized math and I REALLY want one now even though I can hardly justify it. [editline]25th January 2016[/editline] Since verlet, the way I want to use it, conserves angular momentum I wonder if I could simulate a protoplanetary disk

[QUOTE=adnzzzzZ;49606738]I think you misunderstood what he said. [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM1iUe6IofM#t=18m10s[/url] This is where what he's actually saying starts. He starts with the original definition of what OOP was and then explains on top of that definition. That definition is different from what people actually do but not really. What people end up doing is even worse than his definition. What he's doing is taking the best way he can present this idea and explaining why it's bad. The status quo and what people actually do is worse than this and leads to exactly the same (and even worse) problems. So in essence he's actually doing something that very few people do, which is assume the best of someone else's argument (in this case assuming the best of OOP) and then arguing against that best form. I don't see how I can respond to you more though because you didn't present any actual concrete examples of what he said that was wrong, so I can't explain to you why I think he isn't wrong.[/QUOTE] He really cherry-picked only the worst ones. I'm not sure how familiar you're with C# for example, but if you look at how that's usually written you can see it normally doesn't have any of the problems he mentions even while staying (very) distinctly OOP. If you do any modern OOP at all it should be somewhat obvious that almost every conclusion he makes is based on ignoring at least one better alternative that already exists in OOP environments right now (and usually has for a few years). For example, he completely ignores that component-style modules are a thing and likely have existed for at least a decade, which examining [I]only[/I] middleware-style modules and then directly concluding from there to "OOP is messy and you can't interlink structures in an organised manner", which is utterly untrue. (It's actually just as comfortable as in procedural programming.) Quite a few of the assertions he makes are very subjective like the "subject verb object" structure he says is arbitrary. In reality it has a [I]huge[/I] comfort advantage by giving you contextual documentation for the data you have or need (or in the case of constructors want to create, but that's a slightly different matter he doesn't explicitly mention) across multiple levels. I think the main issue may be that he assumes bad programming standards in OOP but completely ignores that for procedural and functional environments. I'm pretty sure that at this point I have enough experience with each to say with certainty you'll find it everywhere antiproportionally to how easy it is to write good code, which has barely anything to do with the paradigm you use and much more with how standardised an environment is. I'm going to do some cherry-picking here, but it should be enough to show that procedural programming inherently isn't any better than OOP: - C#/CLR is a very standardised programming environment and has very clean documentation, so most code you see that's not by a total beginner is at least decent. The same goes for most languages targeting that platform like F# (which has worse documentation but is a lot stricter and still has a prominent standard). - C++ is mostly OOP, but there are hardly standards in the environment so it can be a mess to even get a program to compile. - Pascal is completely procedural. Its only saving grace is that it's ancient and runs on pretty much everything, since its version of the paradigm moves the function header so far away from the body that it's [I]messy by default[/I] even ignoring all the antiquated anti-features it has in its reference version. - If you look at Haskell as example of a strictly functional language you have a very strict while flexible and (imo) well-documented language, but there's no real standard so it can be hard to read programs from other developers. Another matter is that in many scenarios (in my case >90% since I focus on application-, component- and middleware-programming and games themselves only to a lesser extent), even medium-small pieces of code are called from many different places, which is something the video glosses over completely. OOP(-ish) systems make this extremely easy since they make actions contextual, which means you can very easily implement the same intent in different ways without explicit branching in your code. From experience I can say that the functional or procedural equivalent of that is usually a huge mess unless a developer opts to emulate OOP through namespaces, and even then it's very rigid for example in Haskell ([editline]edit[/editline] as long as you don't go more or less OOP again, since that language is technically multi-paradigm with some bootstrapping). JS is an example of an application programming language that is very GUI-interaction heavy and is gaining more OOP features over time to make that less of a chore. It's normally classed as object-oriented, I think because that's how the DOM works (for good reason), but the language itself really started out more on the procedural side of things and used only prototypes instead of class types (which were added in ECMAScript 6 as syntactic sugar). Even when I make games it really depends on what exactly it is. My current project is very GUI and data heavy, and has many different behaviours with the same outward intent, so it makes no sense at all to not take advantage of somewhat heavy OOP for that. (An example of that is the rewind feature I use: I can without explicit branching select the data I need to store for each object and can also very easily add new ones without modifying existing code. The result of that (and a bit of deduplication optimised via OOP) is that I can store more than a day of execution at default speed without running out of memory. There are [I]many[/I] different data types involved, so if I used e.g. Haskell or default F# for this it would be incredibly ugly. I also use (light) OOP to handle those records because the syntax is much shorter that way if I want to be able to hold onto more than one set of them at a time. The main loop for the game and drawing effects and such is currently mostly procedural.* (Drawing entities is OOP, since they're all different and I'd have to reimplement vtables otherwise.) I'll switch (most of) it over to OOP later because it's somewhat important I can run multiple instances of it and the code isn't used on any other kind of data. *I use OpenTK, so technically the framework uses OOP to call my update and render methods, but beyond that the class just holds onto some collections and iterates through them to be updated. Eventually it will hold onto a single object and call into [I]that[/I] though, since that way it's easier to cleanly switch levels and there's another path that has to make the same calls with the same intent and functionality. (I ended up with three different points in this post and didn't edit it much to make it more concise, so hopefully the formatting makes it easy enough to follow.)

-snip- just read the thread name and thought i would put what i was working on :/ sorry

[QUOTE=derpybone;49608722][img]http://imgur.com/nN3w8M6[/img] since i got mostly positive reception (the 1000 of you that watched it) from my "Facepunch Ascends" video, i thought i would put this on. i am doing one on trump, i haven't posted an ascension video in awhile so if anyone from the "Need help with a few models" thread was wondering what i was up to, here you go if for some reason the picture is not showing up, here is a link [url]http://imgur.com/nN3w8M6[/url][/QUOTE] This... doesn't look like programming afaict.

i have no experience or knowledge in programming or coding and this is what i've done so far [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHnLY6p37QM[/media] i had the professional version of gamemaker studio from a promotional deal a year or 2 ago, and i only recently started learning it. i started off with a simple movement and shooting system as seen in this video [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c40ack51ZKg[/media] then i dropped it for about 4 months and picked it back up when i stopped being lazy and ended up with this [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIcmKT9wv_4[/media] and after a week or 2 of doing nothing i picked it back up for another 1-2 hour session of learning and ended up with what is in the first video. i have a general idea on what type of game i'm making, and no i don't have any talent in art stuff or sound effects stuff. i should probably post this in the gamemaker thread as well

I have a question. Will DirectX 9 be obsolete anytime soon? (By 'obsolete', I mean 'unable to run on current computers')

[QUOTE=hakimhakim;49609169]I have a question. Will DirectX 9 be obsolete anytime soon? (By 'obsolete', I mean 'unable to run on current computers')[/QUOTE] This would mean all old games won't work, so I'm pretty sure it won't happen in the next years

[QUOTE=paindoc;49607878]Oh god help the math goes deeper I'm following a trail of breadcrumbs in arxiv.org looking for the perfect integrator Verlet is great but we must go deeper. Also parallellas are really good at this sort of vectorized math and I REALLY want one now even though I can hardly justify it. [editline]25th January 2016[/editline] Since verlet, the way I want to use it, conserves angular momentum I wonder if I could simulate a protoplanetary disk[/QUOTE] Verlet is fairly basic, used a lot in cloth simulations etc due to it's stability. If you're wanting to simulate things on a planetary scale, though, more often than not RK4 is your best best.

[QUOTE=Silentfood;49600996]Wouldn't it be more appropriate to typedef that? I mean auto is great, but if someone comes along and reads your code you'll have to make verbose variable names or comment about what your datatype actually is.[/QUOTE] Ordinarily you'd be right (and I kinda do), but that type up there (henceforth referred to as The Beast), is not actually used as a variable, per se. It's a type corresponding to a pattern, kinda like "(a|b)*" is. One of the most basic components matches an exact sequence of chars, and looks roughly like this: [cpp]exact<'H','e','l','l','o'>[/cpp] Just as Regex has (x) to select a piece of a matching string to return, Pattern has this: [cpp]select<Expr>[/cpp] Together with: [cpp] zero_or_more_of<Expr> one_or_more_of<Expr> sequence<Expr...> [/cpp] And: [cpp]lambda<typename Eval, Eval T>[/cpp] You can start making some pretty neat compound types, like this one: [cpp] using mypattern = sequence< select< exact<'H','e','l','l','o'> >, zero_or_more_of< lambda<int(*)(int), isspace> >, select< one_or_more_of<lambda<int(*)(int), isalpha> > >; [/cpp] Which will match any string in the form "Hello\w*[a-zAZ]+" (roughly, my regex is a little rusty), and return an std::tuple<std::string, std::string>, the first one obviously being "Hello", and the second one being whatever string comes after. So the type up there isn't an actual type that I use repeatedly, it's a pattern that is defined in a single place.

[QUOTE=Dr Magnusson;49609666]Ordinarily you'd be right (and I kinda do), but that type up there (henceforth referred to as The Beast), is not actually used as a variable, per se. It's a type corresponding to a pattern, kinda like "(a|b)*" is. One of the most basic components matches an exact sequence of chars, and looks roughly like this: Just as Regex has (x) to select a piece of a matching string to return, Pattern has this: Together with: And: You can start making some pretty neat compound types, like this one: Which will match any string in the form "Hello\w*[a-zAZ]+" (roughly, my regex is a little rusty), and return an std::tuple<std::string, std::string>, the first one obviously being "Hello", and the second one being whatever string comes after. So the type up there isn't an actual type that I use repeatedly, it's a pattern that is defined in a single place.[/QUOTE] Having done a similar thing in the past (but with JavaScript functions instead of regex) I'd like to ask, do you find a benefit to keeping all this information at the type level? I'm assuming (since you said you can use auto) that this type can be inferred from some value level constructs. Do you find it useful to keep the whole thing in the type, as opposed to just the "result" type of each subexpression? [editline]26th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=paindoc;49607281]Edit: what sort of maths did you focus on or most enjoy in your schooling?[/QUOTE] Mostly the discrete and abstract stuff. Basically, as far away from numbers as possible. Set theory, group theory. That sort of thing. That being said, I'm not really proud of my grasp on those subjects.

[QUOTE=Darwin226;49609783]Having done a similar thing in the past (but with JavaScript functions instead of regex) I'd like to ask, do you find a benefit to keeping all this information at the type level? I'm assuming (since you said you can use auto) that this type can be inferred from some value level constructs. Do you find it useful to keep the whole thing in the type, as opposed to just the "result" type of each subexpression? [editline]26th January 2016[/editline] Mostly the discrete and abstract stuff. Basically, as far away from numbers as possible. Set theory, group theory. That sort of thing. That being said, I'm not really proud of my grasp on those subjects.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I do, but mostly for performance reasons. My old system was all managed in the runtime and it opened uå a lot of possibilities, like using complex types, which was also the original goal. The problem was that my old system returned only iterator pairs as results. Since every pattern had to hold a variable number of these they all had vectors for this. In big patterns with lots of "misses" this would result in hundreds or thousands of vector allocations/deallocations, and when I profiled my code, was the biggest performance killer (std::function dereference was a close second). By defining the pattern at the type level, like in the example above, I already know all possible outcomes of the pattern, and can store the whole result in a tuple, meaning I never havr to allocate heap memory. Another benefit is that since the construction of the pattern type is done at compile time, the compiler has a chance to inline a lot of the code, something it cant really do with runtime non-const std::functions. That being said, there are quite a few drawbacks, like having to define literal strings as individual characters in the exact <> type.

[QUOTE=Tommyx50;49609454]Verlet is fairly basic, used a lot in cloth simulations etc due to it's stability. If you're wanting to simulate things on a planetary scale, though, more often than not RK4 is your best best.[/QUOTE] Not exactly, Verlet perfectly conserves angular momentum and generally conserves energies. Its best for usage when the only force on an object is due to a potential field, i.e gravity. Runge-Kutta develops exponential instabilities if the error bounds aren't set just right, and as far as I can tell Verlet is my best bet (instability develops linearly). I've found a number of modified guassian algorithms as well, including the one the AF uses (+NORAD), and found a highly improved verlet algorithm that is 3 orders of magnitude more accurate (but has 4 physics calls per iteration, so it is slower). I think Verlet stuff, heavily modified, is what is used in plasmas too. Mostly due to the fact that magnetohydrodynamics is all about fluids being moved by potential fields (magnetic fields). also. FUCKING. FINALLY. [t]http://i.imgur.com/SCHzY6g.png[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/kMnoDTV.png[/t] Currently using a stiff ODE but even that breaks less than halfway into my iteration process- I'm trying to convert to verlet now, but this at least has gotten my graphs working and I've now define a custom function that holds all the variables for whatever integrator I choose.

Finally beginning to put together some test environments (i.e. a massive building filled with examples of every gameplay mechanic). And, of course, the most important props come first. [img]http://i.imgur.com/zjcdNJY.png[/img]

[QUOTE=paindoc;49607878]Oh god help the math goes deeper I'm following a trail of breadcrumbs in arxiv.org looking for the perfect integrator Verlet is great but we must go deeper. Also parallellas are really good at this sort of vectorized math and I REALLY want one now even though I can hardly justify it. [editline]25th January 2016[/editline] Since verlet, the way I want to use it, conserves angular momentum I wonder if I could simulate a protoplanetary disk[/QUOTE] I used Verlet in one of my games. It was great. [editline]26th January 2016[/editline] I solved dead lock (locking two keys in one table at once). All I needed to do was sort the order in which I lock the keys, so that it's always in same order.

[video=youtube;BiCBbtsTNJg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiCBbtsTNJg[/video] New trailer with some new music.

-wait nvm- [URL]http://82.199.155.77:21400/[/URL] threejs 3d game I make when I'm bored Edit: So my server isn't responding for some reason and the only thing it sends is this: [QUOTE][/QUOTE] and I don't even have that on my server... :v

[QUOTE=AngryChairR;49610551]-wait nvm- [URL]http://82.199.155.77:21400/[/URL] threejs 3d game I make when I'm bored Edit: So my server isn't responding for some reason and the only thing it sends is this: and I don't even have that on my server... :v[/QUOTE] I'm guessing this isn't your server's response and that you're instead looking at the page Chrome generates when there's no internet connection.

A dinosaur 2d game sprite sheet is definitely not a chrome page.

[QUOTE=AngryChairR;49610641]A dinosaur 2d game sprite sheet is definitely not a chrome page.[/QUOTE] It actually is, Chrome has an endless runner with a dinosaur when it can't connect. [img]http://i.imgur.com/UvMDnh0.png[/img]