• What are you working on? May 2012
    2,222 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Lexic;36038206][url=https://github.com/Metapyziks/SA-World-Viewer/blob/master/GTAMapViewer/Graphics/ShaderProgram.cs#L286]GTAMapViewer/Graphics/ShaderProgram.cs[/url]?[/QUOTE] I never use ShaderProgram.Begin() and ShaderProgram.End(), just ShaderProgram.StartBatch() and ShaderProgram.EndBatch(). Begin and End are mostly for debugging so I can draw vertex data without a VBO. [editline]21st May 2012[/editline] The program spends 0.9 seconds loading models and 115 seconds loading textures. I think I can spot where I can optimise.
[QUOTE=Lexic;36038206][url=https://github.com/Metapyziks/SA-World-Viewer/blob/master/GTAMapViewer/Graphics/ShaderProgram.cs#L286]GTAMapViewer/Graphics/ShaderProgram.cs[/url]?[/QUOTE] It's not used anywhere.
Ah. Sorry for the misunderstanding. As I said, the structure is kind of hard to follow when just looking at the repo.
[QUOTE=Ziks;36038236]The program spends 0.9 seconds loading models and 115 seconds loading textures. I think I can spot where I can optimise.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.opengl.org/registry/specs/EXT/texture_compression_s3tc.txt[/url]
[QUOTE=Philly c;36038543][url]http://www.opengl.org/registry/specs/EXT/texture_compression_s3tc.txt[/url][/QUOTE] Yeah, when I take out my own texture decompression it takes 4 seconds. I'll try offloading the work to OpenGL like you suggest. [editline]21st May 2012[/editline] [img]http://puu.sh/vWvP[/img] Mirrors edge mode
[QUOTE=Philly c;36038543][url]http://www.opengl.org/registry/specs/EXT/texture_compression_s3tc.txt[/url][/QUOTE] I wonder how many other specs there are referencing things from DirectX.
[QUOTE=swift and shift;36037765]Any reason you moved off github for cucumber?[/QUOTE] I just moved my development branches off there, as at that stage I mostly use a remote to be able ot share the code between many machines, and not as a publishing / collaboration mechanism. I will continue to push major updates to github, just not as often.
Garry, if you read this, could we have a GitHub account link added to user profiles on facepunch (like steam account, deviant art, xbl etc)? [editline]21st May 2012[/editline] I mean if something as small and obscure as Google+ has one, you may as well add GitHub
Why not BitBucket as well?
[QUOTE=Lexic;36037044]No offense to Ziks, but I had a look at his code and I really wouldn't if I were you. Usual suggestions: [url=http://www.opengl-tutorial.org/]one[/url] [url=http://arcsynthesis.org/gltut/]two[/url] [url=http://ogldev.atspace.co.uk/index.html]three[/url] [url=http://openglbook.com/]four?[/url][/QUOTE] What do you mean by that? :saddowns: [editline]21st May 2012[/editline] GitHub, BitBucket, and maybe google code.
Could someone give a few convincing arguments why I should use a version control? I have used git before (which was a pain in the ass mostly) and Hg (which was more pleasant) but I can't say I see the benefits. Yes I could potentially lose code but all the important stuff is on dropbox (requires no effort on my part). Also, I was never in a situation where I desperately needed to salvage code I deleted. It just doesn't happen, and if I actually need something I deleted I know I did it with a reason and write a new, better version. Is there something obvious that I'm missing? Because right now it only seems like one extra thing to keep in mind (committing and pushing) and extra work to do. Maybe I just haven't worked on a large group project before but I could definitely see how that could be done without too much trouble without Git, SVN or Hg
[QUOTE=Jookia;36037328]Your game is reminiscent of [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwMOsDrbfd4]Thunder Brigade[/url].[/QUOTE] I thought of Fury3 when I first saw his screens. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_8tSpXLuK8[/url]
[QUOTE=Darwin226;36039477]Maybe I just haven't worked on a large group project before[/QUOTE] Yes. Being able to work independantely on a large code base with multiple people involved at the same time, without having to resort to sending out emails telling people to not touch stuff is hell without a (D)VCS. A (D)VCS lets you manage development branches more easily, lets you quickly revert changes, merge different versions effortlessly, maintain multiple versions and releases at once while letting you quickly move code commits between them...
[QUOTE=Darwin226;36039477]Could someone give a few convincing arguments why I should use a version control? I have used git before (which was a pain in the ass mostly) and Hg (which was more pleasant) but I can't say I see the benefits. Yes I could potentially lose code but all the important stuff is on dropbox (requires no effort on my part). Also, I was never in a situation where I desperately needed to salvage code I deleted. It just doesn't happen, and if I actually need something I deleted I know I did it with a reason and write a new, better version. Is there something obvious that I'm missing? Because right now it only seems like one extra thing to keep in mind (committing and pushing) and extra work to do. Maybe I just haven't worked on a large group project before but I could definitely see how that could be done without too much trouble without Git, SVN or Hg[/QUOTE] Branches. Being able to find out when a bug was introduced between commits. Teamwork. Revision control. Backups. As for not losing code, I hope you have a great backup strategy.
[QUOTE=Darwin226;36039477] Maybe I just haven't worked on a large group project before but I could definitely see how that could be done without too much trouble without Git, SVN or Hg[/QUOTE] You don't even need a large team to see the benefits of a version control system. I've been using Git for small team projects (~3 people on a school project for example) and it's very nice to be able to play with the code in a separate branch so you don't break anything in the process, merging the branch back if your experiments work. It also helps prevent people from overwriting each others' code because version control software is smarter than a blind copy-and-replace.
So far, none of those are really sticking to me. Branches? Revision? Meh... If I'm not working with other people the most convincing reason to use VCS would be to feel more professional TBH.
[QUOTE=Darwin226;36040107]So far, none of those are really sticking to me. Branches? Revision? Meh... If I'm not working with other people the most convincing reason to use VCS would be to feel more professional TBH.[/QUOTE] Have you never had a moment where you wanted to implement something new, but it would require rewriting a bunch of stuff? Because that's the kind of moment where a version control system really comes in handy: to roll back.
A better question would be: why would you [B]not[/B] use source control? It's not like it's difficult to set up or has any disadvantages.
[QUOTE=Overv;36040118]Have you never had a moment where you wanted to implement something new, but it would require rewriting a bunch of stuff? Because that's the kind of moment where a version control system really comes in handy: to roll back.[/QUOTE] Nope. When I want to implement something new. I implement something new. If I need to rewrite, I rewrite. None of these things really bother me. [editline]21st May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=BlkDucky;36040120]A better question would be: why would you [B]not[/B] use source control? It's not like it's difficult to set up or has any disadvantages.[/QUOTE] Because Git is incredibly confusing for me and I need a GUI to actually use it (because fuck terminals). And even with a GUI it IS complicated to setup and requires me to do regular commits which are a bother.
[QUOTE=Darwin226;36040151]Nope. When I want to implement something new. I implement something new. If I need to rewrite, I rewrite. None of these things really bother me. [/QUOTE] Put it this way, you create some algorithm that does the job you wanted but its slow or something so you want to try something else. You can commit it and then test out other stuff, if the other stuff works then you can comit the new stuff. f it doesnt then you just revert to the working algorithm. [QUOTE=Darwin226;36040151] Because Git is incredibly confusing for me and I need a GUI to actually use it (because fuck terminals). And even with a GUI it IS complicated to setup and requires me to do regular commits which are a bother.[/QUOTE] If anything a GUI makes git much harder to use, honestly using git via the command promt/terminal is way easy. you simpley [B]git add -A[/B] and then [B]git commit -m "[I]Some message[/I]"[/B]
[QUOTE=Darwin226;36040151]Nope. When I want to implement something new. I implement something new. If I need to rewrite, I rewrite. None of these things really bother me. [editline]21st May 2012[/editline] Because Git is incredibly confusing for me and I need a GUI to actually use it (because fuck terminals). And even with a GUI it IS complicated to setup and requires me to do regular commits which are a bother.[/QUOTE] I use SVN because I'm an idiot, but the "GUI way" is literally: right click -> commit -> type commit notes -> okay.
[QUOTE=Darwin226;36040151]Because Git is incredibly confusing for me and I need a GUI to actually use it (because fuck terminals). And even with a GUI it IS complicated to setup and requires me to do regular commits which are a bother.[/QUOTE] I've never had any luck with Git GUIs. The command line is incredibly simple as Richy19 pointed out. Personally I prefer SVN, myself, and SVN GUIs have always been more cooperative and straight forward for me. I don't use version control for branches, mostly just for going back if I fuck something up, and of course for working on collaborative projects. I only use Git for open source projects because of how nice Github is. The only disadvantage to using version control is the time it takes to setup (which for git can be a bit of a hassle sometimes if you're new to it) and having to do regular commits. Once it's setup it becomes second nature to commit after adding something big, or once you're done programming for a while. ... plus when the time comes where you need to use version control you'll be familiar with it.
[QUOTE=Darwin226;36039477]Could someone give a few convincing arguments why I should use a version control? I have used git before (which was a pain in the ass mostly) and Hg (which was more pleasant) but I can't say I see the benefits. Yes I could potentially lose code but all the important stuff is on dropbox (requires no effort on my part). Also, I was never in a situation where I desperately needed to salvage code I deleted. It just doesn't happen, and if I actually need something I deleted I know I did it with a reason and write a new, better version. Is there something obvious that I'm missing? Because right now it only seems like one extra thing to keep in mind (committing and pushing) and extra work to do. Maybe I just haven't worked on a large group project before but I could definitely see how that could be done without too much trouble without Git, SVN or Hg[/QUOTE] If you actually release anything, then version control is necessary. As soon as you release a version, you'll want to tag that commit as version 1.0.0 or something. This means that you can patch an important security bug even while you're halfway through writing version 2.0.0. Some kind of versioning system will also most likely form a integral part of any testing/deployment procedures.
You could go the Project Zomboid way and not use VCS.
[QUOTE=Dotmister;36040384]If you actually release anything, then version control is necessary. As soon as you release a version, you'll want to tag that commit as version 1.0.0 or something. This means that you can patch an important security bug even while you're halfway through writing version 2.0.0. Some kind of versioning system will also most likely form a integral part of any testing/deployment procedures.[/QUOTE] Never thought about that. Thanks. As for others, here's a counter question: Have you never closed the IDE, being done with coding for today, and gone to commit, and then realize that you have no idea what to put as a commit message? It's a minor thing but it bothers me so damn much. If I had something that would do it for me it would be another story. [editline]21st May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Jookia;36040401]You could go the Project Zomboid way and not use VCS.[/QUOTE] I thought they did use one. Just not on a remote depo.
[QUOTE=Darwin226;36040635]Never thought about that. Thanks. As for others, here's a counter question: Have you never closed the IDE, being done with coding for today, and gone to commit, and then realize that you have no idea what to put as a commit message? It's a minor thing but it bothers me so damn much. If I had something that would do it for me it would be another story.[/QUOTE] Usually i would just call it security commit -date-
[QUOTE=Darwin226;36040635]As for others, here's a counter question: Have you never closed the IDE, being done with coding for today, and gone to commit, and then realize that you have no idea what to put as a commit message?[/QUOTE] "Changed stuff," "misc changes", "added math and stuff," take your pick :v:
[QUOTE=Darwin226;36040635]Never thought about that. Thanks. As for others, here's a counter question: Have you never closed the IDE, being done with coding for today, and gone to commit, and then realize that you have no idea what to put as a commit message? It's a minor thing but it bothers me so damn much. If I had something that would do it for me it would be another story.[/QUOTE] Generally commits should be per-feature not per-fixed time interval. You shouldn't commit at the end of the day unless you've fixed a bug or completed a feature or something similar. Since you'll commit when you finish a certain feature or part of the program you won't have this problem.
[QUOTE=jalb;36040338]The only disadvantage to using version control is the time it takes to setup (which for git can be a bit of a hassle sometimes if you're new to it) and having to do regular commits. Once it's setup it becomes second nature to commit after adding something big, or once you're done programming for a while.[/QUOTE] Personally, I don't think there was ever a time that I found git to be hard/long to set up. You just head into your folder, open up a bash terminal, type in "git init", and you've set up a repository. From them you can track changes fairly easily, or even push it to a remote location if desired. [url=http://msysgit.github.com/]msysgit[/url]'s gui is also [url=http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/1261/20120521102155.png]pretty easy to use[/url], and I use it interchangeably with the terminal on windows. I also have [url=http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/1382/20120521103404.png]git extensions installed within visual studio[/url] for when i'm developing on windows, so I can easily commit something whenever I make a minor change. Personally, i'm very picky about how I develop something. If something is using Cmake, I will convert the project by hand over to premake simply because I prefer that far more. Hell, I sometimes even convert SVN repositories into local git repositories simply because I don't like SVN. I have found what works for me as a developer, and I'm always looking for ways to do everything more efficiently. Even though i'm pretty much always working alone on all of my projects I still do all of this because it's what I feel most comfortable doing. When I do work with someone else I will still use whatever source management system they want me to, but i'll still maintain a separate git repository on my machine simply because it's so easy to set up. [QUOTE=Darwin226;36040635]As for others, here's a counter question: Have you never closed the IDE, being done with coding for today, and gone to commit, and then realize that you have no idea what to put as a commit message?[/QUOTE] Some of my commit messages are simply "I changed some things and fixed some stuff, mostly in 'audio.h'". Just say what you worked on, or possibly, why you worked on it. "I changed these files to use a different algorithm because I believe it is faster this way"
[QUOTE=Darwin226;36040635]As for others, here's a counter question: Have you never closed the IDE, being done with coding for today, and gone to commit, and then realize that you have no idea what to put as a commit message?[/quote] One part of the philosophy of using Git is 'commit early, commit often'. So don't commit per coding session, but per feature implemented or bug fixed, or even parts of that (depends on the size of the feature implemented or bug fixed). Another added bonus is that small code diffs will mean a higher chance of Git doing an automerge if some day you want to merge two branches together. [url=http://databasically.com/2011/03/14/git-commit-early-commit-often/]Additional reading[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.