I would not try to protect from piracy.
Just embrace it and make it do your marketing.


 

feels sexy.

I imagine the pounding trance music for now.

I remember trying that with c64 tapes.

 

Hello all you guys !

welcome to the forums !
glad you found us.

I have to agree with Blambo.

you are still not looking very much. you're getting better at drawing lines though.
It's brilliant to goto switzerland for holiday, but don't wait until then to start opening your eyes.

just get some simple object; book, pot, pencil, and perhabs something harder like a thrown sweater or something . and just draw it.

don't draw what you know is there, just draw what you see.
don't concentrate on the outlines specifially but draw the volumes that are in front of you.


and also don't look for 'great view' and pretty babes on the internet.
just draw what is in front of you at this moment in time.
it's much better then those cliches.

have fun!

don't forget blitzmax, I think there is still a reasonable % in this forum that delivers games written in bmax.

and it's great and easy to pick up.
I love it

... I'd still prefer to get a 3.x tutorials so I don't have to port...

read this http://wiki.python.org/moin/Python2orPython3
in short: "Python 2.x is the status quo, Python 3.x is the present and future "


O and don't forget gamemaker, probably the *best* programming language for gaems!


but then again, the thing you are most comfortable in is probably the best. just try out some stuff. come back. learn. repeat, try some more. repeat x10 . repeat * X decades.

just use python 2.x then

You don't need the latest bleeding edge versions at all for learning purposes.
Most useful docs/ tutorials/ frameworks/ engines/ tools etc etc are all written in python 2.x
slowly some of them are getting ported to 3.x.
but don't worry about it, it's not as if its broken and 3.x is fixing it (probably it's the other way around in some cases)

[DOONNTT]

whoopsiedaisy

Learn Python the hard way

exercise 0 is the setup (in Windows/Mac/Linux),
and from then on you do exactly what Zed Shaw (the author of that book) wants you to do.

in a few weeks you will be a well-informed beginner and have a good idea how to program some stuff, you will also have made a few small games and a little web-app thingie.

don't cheat it. do all exercises .
and don't, DON"T DOONNTT copy paste, you will mess with your own brain, your muscle memory needs the typing of brackets and colons.
And your normal brain needs to learn how to fix bugs and your typos.


have fun!

now do the same picture but instead of concentrating on  the outline concentrate on light/dark .

you could also try and use some charcoal for that experiment.
or a soft pencil (2b and softer)

If you need some positive feedback : Yes the outline seems much better then a few pages ago! congrats on that.

I found toolmaking very non-productive but fun.
The problem I have with my own tools and using them is that at every moment I think mmmhhh, yes, ... perhabs I could add X.   

then I decide "No more side quests, just use this tool already! " which works for a few hours, then I suddenly find myself deep in the source code adding feature Y.


where if I use a tool made by someone else.
I never have those urges.
And just get on with it and finish stuff.

you use static for a class to disallow instancing that class.

so you can do

Code:

static class Graphics
{
  static void DrawRectangle(int x, int y, int width, int height)
  {
  // draw rectangle
  }
}

and then you use that to do

Code:

Graphics.DrawRectangle();

but if you (or some other user of your code)
would try to do

Code:

Graphics g = new Graphics();

you would get an error.



so in short
it's to make the usage of a class more clear, and static methods are for operations that don't need an instance.
And I personally see them the most in framework code
like calling OpenGl function.

but perhaps Microsoft can explain it better..

[overworld map]

Finally decided to program a procedurally generated 3D voxel based overworld map for my 2D platformer world

The building voxels look terrible though (The grey things with lue specs are supposedto represent buildings)

ooh i like how that bird eye is 3d very subtle

not code organization in the sense of design patterns / class structure / file structure.

but I found it pays of well if you always think carefully about your variable/method/class names.
during hacking and trying you sometimes use crappy names in the rush for sure, but always try to make the names as meaningful as possible in the end.

and get into the habit of -once your code is doing what you want without crashing or being wrong- cleaning up your code immediately .

I dreamed about an endless labyrinth made of cubes in three-dimensional space

reminds me of Cube (1997)

What I meant (and what I think the OP wast trying to solve) was the "game entitiy"-problem. The one where you at first naively start with "class Entity" and then derive "class PhysicalEntitiy" from which you derive "class Asteroid" etc, just to then realize it gets weird because suddenly

Nah I am not building deep hiearchies this time 
Instead I use composition to give the baseEntity many different components.

not to say I am not naively starting though..

wowzers!

thanks for all the different ways about it guys, very insightfull.

I am just beginning this component based quest of mine, and as such I found a tutorial somewhere (I cannot find it again though   ) which described a transition from OOP to componentbased in 3 flavours varying in abstractness.

- 1) a 'GameObject' that has named variables/refernces for all possible component
     so : bool hasPhysicsObject, PhysicsComponent Physics, bool hasPositionComponent, Posi .. etc

- 2) all components share a common parent/implement a IComponent part which makes it possible to just have a List with components in your GameObject

- 3) the GameObject doesn't exist anymore, there is just data and behaviour which get mixed an matched together via a database-like construction.

atm I started implementing the first GameObject way.
and then I ran into the crossroad case I described in the first post.
for the time being I just choose the happymonster way.
But I know that will not hold up further down the line and is a dangerous choice, It's intentionally breaking a clean thing to get it working. which would be a-ok if this was a game that's almost finished but I am just starting out. I imagine I could end up with a Update() function that has a gazillion special cases.

Oh wait I'll paste the actual body to illustrate:

Code:

public void Update (FrameEventArgs e)
{

if (HasSteeringComponent && HasPhysicsComponent) {

              
            var steeringForce = steering.calculateSteeringForce(e.Time);
            steering.applySteeringForce(steeringForce, e.Time);
            var steeringForce2 = steering.UpdatePosition(e.Time);

            physics.Body.LinearDamping = 6.2f;

            double heading = Math.Atan2(steering.Velocity.Y, steering.Velocity.X);
            double a = ((heading));
            physics.Body.Rotation = (float)a;

            rotation.Rotation = (float)a * (float)(180 / Math.PI) - 90f;

            float strength = (float)(.8 / e.Time);

            physics.Body.ApplyForce(new ms.Vector2((float)(steeringForce2.X * strength), (float)(steeringForce2.Y * strength)));


            position.X = -4 + (float)physics.Body.Position.X * 8;
            position.Y = -4 + (float)physics.Body.Position.Y * 8;
            steering.Pos.X = position.X;
            steering.Pos.Y = position.Y;

} else {
if (HasSteeringComponent)
{
steering.Update(e.Time);
if (HasPositionComponent)
{
position.X =(float) steering.Pos.X;
position.Y =(float) steering.Pos.Y;
}

}
if (HasPhysicsComponent)
{
if (HasPositionComponent)
{
position.X =-4+(float) physics.Body.Position.X*8;
position.Y =-4+(float) physics.Body.Position.Y*8;
}
}
}
}

I like the 2nd way where a gameobject just has a list of components, but that won't make a difference in the Update loop I've show above.

leaves the third and most abstract way, ( what Geti started talking about too)
I believe that must be the 'best' component system. But my OOP brain is working against  it. No GameObject class ?! what madness !
I would like to see some implementations of that solution, any tips ?
I feel this would be the solution that would make me the happiest me in a few months.

The messaging/events that are required aren't hopefully a big thing sice I am working in c# which has a nice delegate/event system built in.
I worry a bit about the channel/mutexer/broadcaster thing because I haven't got a clear image of what that means.

@xgalaxy :
I can follow your thoughts there nicely and the saving of some data for another component down the line seems a simple solution to my original problem (I love simple solutions!)
but how will you describe which components come first in your case ?
Just the order they have on a list or something as easy as that ? Or more sturdiers ways ?
And how will that data be saved ? just a Object which other component try and cast ?


I need to check some more implemenations I suppose.



 

So long thread short, time will tell, nobody knows, let's see what happens, I am curious?

I assumed it was a snail from another planet 

after you've made that document class.
you clean your code a little to

Code:

private var snales:Array = [];
private var isPaused:Boolean;

function addSnale():void
{
    var snale = new Snale();
    snale.y = Math.random()*640;
    addChild(snale);
    snales.push(snale);
}


function setPause(pause:boolean):void
{
    if pause
    {
         removeEventListener(Event.ENTER_FRAME, onEnterFrame);
    }
    else
    {
        addEventListener(Event.ENTER_FRAME, onEnterFrame);
     }
     isPause = pause;
}

function onEnterFrame(e:Event):void
{
    //run game
}

function hitTestAllSnales(player:Movieclip):void
{
    for (var i:int =0; i<snales.length;i++)
    {
        
        if (player.hitTestObject(snale[i])
        {
             trace("snale hit");
        }
    }
}

warning: typed into textbox and not compiled.