Snowstorm
|
|
« on: February 16, 2015, 05:04:47 PM » |
|
Had an idea for something but decided to program it lazily? Post it here!
|
|
« Last Edit: April 09, 2015, 07:09:17 PM by Snowstorm »
|
Logged
|
Craig Snowstorm
|
|
|
InfiniteStateMachine
|
|
« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2015, 03:15:10 PM » |
|
Late last night I thought I had a terse solution to handle RPC over named pipes. I wrote it down then looked at it in the morning. It was basically just sending s-expressions over a pipe as arguments and binding a function to a name header. Maybe the reason we think we have great ideas late at night is because we are so sleepy
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Layl
|
|
« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2015, 03:47:27 PM » |
|
I could implement a proper physics system. But axis aligned bounding boxes being resolved on an axis by axis basis is much easier.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
tok
|
|
« Reply #3 on: February 18, 2015, 04:10:40 PM » |
|
theres this wiki that does random generators
just random strings from lists but you can point lists at other lists and there it gets interesting
anyway im trying to generate random stories but all the stuff is anonymous, every line of the story doesnt know every other line. i want to be able to remember variables without adding a new type or switching to a different wiki.
solution: i dont have to write stories that are strongly nonymous. they can be alcorithmic, like the 1001 nights.
do you guuys know what im talkign about? being a joke programmer is difficult. i'll explain any joke but not every joke
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jolene
Guest
|
|
« Reply #4 on: February 18, 2015, 06:27:23 PM » |
|
i did nothing today
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Sik
|
|
« Reply #5 on: February 18, 2015, 07:28:38 PM » |
|
I could implement a proper physics system. But axis aligned bounding boxes being resolved on an axis by axis basis is much easier.
And most of the time it's more than enough too, it's not really worth going with proper physics unless they're an important part of the gameplay (and in fact when they aren't they can get in the way of controlling the character easily). There's also the fact that in 2D games in many cases you need to cheat to get believable behavior that even proper physics engines have trouble dealing with (e.g. if you have a character going down a slope, you can't use the bounding box as-is because otherwise the character will end up floating in the air - some games just cheat with the perspective to hide it, while some completely alter the physics just for this case)
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Photon
|
|
« Reply #6 on: February 18, 2015, 08:09:20 PM » |
|
I could implement a proper physics system. But axis aligned bounding boxes being resolved on an axis by axis basis is much easier.
And most of the time it's more than enough too, it's not really worth going with proper physics unless they're an important part of the gameplay (and in fact when they aren't they can get in the way of controlling the character easily). There's also the fact that in 2D games in many cases you need to cheat to get believable behavior that even proper physics engines have trouble dealing with (e.g. if you have a character going down a slope, you can't use the bounding box as-is because otherwise the character will end up floating in the air - some games just cheat with the perspective to hide it, while some completely alter the physics just for this case) Slopes. *shudder*
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
oahda
|
|
« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2015, 12:25:35 AM » |
|
I do it a lot. It's called prototyping.
Then I fix it later.
Maybe.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
tok
|
|
« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2015, 02:13:20 PM » |
|
all the nerds i meet either arent interested or dont care about the interesting solutions i make for difficult problems.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ProgramGamer
|
|
« Reply #9 on: February 19, 2015, 03:49:02 PM » |
|
I wanted to make a raycaster once 'cause it seemed really cool to do. I couldn't figure out the math on the tutorial I found so I ended up playing Minecraft instead.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
tok
|
|
« Reply #10 on: February 19, 2015, 07:32:02 PM » |
|
I suspect some of the posters on this forum imagine me to be a pretend game dev, only pretending to develop games, to mess with them. however, this is not the case. i cant imagine ever having time for that bullshit.
|
|
« Last Edit: February 19, 2015, 08:15:11 PM by tok »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
kverkagambo
|
|
« Reply #11 on: March 04, 2015, 07:44:01 AM » |
|
I have a player object. It is called, say, Player for the player, and Opponent for the opponent. Member objects of the player have a link back to the parent object that is also called Player even for the Opponent. Similarly card's link to the object that holds the cards is called Hand, even though this object can be cards in the hand, cards on the table or something else. Sometimes it causes lot of confusion. I could change the names of my objects or use prefixes, but I am just too lazy to bother.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jay43k
|
|
« Reply #12 on: March 04, 2015, 08:28:25 AM » |
|
I have a player object. It is called, say, Player for the player, and Opponent for the opponent. Member objects of the player have a link back to the parent object that is also called Player even for the Opponent. Similarly card's link to the object that holds the cards is called Hand, even though this object can be cards in the hand, cards on the table or something else. Sometimes it causes lot of confusion. I could change the names of my objects or use prefixes, but I am just too lazy to bother.
Hahaha I have a similar situation with an object called Fence. I've been too lazy to combine it into another similar script but Fence is super useful and only does one small thing so it's not really confusing.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
shinn497
|
|
« Reply #13 on: March 07, 2015, 08:51:01 PM » |
|
I tried to make a sprite editor in qt but fuck man is qt confusing. Now I feel like an idiot.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Sik
|
|
« Reply #14 on: March 08, 2015, 10:27:06 AM » |
|
If you think Qt is confusing then imagine how bad is the situation with most other APIs which are even more verbose usually =P
Right now I'm using IUP which seems to be a much simpler counterpart to Qt (though it only handles the GUI part). Honestly I had quite some issues (and already ran into a bug - luckily it's already fixed for the next version), but I had the entire launcher for my game going in like, two or three days? Including time spent figuring out how to use the library in the first place. It's probably much simpler than a sprite editor but still =P
The biggest issue (for most people) is that IUP is in C. Not a problem for me, but it may be a problem for people who want exclusively C++ instead (yes, you could just wrap it around your own classes, but still...). The other option right now is to use IUP from Lua.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
oahda
|
|
« Reply #15 on: March 09, 2015, 01:15:54 AM » |
|
I liked Qt when I used it a couple of years ago.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ProgramGamer
|
|
« Reply #16 on: March 23, 2015, 05:02:46 PM » |
|
I find it hilariously appropriate that this topic is the least posted-on of the three "programmer" threads.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Layl
|
|
« Reply #17 on: March 24, 2015, 03:46:11 AM » |
|
I find it hilariously appropriate that this topic is the least posted-on of the three "programmer" threads.
Lies, all lies.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Cheezmeister
|
|
« Reply #18 on: March 29, 2015, 09:07:00 PM » |
|
I'm browsing forums instead of makking gamm.
Also, I'm putting all my crap in one monstrous, unmodular header instead of splitting it up into ten headers like a good programmer would do. So, instead of clawing my way out of #include hell, I'm being lazy till I feel like working on the input scheme.
I guess it all evens out.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|