next »

[György Straub]

new downloads for Mac and Win32 available at the dotcom. or goto 10.

[György Straub]

downloads coming soon.

[___]

Whoa where'd this come from?  Looks pretty rad.

[György Straub]

hey Xerus!=)

thank you.=) it's the next feature test of the framework, the particle system. the system itself only handles spawning, keeping track and updating of the particles (which can be anything in the framework's shape format). the tinting, scaling and rotation can be application-specific. in this example they're done based on the the percentage each particle had completed of it's lifespan (rotation is random). the particle emission is controlled by mouse (direction, speed (distance from the center) and click to emit).

I shall post the downloads for OS X and Win32 today, I just want to throw in some more functionality. (right now there's one randomness value for all the aspects of the particle generation (direction, velocity magnitude, lifespan), I want to handle them separately.)

[György Straub]

particle system demo online, goto 10, or visit the dotcom.

if you try it, gimme screenshots!

[György Straub]

update: we can do tiling now. screenshot and downloadables are shoveled into threadhead. Mac version is underway.

EDIT: the posted app had a bug in there. it's patched now.

[Paolo Victor]

Any plans for a Linux build?

[György Straub]

Any plans for a Linux build?

I'd love to eventually, as I was always going to use it for GP2X development from minute one. However I found it incredibly hard to set up the environment (somebody had recently pointed me to the Code::Blocks version which I hadn't get around to try yet).

There isn't really a windows or mac build either as the framework is just crystallizing now. But yeah, although I don't want to open up the source, I'd love to turn XRhodes into a more community-ish sort of project, and certainly more cross-platform than what I'm using it for at the mo.

[Paolo Victor]

although I don't want to open up the source

Why? Do you plan to license it or something?

[Ina Vegt]

although I don't want to open up the source

Why? Do you plan to license it or something?

If I ever create a proper gaming engine, I sure as hell ain't opening the source, doesn't mean I'll charge for it, though.

Building a good, reusable across genres, engine is hard, I'd prefer it if people would have difficulty stealing my source.

[Paolo Victor]

although I don't want to open up the source

Why? Do you plan to license it or something?

If I ever create a proper gaming engine, I sure as hell ain't opening the source, doesn't mean I'll charge for it, though.

Building a good, reusable across genres, engine is hard, I'd prefer it if people would have difficulty stealing my source.

Why the hate?

I mean, there are plenty of "good, reusable across genres" and -open- engines around. What's the point of hiding your source if you don't intend to "monetize" it?

No, really? Why else would you deny the potential advantages of a deeper community participation (bug fixes, new features, etc)? Selfishness? Having something to call yours and yours only?

Oh, and nobody will say your code is awesome if they don't get a chance to look at it.

[Mikademus]

I can understand the man to a certain extent. I'm working on a larger project atm, and it is supposed to be FOSS. However, I have to fight all my mental programming every inch of the way. I truly believe in open source, but my socialised nerves screams "SEEEKRAT! PRECIOUSSSSSS!" at me. It is painful sharing code until you get used to it.

[Lynx]

Several things come to mind for how I'd feel in a similiar position:

* Releasing code implies that you will support end-users of your code

* People will complain about your code and ask for additional features or changes to support their needs

* Releasing code means you're less free to change it later (unless you don't care about early adopters)

* Releasing code gives away a technological edge over competitors

It isn't all bad, mind you, but it's certainly not a no-brainer of a decision.

[Mikademus]

It is of course possible to argue the opposite as well:

* Releasing code means more eyeballs helping you find problems with the code, and end users may help you support the code

* People suggesting features will be positive about your framwork and stay with you

* If you always keep old versions available you should be free to update and break backwards compat. However, It think that was a good point you raised.

* You will never be on the technological edge anyway, or for long at least. Also, the technological edge isn't what makes money. *cough*wii*cough*

So I agree, it isn't a no-brainer, but still I'm firmly on the open-source or FOSS side (your code does not have to be free just because it is open), but I still have anal-retentive urges to hoard my stuff and guard against everyone else

[Paolo Victor]

Certainly FOSS isn't the be-all-end-all solution (although some people do believe that ), but I don't agree with all these points.

* Releasing code implies that you will support end-users of your code

Wouldn't it depend heavily on the license?

* People will complain about your code and ask for additional features or changes to support their needs

Well, people always complain. Even if they don't have the source, they'll still complain and ask for fixes and new features. Just take a look at the Spelunky feedback thread - dozens of pages of "feature X would be nice", "this doesn't work on my pc", "Y needs to be tweaked" posts (oh, and lots of praise, too )

* Releasing code means you're less free to change it later (unless you don't care about early adopters)

That's a valid point. when (if) there's a community around your code, it's not as simple to shove massive changes/new features. This could be touted as "quality control", but it's hard to admit that you just aren't the projects "benevolent benefactor" anymore.

* Releasing code gives away a technological edge over competitors

This would apply if you want to make money from your code. If you're working on a free 2D game framework, what's the point?

Anyway, it's always up to the author to decide what to do with his/her work.

[Lynx]

I said it would imply support - no matter how much you disclaimer 'This is a one-time release of code, I make no warranty of future support', someone will ask you why they can't get it to work, and give you an accusing look if you are unable to help.  Even if they don't give you the accusing look, if you are of good heart as many are, you'll still feel like you should have helped.

Yes, it's true, people will complain whether code is released or not. 

The last point about 'free game framework' is a little moot in this case, yes, but these are just possible objections to releasing code that skittered through my head on reading this thread.  I wanted to provide a little devil's advocacy as it were.  Angel: "Open software!"  Devil: "Hidden costs!"

[bateleur]

I'd love to paste in the output...but this forum won't let me 

If it's fairly short you could always post it as an image.

[György Straub]

Whoa.

My main reason is the strange personal situation I'm in at the moment. When it changes, my view on the question will likely change too. I'll keep it short: I've got a job where I don't even see a computer and I'd like to make it into the game industry. I'm working on this project strictly in my spare time, and while it's sort of personal, I work to high standards and I really think the product can save its users a lot of time whilst not restricting their freedom unnecessarily. However I don't want to achieve this by simply putting the code in their hands, as it's like walking about 50% of the road I'm walking, for them.

I don't think I have, ever had or will ever have a technological edge.

At this stage I just don't want people to take my code and run with it, while paradoxically I REALLY would like share it with at least a smaller community. I wouldn't mind to give away copies as long as I know who am I giving it to, and as long as I'm credited in the resulting products. I don't think it's much to ask or is a no-brainer. The world is asking, and the requests I've had were about the code, not about participating in the project (except for one).

But most importantly, the project had not reached the degree of completion where I would say it's time to release it in any form. I started the thread because I wanted to connect with people, to learn about what could be a best way to go about XRhodes.

I'm working on a larger project atm, and it is supposed to be FOSS. However, I have to fight all my mental programming every inch of the way. I truly believe in open source, but my socialised nerves screams "SEEEKRAT! PRECIOUSSSSSS!" at me. It is painful sharing code until you get used to it.

Yeah, I have that too.

The last point about 'free game framework' is a little moot in this case, yes, but these are just possible objections to releasing code that skittered through my head on reading this thread.  I wanted to provide a little devil's advocacy as it were.  Angel: "Open software!"  Devil: "Hidden costs!"

Sorry Lynx, I didn't quite understand what you mean?

[Lynx]

Well, I just don't want you to feel like everyone is saying 'Release code now!' as it were.

And I do know I'd feel pretty responsible for it if I released a library of some kind.  As you say, it's got to be ready for prime time first.  And I think I can see what you mean by wanting a small group helping with it - it can get pretty lonely working on code yourself, but I think a small team of developers shares responsibility better because each person will feel more invested.

[György Straub]

Well, I just don't want you to feel like everyone is saying 'Release code now!' as it were.

Not at all, and your input is much appreciated.

And I do know I'd feel pretty responsible for it if I released a library of some kind.  As you say, it's got to be ready for prime time first.  And I think I can see what you mean by wanting a small group helping with it - it can get pretty lonely working on code yourself, but I think a small team of developers shares responsibility better because each person will feel more invested.

Exactly. The team option is of course only if it's ever to be a commercial (read 'not open source') product. Suppose it gets me the job I want -- following that it really doesn't make sense to sit on the code.