Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-

h2iu

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-30 14:52

i want to try make a raycasting with flash bicouse i don't know c++ or openGL or any other "real" prograsmming lenguege. Actionscript is easy and there are lots of tutorials in the wreb.

RAYCASTING is the tecnic used by Wolfenstein 3D.

PD: i'm currently playing Wolfenstein: Enemy territory (Best online free game i ever play)

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-30 16:44 (sage)

raycasting in flash has been done already.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-30 23:36

http://www.permadi.com/tutorial/raycast/, there's a good tutorial for raycasting in java.

It's a different syntax, but the math is the same. Raycasting is a good thing to know how to do, even if it's "already been done", it's impressive to people who don't use computers very often or other programmers that you can write a simple 3d engine of the bat like that. Not that I can do that, but it certainly has hack value.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-31 5:19 (sage)

>>2
i want to try make a raycasting with flash bicouse i don't know c++ or openGL or any other "real" prograsmming lenguege. Actionscript is easy and there are lots of tutorials in the wreb.

>>3
i want to try make a raycasting with flash bicouse i don't know c++ or openGL or any other "real" prograsmming lenguege. Actionscript is easy and there are lots of tutorials in the wreb.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-31 5:42

>>1
You should try real-time raycasting in Basic, it's faster (and will heat your house during winter).

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-31 7:49

>>5
i want to try make a raycasting with flash bicouse i don't know c++ or openGL or any other "real" prograsmming lenguege. Actionscript is easy and there are lots of tutorials in the wreb.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-31 8:19

>>5
is it possible to raycast in basic? That's gotta be so slow as fuck if it is.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-31 8:33

I saw an old Wolfenstine clone in QuickBasic once. It ran at ~1fps on a 486. The Id Wolfenstine got something like ~20fps on a 286.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-31 10:21

>>8
It can be done quickly on QB too, but some thinking is required. I'd say the chap used to calculate sin/cos for all the rays. Use some lookup tables and such.
In pre-pentium era, math-coprocessor kicked ass. Difference between them was thousand-fold.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-31 10:41

>>7
i want to try make a raycasting with flash bicouse i don't know c++ or openGL or any other "real" prograsmming lenguege. Actionscript is easy and there are lots of tutorials in the wreb.

>>8
i want to try make a raycasting with flash bicouse i don't know c++ or openGL or any other "real" prograsmming lenguege. Actionscript is easy and there are lots of tutorials in the wreb.

>>9
i want to try make a raycasting with flash bicouse i don't know c++ or openGL or any other "real" prograsmming lenguege. Actionscript is easy and there are lots of tutorials in the wreb.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-31 12:38 (sage)

>>10
i see a pattern here

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-31 12:48

>>10
Learn Quickbasic, there are several ports of it for Windows. Check out the Wikipiedia article on Quickbasic, it's a great language to move on up from Actionscript.

The OO level of Actionscript is also good experience for learning other languages. But Quickbasic isn't OO. Learn other languages, too -- nobody in any industry but making chum web flash games uses AS. Unless you're a web designer, but web designers are pricks.

Learn Quickbasic, then learn Java, then learn C.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-31 13:47 (sage)

>but web designers are pricks.
Don't forget broke.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-31 17:48

>>13

:)

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-31 19:17

C++ and openGL is not that hard. also you don't need opengl for raycasting. srsly, I don't know how to use actionscript because i open the flash editing program and it's all buttons buttons everywhere.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-31 19:26

>>15
RAYCASTING is the tecnic used by Wolfenstein 3D.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-31 20:17

>>9
He used lookup tables, mate. This guy was wrote a raytracer, do you think he'd overlook something as trivial as that?

QuickBasic (and definitely QBasic) is too fucking slow. Or was.

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-01 4:06

>>17
Just a little bit of questioning, is it possible to make a raycaster with Sub-500k on a.. say.. 8008 processor?

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-01 5:25

>>18
Sub-500kb RAM? Easily.

8008? Uh... that's pretty stiff. Don't forget that the original Wolf3D was written by Carmack in an age when heavy assembly use in inner loops (and sometimes for entire programs) was the norm. Wolf3D rendering fullscreen (320x200) got about ~20fps on a 12MHz 286. In order to get that framerate Carmack pulled all kinds of tricks.

So, you can guess what it'd be like on a 0.5MHz 8008, ignoring the difference between cache size and memory latency, which would just increase the delta between the 8008 and 80286.

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-01 5:28

In order to get that framerate Carmack pulled all kinds of tricks
Too bad he no longer cares about getting good framerates on existing hardware.

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-01 10:57

Too bad he no longer cares about getting good framerates on existing hardware.
It makes no sense if you think of Id as still being a game house. It makes more sense if you think of them as an engine house with a fancy tech demo.

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-01 11:07 (sage)

>>21
A fancy tech demo of what?  Rendering technologies that have been around for 20-40 years?

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-01 14:55

>>22
40 years?
3D graphics just started to come around in  the late 70s, early 80s -- of course, with super computers at the time like the Cray and what not they could optimize the graphics to run things like Tron and other junk.

Now you have to remember that the Super Computers in the 80s that made things like Tron and The Adventures of André and Wally B., like per se.. the Cray X-MP, were just about as powerful as say... a Pentium 2 processor, in fact less POWERFUL.

But you could never render Tron on a Windows 95 in any reasonable time, of course. You couldn't even do it on my computer.

There is definitely a lot of excesses and cut-corners in modern computer games. The hardware is fine, it's the code that needs to be better.

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-01 15:28

>>23
Uh no, there are hacks in the code to get optimal performance out of the hardware.  They do the best they can with what the current hardware allows.

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-01 15:39

so what's the diffrence between a hack and optimizing an algorithm?

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-01 15:49

>>24
And you know this as a fact?

Right... that's why BattleField is so damned reliable.. because there are no hacks in the code and EA just isn't cutting corners, right?

There are always, in my belief, more ways to optimize the code, including writing in higher level languages.

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-01 15:49

>>25
Terminology?

Hacking is a very vague term, really.

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-01 19:47

>>26
You're a python fanboy, aren't you.  I said there ARE hacks, which is not the same as cutting corners.  The hacks take advantage of something that was not thought of when the hardware was designed to increase performance.  Using higher level language would HURT performance for many reasons, one of them being that you can't exploit the hardware.

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-01 20:34

>>24
No, they don't. Don't believe what you read in videogame magazines and websites.

>>26
Higher level languages will only make it slower. They have many advantages (I'm a __Pythonic__ man myself) but performance is not one of them, and will never be.

>>27
Although terminology is loose, an optimization is something bigger and better, as in improving an algorithm's complexity by thinking it better. A hack is to release the game, wait till your users curse your lazy ass, then go through some C inner loops and add some moderately simple trick.

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-01 22:46

A fancy tech demo of what?
Of what the engine can do. What else? Do I need to state the bleeding obvious now?

Many algorithms have been around for two or more decades. What the tech demo shows is what a particular implementation of a subset of algorithms can do. Because, you know, there has never been one universal engine that does it all (and does it well), and never will be.

Surely you can see the differences between the successive Quake and Unreal engines?

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-02 6:50

>>29
So why are are higher level languages slower?

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-02 6:52

>>31
Wait wait wait...

I meant lower level languages. LIKE ASM and the like.

Lower level languages mean more performance, if programming by devs was done in LOWER level languages it would be faster.

But they aren't, since half of these devs are chump devry and shit-college graduates.

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-03 2:37

>>29
Hmm, I don't think you got how I use the word "hack".  For example, not clearing the color and depth buffers every frame is technically a hack used to increase performance.

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-03 10:24 (sage)

LOL SEMANTICS

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-03 11:27

>>34
Semantics = the meaning of things. It's kind of important, otherwise we're just talking meaningless driv-OH WAIT LOL

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-07 5:32

>>32

hahahahahahahahahahahaha....

thank god for devry... it takes away all the pain of dealing with people who "think" they can write anything...

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-07 7:10

>>29
Though it's debatable, most programmers I know use the word "hack" to mean something done in a way that wouldn't work in certain situations but they're fairly certain these situations won't come up.

>>32
A common misconception. Assembly isn't automatically faster than C; it just gives you more control, and for a small project that means you're less likely to leave in unneccessary parts than a compiler. C compilers these days have some incredible optimisations however. It is very much possible to have an ASM project that is slow as hell - the only example I can think of off the top of my head is MenuetOS, but that's because of the whole driver issue I think - but anyway, with regards to large projects, when you have that much control you're either going to go insane or start writing sloppy code.

But yes, it is possible to write assembly code that is faster than any other language. The potential is there; but this is irrelevent when the coder is only human.

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-07 10:56

>>31
Because you don't tell them how to do everything, and they usually take worse decisions than you would in a low-level language, not because they're bad, but because they don't have the knowledge of the problem domain you have. For example, Python's variables can be any data type. This is good and comfortable. Yet in a particular function you know i will always be an integer, but Python doesn't, so instead of using a fast int, it goes through the usual "what type is it", then "what data is it" procedure.

>>32
I agree that half of them are. But they also have budgets and deadlines.

>>37
Though it's debatable, most programmers I know use the word "hack" to mean something done in a way that wouldn't work in certain situations but they're fairly certain these situations won't come up.
That too.

C compilers these days have some incredible optimisations
That too. Today's GCC will usually do a better job than an assembly guru with a lot of free time. But I think/hope he meant higher level languages, like C vs. Python. You have to really botch your C (as in ugly complexity, etc.) to be slower.

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-14 13:41

Turing

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-27 12:56

ur gay

Name: Anonymous 2010-12-26 13:03

Name: Sgt.Kabuẞ⢤kiman흛栾 2012-05-28 19:55

Bringing /prog/ back to its people
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode -