|
superh posted:I can't imagine texture arrays work in an html canvas context either? Texture atlases are still a commonly useful standard. You don't get edge bleed if you put a few pixels of padding in between your source images. I imagine texture atlasing lore would have us try to put our divisions on power of two boundaries to minimize this possibility, because then the mipmaps won't blur between sprites until much deeper zoomout levels (at which point you probably don't really care so much about a few pixels out of place).
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 22:25 |
|
|
dizzywhip posted:Sorry, I think I wasn't very clear...I'm not trying to make the general collision hitboxes or figure out how to split up the sprite sheets. I'm using box colliders and the sprite editor for that already, which is working well so far. Why not just create a transparent image and cut it up like you would a sprite sheet? Map the frames to the boxes you want and attach it to your object.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
leper khan posted:Why not just create a transparent image and cut it up like you would a sprite sheet? Map the frames to the boxes you want and attach it to your object. Hmmm maybe I could do that with vector art software and export to SVG or something to make polygon colliders with. That doesn't sound too bad, I think I'll give that a shot. Edit: Okay, I did some preliminary tests using Sketch to draw hitboxes and export them to SVG and it looks like it's gonna work really well. Thanks for the suggestion! dizzywhip fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Jul 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Shameless plug: I'm evolving my video decoder lib into lwmovie: https://code.google.com/p/lwmovie/ Uses a new container format (mainly for better IO hinting and support for more stream formats), pretty much the entire video decoder core can be thread pooled, rewrote the video DSP in SSE2, it's more modular, and it's all under BSD-like licensing now. Working on finalizing the API and hooking in the audio decoder, but the guts are done and it's progressing rapidly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Has anyone ever done "full body awareness" in Unity? I'm doing a melee focused Chivalry/M&B-like multiplayer game and I'm really considering it in order to give a seamless feel to the movement/combat. It'd really cut down on the amount of animation assets I'll need for release and it'd be perfect for Oculus Rift implementation but it's really difficult to get right from what I've heard. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiWNzMWz3-4
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 10:58
|
|
|
I had a prototype thing I did with full body awareness. I don't think it would work right at all to just use the same animations for first/third. Your hands and body would be clipping the view during attacks but otherwise you'd pretty much never see your hands (unless your run animation has your hands held up to your face). There's a video where you can see Mirror's Edge in third person and you can see how weird the character moves in order to look right in first person.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Not strictly game related but, Ive pretty much finished my horrible little game and I would like to release the source. While U dont expect it to be any good, I dont want to use very permissive license. Something alone the lines of you can learn from it, but not change name and release as your own. Any suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
You could just post it on Github and include a basic copyright statement(Copyright (c) 2014 evilentity All Rights Reserved), which would implicitly let people view/fork your code due to the Github terms of service (Section F.1), but you'd maintain copyright. You should probably include that line at the top of each source file, as well as your repo's LICENSE.md. That's the easiest way I can think of, talk to an actual lawyer if you're worried about legal things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
GPL maybe? You'd have to confirm any libraries you use are compatible, but the GPL is probably the most restrictive open source licence - it wouldn't stop someone forking your code and basing a project on it, but it would bind them to keep the source open and available. An effect of this is that it essentially precludes sales (since if they distribute at all they have to make the source freely available). This does have the perhaps undesirable side effect that no-one can use any of the code, e.g. as a library in a commercial product, which might not be what you want to achieve.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 11:35
|
|
|
I'm throwing a game together in RPG Maker VX Ace. It's nothing special, just that the gimmick is that pretty much everything is some kind of loving quest. For example, if you walk into town and bump into a flower, it'll give you some kind of bullshit objective. Same with rocks, trees, grass and pretty much everything you run into. The monsters will also break the fourth wall with some kind of bullshit speech before engaging you in battle. You can level up by petting animals. I'm just throwing stuff at the engine to see what sticks. EDIT: I've also written a 2D engine using Allegro. It runs at a fixed frame rate across a vast range of architecture. Would anyone be interested in the source code? tango alpha delta fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Aug 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
evilentity posted:Not strictly game related but, Ive pretty much finished my horrible little game and I would like to release the source. While U dont expect it to be any good, I dont want to use very permissive license. Something alone the lines of you can learn from it, but not change name and release as your own. Any suggestions? I don't think that you should though. There are licenses like 3-clause BSD that require you to explicitly be given credit in any derived works that are otherwise completely unrestricted, and there isn't really a downside to permissive licensing unless there is some serious competitive advantage in the code itself. If some hugely successful project comes out with the tagline "based on X, (c)2014 you", then that'll probably help you more than it'll harm you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Hey, so my BizSpark application finally went through; I applied just a day under a month ago. It took contacting Microsoft support to get anything to go ahead, but once that process was started, they were very nice and very quick about it. UnityVS is obviously the first plugin being installed in my new copy of VS Ultimate, but is ReSharper worth the money? I've looked at it before, and it looked awesome, but never had a copy of VS that could install plugins. P.S. Stay away from all things GPL; it's a cancerous license and sickening the open source waters. When there's so many good licenses such as BSD, MIT, Apache 2, or my favorite NCSA, I don't understand why so many look at GPL as anything but poison.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Eh, ive done goofed. Anyway its out now on github Many horrors ware committed. Ill do better next time. You can play web demo here
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
The King of Swag posted:P.S. Stay away from all things GPL; it's a cancerous license and sickening the open source waters. When there's so many good licenses such as BSD, MIT, Apache 2, or my favorite NCSA, I don't understand why so many look at GPL as anything but poison. is there a better alternative license for "use this, but don't extend it commercially without contributing back changes"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
The King of Swag posted:I don't understand why so many look at GPL as anything but poison. Richard Stallman's view, and in turn that of the FSF and GPL, is that code is interchangeable parts and anybody could hammer together their own implementation of a spec and produce something just as good. He built his early reputation by re-implementing features from commercial lisp machine software. It's worth considering how much of his incredible productivity at that time could be attributed to not needing to come up with any original ideas (and having the occasional peek at the code he was reimplementing). Stallman's view of "open-source freedom" favors the consumers of software, and makes it a moral imperative for programmers to give their work away. When the open source movement was young, the availability of basic tools was a serious problem for hobbyists. Text editors, compilers and drivers all cost money or were provided only as binaries. If something had a bug you sucked it up or got out a hex editor and started reverse-engineering it. Today, though, the playing field has changed. Even ostensibly nasty corporations have come to see the value to themselves and their customers to providing source code free-of-charge and accepting bug fixes from the community at large. Information about any kind of algorithm or hardware is at our fingertips. The FSF's weird anti-capitalistic bents have become anachronisms, though they still have allure to many starry-eyed idealists. While I choose to open source many of my projects, there are things I'd rather keep to myself for a variety of reasons. As a programmer, I think my freedom to choose what I give back to the community and what I keep proprietary to make a living is of value, and the GPL stance strikes me as rather entitled. As game developers, perhaps we are more likely to see programming as a creative act than, say, programmers working on printer drivers. We aren't (usually) working against hard specs and if we didn't open source our project there won't necessarily be another programmer who springs up and does it themselves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Gul Banana posted:is there a better alternative license for "use this, but don't extend it commercially without contributing back changes"? Yeah, it's called manning up and using a permissive license. I don't actually mean that to sound hostile, just that I want to make it clear that the reasons people have for using GPL licenses are moot.
Honestly though, I think anyone looking to license their software under an open source license needs to think long and hard about why they're actually releasing it, and what they want it to be. The FSF goes on and on about how they're the protectors of open source and free software and yadda yadda yadda; they're a bunch of lying assholes. If you want software to truly be free, then you release it under a permissive license. They're called permissive licenses for a reason; almost all of them allow users to use them for any purpose, and only really exist to protect the developer from legal liability. That is truly free software; free as in free beer, free as in free speech. The GPL gives you free as in free beer, but it strips you of the free as in free speech. GPL licensed source comes with rules and stipulations on what can be done with it; it is open source, but it is not free software. From my point of view, I see people that choose permissive licenses as of one mindset, and people that prefer GPL as of another. I'm obviously biased here (against GPL), but I'm not actually going to make a claim as to which mindset is the right one to have, because they're purely subjective. The permissive mindset is that open source code trends towards free, which means that most users are likely to contribute back changes even without being compelled to. Even if they don't, it doesn't matter, because if those changes were actually that critical or needed, someone else would add them eventually. Free is innate, free is powerful; it brings people in without even asking. The copyleft (GPL) mindset is that open source code trends towards closed if it isn't actively protected. Free is weak, it must be protected or the flame will die. People must be forced to contribute or they never will; if you don't make them release their changes, they'll hoard them all to themselves to starve competition. The King of Swag fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Aug 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
The King of Swag posted:The permissive mindset is that open source code trends towards free, which means that most users are likely to contribute back changes even without being compelled to. Even if they don't, it doesn't matter, because if those changes were actually that critical or needed, someone else would add them eventually. Free is innate, free is powerful; it brings people in without even asking. Which is totally why it's poisonous, but in your railing against it you kind of skimmed over that part of it. It's intentionally poisonous, they're trying to force everything to be open source. And since nobody wants that, and there are other licenses on generally similar products that don't push, GPL has become "don't use this", and libraries have been shamefacedly shuffling away from it (eg. SDL is now comprised entirely of libraries with more permissive licenses.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
The King of Swag posted:There is absolutely no benefits and a ton of disadvantages for them to keep any changes to your source all to themselves. The King of Swag posted:Companies using permissively licensed source code and then never contributing back changes has never been an endemic problem as the Free Software Foundation would have you believe. Mindset isn't the only issue either, there's also realizing how these arrangements have played out in practice. Legal uncertainty is a huge one, which the GPL v3 mess was the biggest illustration of. Not only were loopholes discovered that could get around v2, but some very nasty hazards were discovered as well. One thing that you'd probably assume for instance is that if someone violates the GPL, they'd be able to use the source again if they came into compliance. The reality is that if someone violates GPLv2, their license is automatically terminated and they need to obtain permission from every single contributor to use the code again. v2 also had a ton of jurisdictional issues regarding how the legal definitions of the words it used were interpreted. GPLv3 added a reinstatement provision and cleaned up the language, but who wants to take the risk of using the GPL when the next fun legal discovery is made? I remember someone saying that the license tells you what the authors were afraid of. That isn't a bad thing, but if you're picking a license, you should consider what the real downsides of the things you're trying to prevent are. It's extremely difficult for the widespread adoption of something that you wrote to be a bad thing unless it gives a huge leg up to a competitor or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
The King of Swag posted:Yeah, it's called manning up and using a permissive license. I don't actually mean that to sound hostile, just that I want to make it clear that the reasons people have for using GPL licenses are moot. quote:Your source isn't magical, no one wants to steal it. when i'm making libraries or applications available for free, it's not really *possible* to steal them. so i'm not concerned about that anyway. quote:Even if a company wanted to steal your source or use it without contributing back, they're not likely to. Maintaining your own private branch of a small source-set is hard enough; doing that on larger source-sets is insane and no one does it if they have a choice. these things might be rare, but they do happen. there are a LOT of routers running busybox. quote:Expanding on the last point: companies just want to make money with their products. Your source is not their product; your source is likely a (very) small part of their product as a whole. There is absolutely no benefits and a ton of disadvantages for them to keep any changes to your source all to themselves. yes, that's true; they just want to make money, and i just want to stop them. my goal is to prevent people from making money from software that i've made freely available. what's wrong with that? i guess if someone has a brilliant plan for one of my libraries and is willing to pay to have it relicensed that's fine, but in general i'm ok with it just being used for free. the point about closed source 'not making sense' is nonsense since everybody makes e.g. bsd-licensed stuff closed source all the time. or, look what happened to android. i don't care about the theoretical reasons to not do this thing since, in reality, it happens a lot. quote:Being licensed under the GPL absolutely does not stop them from packaging your source as a whole and using it as their product. As long as they publish the source, they're in the clear. The GPL does not do what most people think it does. yes, someone could re-sell the whole product. however, in doing so, they'd have to make it clear that there's a totally free version available, so that wouldn't last long, would it? quote:The GPL is poisonous and it poisons your project if you attach it to the license. You're not just cutting off yourself from potential commercial users that don't want to share their source and/or changes, you're cutting yourself off from the entirety of the non-GPL based open-source community. Group A with project X (under MIT/Apache/etc.) would not and could not use your project Y if it's licensed under GPL. this isn't really an addressable point, just rhetoric. again, my *goal* is to prevent people from using the software in ways which make it less freely available. on the topic of whether GPL software can be used in practice i'll just point to the continued existence of Linux.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
I don't understand the Free Software mindset. I don't see why being able to modify the software that someone else wrote is some fundamental human right, but whatever. The GPL license was designed with a specific goal in mind and it accomplishes it. The BSD license, though, is just useless. "Yeah, use it how ever you want, just put my name on it somewhere because I am literally a child and need the ego boost." Use just MIT or zlib if you really are only interested in protecting yourself from liability.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
It seems Unreal Engine 4 already has preview notes for 4.4. They're just wrecking the competition.  One of the advantages Unity had over UE4, 2D support, is a gap being closed by the Paper2D extension.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
Yea. This time next year Unreal will be doing everything better than Unity. The development pace is staggering. The only reason, at that point in time, to stick with Unity will be the technical knowledge and experience lost from switching. But even that is not going to be enough for long.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
I am spending a lot of time learning C# and I don't want to learn a new language for Unreal  Are the improvements really worth it for someone trying to create something turn based?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Grocer Goodwill posted:I don't understand the Free Software mindset. I don't see why being able to modify the software that someone else wrote is some fundamental human right, but whatever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I25UeVXrEHQ
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:I am spending a lot of time learning C# and I don't want to learn a new language for Unreal That's kind of the main thing that's stopping me too. Also the lack of a million "how do you do [X] in Unity?" posts on the internet that I fall back on whenever I work on a project and run into problems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Some interesting tidbits incoming for Unreal 4.5:quote:Improved! Compile C++ within the Editor. This makes code changes pretty equivalent to what happens with C# and Unity, except compile speed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
Gul Banana posted:my goal is to prevent people from making money from software that i've made freely available. what's wrong with that? quote:my *goal* is to prevent people from using the software in ways which make it less freely available. Ultimately, it's your decision what you want to do with it, but limiting commercialization opportunities isn't actually going to benefit you in any way unless you're trying to sell a less-restrictive license, and it's not going to get you any more code kickbacks either. Grocer Goodwill posted:The BSD license, though, is just useless. "Yeah, use it how ever you want, just put my name on it somewhere because I am literally a child and need the ego boost."
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:That's not much of a problem, pretty much any large project has an "acknowledgments" blob that they can deposit taglines like that in without much effort, and it makes it a bit easier for authors to demonstrate the usefulness of their product. Have you read the ThirdPartyLegalNotices.doc in your Steam folder? Of course you haven't. Nobody does because nobody cares. The attribution clause of BSD and similar licenses is just a waste of time for the person using your code.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
Grocer Goodwill posted:Have you read the ThirdPartyLegalNotices.doc in your Steam folder? Of course you haven't. Nobody does because nobody cares. The attribution clause of BSD and similar licenses is just a waste of time for the person using your code.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:End users don't care, but it provides a way for the developers to both demonstrate that their product is being used in something successful and an opportunity for the project to be discovered.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
Grocer Goodwill posted:The BSD license, though, is just useless. "Yeah, use it how ever you want, just put my name on it somewhere because I am literally a child and need the ego boost." Use just MIT or zlib if you really are only interested in protecting yourself from liability. MIT license doesn't stop someone from saying "This uses software written by X!" in their advertising, and suddenly your name is being used to promote or endorse software without your prior written permission. Aside from that one clause BSD and MIT are effectively the same license. None of BSD, MIT, or Zlib stop someone from releasing software that contains code that would infringe upon a patent and then waiting for someone to use it and then suing for it. Both GPLv3 and Apache 2.0 provide patent rights. As for why someone might even use GPL, you can do so in a "try before you buy" and then sell a separate license that removes the GPL entirely. It's worked very well for Intel's Threaded Building Blocks library.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
Hello all, I'm working on a fighting game with Unity that's like Smash Bros. called Elderly Horses. All the characters are either elderly people, horses, or combinations thereof. This includes centaurs, reverse centaurs, and left-right splits. I've got a general question. At the moment I am trying to implement knock back, using a Vector2 and AddForce in order to knock back a character both up and right. I can effectively knock back the character up or right but not at an angle. When I try using a vector like (4,1) with AddForce the character gets knock backed first right, then up. The result looks like a very jerky shove right and then a jump. Where's a good place to learn about this more? I've googled quite a bit and read up on vectors but I am just having a tough go of it. I'm multiplying my Vector2 by a largish integer. Unity's documentation and video on AddForce didn't help me much. Edit: Relevent code code:Edit 2: Sorted it out with help from kreaol on /r/Unity2D. The problem was that I didn't know what I was doing. awesomeolion fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Aug 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
Uh, that shouldn't be happening the way you describe it. Maybe you should post the relevant code.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:I am spending a lot of time learning C# and I don't want to learn a new language for Unreal It's not really necessarily the C++ that I struggle with in UE4. It's learning a new API I'm not really familiar with while I'm extremely familiar with the Unity API. I just can't stand how slow Unity is at releasing new builds though. It's hard to not be impressed with how fast UE4 is pushing out updates and I'm sure they'll continue to do so if only to get people to pay $20 every month as opposed to paying once and cancelling. Like I said recently, I literally cannot understand why the Unity development team as big as it is can't push out faster updates.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
SuicideSnowman posted:It's not really necessarily the C++ that I struggle with in UE4. It's learning a new API I'm not really familiar with while I'm extremely familiar with the Unity API. I just can't stand how slow Unity is at releasing new builds though. It's hard to not be impressed with how fast UE4 is pushing out updates and I'm sure they'll continue to do so if only to get people to pay $20 every month as opposed to paying once and cancelling. Like I said recently, I literally cannot understand why the Unity development team as big as it is can't push out faster updates. Once a week isn't fast enough? Keep an eye on this thread or watch their twitter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Obsurveyor posted:Once a week isn't fast enough? Yes, they are quick at releasing minor bug fixes. Each UE4 update contains large amounts of content equivalent to the GUI poo poo that Unity has been talking about for over a year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
SuicideSnowman posted:It's not really necessarily the C++ that I struggle with in UE4. It's learning a new API I'm not really familiar with while I'm extremely familiar with the Unity API. I just can't stand how slow Unity is at releasing new builds though. It's hard to not be impressed with how fast UE4 is pushing out updates and I'm sure they'll continue to do so if only to get people to pay $20 every month as opposed to paying once and cancelling. Like I said recently, I literally cannot understand why the Unity development team as big as it is can't push out faster updates. I'm in kinda the same boat. The right way (or any way) to do stuff in Unreal feels masked behind a bunch of boilerplate. Maybe the Unity style of "everything is a surface-level component" leads to obtuse or bad design in larger projects, but boy does it help early on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Anyone try this thing: https://github.com/AdamsLair/duality Its an open source C# 2d game engine modeled very closely after Unity, including the editor. It's pretty impressive work for a single guy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
It doesn't help that Unity chose to implement their own version of Mono instead of licensing the existing one. Which means tremendous amounts of work are going to go into reinventing the wheel in order to keep their version of Mono up to date with C#. Those are resources that could have been spent improving Unity itself. Considering the pace Unity is at now, I expect the gap between their Mono version and the latest C# to widen and complaints to increase as people lose the ability to have the same source run on all of Unity, .NET, and Mono. UE4 removed UnrealScript because they finally got to the point where the cost of having to implement things in UnrealScript with all of the interop overhead, lesser debugging features, and weaker IDE tools outweighed the benefit of avoiding C++ for higher level code. Jo posted:I'm in kinda the same boat. The right way (or any way) to do stuff in Unreal feels masked behind a bunch of boilerplate. Maybe the Unity style of "everything is a surface-level component" leads to obtuse or bad design in larger projects, but boy does it help early on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 22:25 |
|
|
Inverness posted:It doesn't help that Unity chose to implement their own version of Mono instead of licensing the existing one. Which means tremendous amounts of work are going to go into reinventing the wheel in order to keep their version of Mono up to date with C#. Those are resources that could have been spent improving Unity itself. Considering the pace Unity is at now, I expect the gap between their Mono version and the latest C# to widen and complaints to increase as people lose the ability to have the same source run on all of Unity, .NET, and Mono. This is exactly the thing I'm battling now with my posts in another thread regarding SeviceStack. The stock library functions fine under Xamarin.iOS and Xamarin.Android but didn't work on Unity. Luckily this particular library was really easy to port. However, other libraries which utilize .NET 4+ that work perfectly fine on Xamarin are not portable to Unity without tremendous amounts of effort, especially if they make heavy use of new .NET features like tasks and async / await. It seems like Unity is trying to get rid of the problem by developing their C# to native compiler. My biggest fear is that this will just make things even more incompatible, or worse, their native implementations exhibit inconsistent behavior with the "reference" implementation (Microsofts). And why are they doing their native compiler when Microsoft is already working on this very thing. Just seems like they are falling into the same trap. xgalaxy fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 04:55
|
|