Tool: DEFCON ModSuite [BETA]
Moderator: Defcon moderators
- NeoThermic
- Introversion Staff
- Posts: 6256
- Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 10:55 am
- Location: ::1
- Contact:
Some nice code, although I do wonder at your approch
You've gone all out and decided to use windows only constructs and calls, so porting this to linux/mac would require a small rewrite. I'm not too sure why you didn't decide to stick with gl & glut or gl & SDL
I also have to say, I had to laugh a bit at this comment:
NeoThermic
You've gone all out and decided to use windows only constructs and calls, so porting this to linux/mac would require a small rewrite. I'm not too sure why you didn't decide to stick with gl & glut or gl & SDL
I also have to say, I had to laugh a bit at this comment:
Code: Select all
/* must fix accuracy */
NeoThermic
-
- level0
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:45 pm
glow + empty map.
anyone know how to do that glow thing? cause it looks weird because all the coastlines have that nice blue glow but the ones i make dont...any ideas?
also how do i empty the world map and make my own one?
also how do i empty the world map and make my own one?
suite.cpp wrote:Code: Select all
/*
* DEFCON ModSuite
* Copyright (C) 2006 zanzer7
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
* modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
* as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
* of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
*
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
* GNU General Public License for more details.
[...]
GPL... *sigh*
When will you people learn?
zanzer7 wrote:And so portable! ... No, wait ...
Frankly it's so full of windows-isms that changing to C# would have very little difference on portability anyway.
I'm not used to releasing applications. What would you've suggested?prophile wrote:GPL... *sigh*
When will you people learn?
It's the window calling function that's full of windows-isms. Not the actual code (as far as I know, anyway ).prophile wrote:Frankly it's so full of windows-isms that changing to C# would have very little difference on portability anyway.
The 'glow' is simply 'data\graphics\blur.bmp', stretched out on the entire world mapspindash wrote:anyone know how to do that glow thing? cause it looks weird because all the coastlines have that nice blue glow but the ones i make dont...any ideas?
Just remove 'coastlines.dat', and preferrably 'international.dat'. You can rename your coastlines file to 'coastlines-low.dat' when you're done; for the low detail coastlinesspindash wrote:also how do i empty the world map and make my own one?
-
- level1
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:11 pm
If it gets stuck at startup but doesn't crash with an error message, you've likely provided an image whose size isn't a power of two. For some reason OpenGL will still load such images (eventually), but everything just goes a lot slower.
An improved version will hopefully be available in the very near future.
An improved version will hopefully be available in the very near future.
zanzer7 wrote:And so portable! ... No, wait ... :roll:
Only for the time being. As soon as frameworks are created for Mac and Linux, you'll be seeing a whole lot more of .NET. Just like DirectX, the frameworks will be distributed with the applications. .NET is the future! .NET is life!
But really, .NET reduces bugs, shortens compile time, reduces executable size (not that that's a big issue), simplifies many previously tedious processes, and reduces coding time significantly without any real decrease in power (c#, not vb). The slightly lessened (very slightly) performance is only an issue with games and other resource intensive apps. And besides, c# is a really clean language, so much more logical and intuitive without the dumbing down of VB. The language for me. And I would recommend it to anyone else interested. BTW - There are actually areas in which .NET performs better. And it supports true language interoperability without middleware, unlike what COM attempts to do. And it's just plain old awesome! (I personally think it kicks Java in the nuts, but that's just me)
wwarnick
wwarnick wrote:zanzer7 wrote:And so portable! ... No, wait ... :roll:
Only for the time being. As soon as frameworks are created for Mac and Linux, you'll be seeing a whole lot more of .NET. Just like DirectX, the frameworks will be distributed with the applications. .NET is the future! .NET is life!
But really, .NET reduces bugs, shortens compile time, reduces executable size (not that that's a big issue), simplifies many previously tedious processes, and reduces coding time significantly without any real decrease in power (c#, not vb). The slightly lessened (very slightly) performance is only an issue with games and other resource intensive apps. And besides, c# is a really clean language, so much more logical and intuitive without the dumbing down of VB. The language for me. And I would recommend it to anyone else interested. BTW - There are actually areas in which .NET performs better. And it supports true language interoperability without middleware, unlike what COM attempts to do. And it's just plain old awesome! (I personally think it kicks Java in the nuts, but that's just me)
wwarnick
Fanboi.
xander
- NeoThermic
- Introversion Staff
- Posts: 6256
- Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 10:55 am
- Location: ::1
- Contact:
Assuming this isn't one of your blanket statements, lets pull this one apart, eh?
The only way this'll ever be true is if Microsoft actually help and develop .net ability for the said platforms. Else you'll have to rely on things like Mono, which isn't as good as native support.
Lies. Bugs are mistakes by the programmer, a human factor. I can write flawled code in any language, .net included.
Compared to? Also note that compile time doesn't matter much, at all. It isn't like we're all running Gentoo and need to compile our applications frequently. The end user will never see a compile. Thus your point is invalid.
Ha! Yeah, for .net though, you need the .net runtimes, which 2.0 weighs in at a hefty 22.4 MB. So your application might be ~800KB vs a 1.2MB non-.net version, but at least the non .net version doesn't need a 22.4MB runtime.
Name some?
Coding time can be better reduced by proper prototyping, coding styles and planning. You might save a few mins here or there by using tools that do things for you, but your time is better saved by proper development styles.
Incidently you quielty ommit to name them. Care to?
Oh cripes, don't get me started on Java...
NeoThermic
wwarnick wrote:As soon as frameworks are created for Mac and Linux, you'll be seeing a whole lot more of .NET.
The only way this'll ever be true is if Microsoft actually help and develop .net ability for the said platforms. Else you'll have to rely on things like Mono, which isn't as good as native support.
wwarnick wrote:But really, .NET reduces bugs
Lies. Bugs are mistakes by the programmer, a human factor. I can write flawled code in any language, .net included.
wwarnick wrote:shortens compile time
Compared to? Also note that compile time doesn't matter much, at all. It isn't like we're all running Gentoo and need to compile our applications frequently. The end user will never see a compile. Thus your point is invalid.
wwarnick wrote:reduces executable size
Ha! Yeah, for .net though, you need the .net runtimes, which 2.0 weighs in at a hefty 22.4 MB. So your application might be ~800KB vs a 1.2MB non-.net version, but at least the non .net version doesn't need a 22.4MB runtime.
wwarnick wrote:simplifies many previously tedious processes
Name some?
wwarnick wrote:reduces coding time significantly without any real decrease in power
Coding time can be better reduced by proper prototyping, coding styles and planning. You might save a few mins here or there by using tools that do things for you, but your time is better saved by proper development styles.
wwarnick wrote:BTW - There are actually areas in which .NET performs better.
Incidently you quielty ommit to name them. Care to?
wwarnick wrote:I personally think it kicks Java in the nuts, but that's just me
Oh cripes, don't get me started on Java...
NeoThermic
To prevent confusion, the majority of my previous post was a comparison between .NET (C# mostly) and C++.
I'm assuming they intend to. Correct me if I'm wrong.
What talent you have. You know what I meant.
(Compared to C++) A convenience for the programmer. This may not be major, but I happen to like it.
GUI, memory management, security, porting to name a few. The fact that .NET saves time isn't even debated. The reduction in coding time is balanced by a reduction in performance. I don't think you'll argue that.
Ah. And proper prototyping, coding styles, and planning cannot be done in .NET?
First off, native code on the whole is inarguably faster. However, though outweighed, there are a few (meaning a few) performance increases in .NET. .NET enables computer-specific optimizations, eliminates indirection to addresses known only at runtime, and has faster heap allocations. That's all I know offhand. There may be a few more, I don't know. Nevertheless, there aren't many. I never said .NET as a whole was faster. However, the performance reduction is very small, and for my purposes insignificant.
Meaning you like or dislike Java? Just in case, change my wording from "kicks Java in the nuts" to "I prefer C#".
I'm not sure whether to take your post as friendly discussion or on the defense. Either way, I hope this clears this up. I only meant to promote .NET as a Java programmer would promote Java and a Mac user would promote a Mac.
Speaking of Macs, I have yet to hear a Mac/PC comparison that has even verged on technical. The most valid point I've heard to date is that Mac's taskbar better satisfies Fitt's law. Please share any knowledge you have.
wwarnick
NeoThermic wrote:The only way this'll ever be true is if Microsoft actually help and develop .net ability for the said platforms.
I'm assuming they intend to. Correct me if I'm wrong.
NeoThermic wrote:Lies. Bugs are mistakes by the programmer, a human factor. I can write flawled code in any language, .net included.
What talent you have. You know what I meant.
NeoThermic wrote:Compared to? Also note that compile time doesn't matter much, at all. It isn't like we're all running Gentoo and need to compile our applications frequently. The end user will never see a compile. Thus your point is invalid.
(Compared to C++) A convenience for the programmer. This may not be major, but I happen to like it.
NeoThermic wrote:Ha! Yeah, for .net though, you need the .net runtimes, which 2.0 weighs in at a hefty 22.4 MB. So your application might be ~800KB vs a 1.2MB non-.net version, but at least the non .net version doesn't need a 22.4MB runtime.
wwarnick wrote:(not that that's a big issue)
NeoThermic wrote:wwarnick wrote:simplifies many previously tedious processes
Name some?
GUI, memory management, security, porting to name a few. The fact that .NET saves time isn't even debated. The reduction in coding time is balanced by a reduction in performance. I don't think you'll argue that.
NeoThermic wrote:wwarnick wrote:reduces coding time significantly without any real decrease in power
Coding time can be better reduced by proper prototyping, coding styles and planning. You might save a few mins here or there by using tools that do things for you, but your time is better saved by proper development styles.
Ah. And proper prototyping, coding styles, and planning cannot be done in .NET?
NeoThermic wrote:wwarnick wrote:BTW - There are actually areas in which .NET performs better.
Incidently you quielty ommit to name them. Care to?
First off, native code on the whole is inarguably faster. However, though outweighed, there are a few (meaning a few) performance increases in .NET. .NET enables computer-specific optimizations, eliminates indirection to addresses known only at runtime, and has faster heap allocations. That's all I know offhand. There may be a few more, I don't know. Nevertheless, there aren't many. I never said .NET as a whole was faster. However, the performance reduction is very small, and for my purposes insignificant.
NeoThermic wrote:wwarnick wrote:I personally think it kicks Java in the nuts, but that's just me
Oh cripes, don't get me started on Java... ;)
Meaning you like or dislike Java? Just in case, change my wording from "kicks Java in the nuts" to "I prefer C#".
I'm not sure whether to take your post as friendly discussion or on the defense. Either way, I hope this clears this up. I only meant to promote .NET as a Java programmer would promote Java and a Mac user would promote a Mac.
Speaking of Macs, I have yet to hear a Mac/PC comparison that has even verged on technical. The most valid point I've heard to date is that Mac's taskbar better satisfies Fitt's law. Please share any knowledge you have.
wwarnick
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests