Xiotex - On portals and Plane Space

The only place you'll ever hear the truth
User avatar
cheesemoo0
level3
level3
Posts: 345
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 1:19 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Postby cheesemoo0 » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:14 pm

I like how it is coming along.

As mentioned before it would be nice if you upped the speed a little. It just seems to be a crawl at the moment.
It is nice that you are making plane X be static even after traversing plane Y.

Too bad you were sick and all, but at least you were able to work more on the game.
VelvetFistIronGlove
level0
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:58 pm

Postby VelvetFistIronGlove » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:48 pm

Just tried the OS X version. I just love blowing toruses* into their component polygons!

* Yes, toruses.
Weatherproof
level1
level1
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:18 pm

Postby Weatherproof » Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:04 am

Very Nice improvement of build!! It's amazing how everything is pseudo-procedural.
so.... on a 64-bit program this would have....1.84e19 planes? Ridiculous, :P Stick to 32-bit LOL
User avatar
NeatNit
level5
level5
Posts: 2929
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:41 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Postby NeatNit » Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:02 pm

18,446,744,073,709,551,616 to be exact.
User avatar
Byron
level2
level2
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 3:48 pm

Postby Byron » Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:16 pm

NeatNit wrote:18,446,744,073,709,551,616 to be exact.


I'll do it, if and only if you test them all for me :D
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:24 pm

Byron wrote:
NeatNit wrote:18,446,744,073,709,551,616 to be exact.


I'll do it, if and only if you test them all for me :D

I wonder if the universe would last long enough...
User avatar
Byron
level2
level2
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 3:48 pm

Postby Byron » Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:35 pm

I have a feeling NeatNit will tell us. :wink:

That does raise an interesting point though, how do I know if one of the planes becomes impossible to play?
User avatar
NeatNit
level5
level5
Posts: 2929
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:41 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Postby NeatNit » Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:40 pm

Why, by letting me test it, of course!




But really, in the current state of the "game" (yes I know that it WILL be a game in the future, but I'm talking about now) it is impossible that a level becomes impossible to play.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: Xiotex - On portals and Plane Space

Postby xander » Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:50 pm

NeatNit wrote:Actually, we see in 2 dimensions. It's just out awesometastic brain that can take 2 2D pics and make em 3D.


Also, if there is/ever was/will ever be a 2D world, it's creatures would see in 1D. That's right, just a line of senseless colors. Also, it would be troublesome to go around each other... Hard world it would be, hard world.......

Why do people say that? It isn't true... If you had only one eye, you might be able to claim that you saw in only two dimensions (you would be seeing the projection of a three dimensional world onto a retina that is basically two dimensional. However, with the addition of a second eye, you are reconciling two 2D projections of a 3D world, and are seeing more than a simple two dimensional projection of a three dimensional space. I mean, if you want to claim that humans see in less than 3D, perhaps 2.5D would be more appropriate? We certainly don't see in only two dimensions.

xander
RabidZombie
level5
level5
Posts: 2414
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:09 pm

Re: Xiotex - On portals and Plane Space

Postby RabidZombie » Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:49 pm

xander wrote:
NeatNit wrote:Actually, we see in 2 dimensions. It's just out awesometastic brain that can take 2 2D pics and make em 3D.


Also, if there is/ever was/will ever be a 2D world, it's creatures would see in 1D. That's right, just a line of senseless colors. Also, it would be troublesome to go around each other... Hard world it would be, hard world.......

Why do people say that? It isn't true... If you had only one eye, you might be able to claim that you saw in only two dimensions (you would be seeing the projection of a three dimensional world onto a retina that is basically two dimensional. However, with the addition of a second eye, you are reconciling two 2D projections of a 3D world, and are seeing more than a simple two dimensional projection of a three dimensional space. I mean, if you want to claim that humans see in less than 3D, perhaps 2.5D would be more appropriate? We certainly don't see in only two dimensions.

xander


Lets not forget he was protesting that we can only see in the 3 dimensions, which depends entirely on your interpretation. You're perfectly right we see in 3D (or least a 2D image with a plane of depth, so 2.5D), but he's correct in saying we can see in 2 dimensions (cover one eye).

However, it's quite clear Byron meant we wouldn't be able to see in a 2D world. After all, all we'd see is a 1D (1.5D) projection of the 2D world (if we had the right equipment...). Tell me what that looks like. ;)

Although I completely disagree with the whole "senseless colours" and "troublesome to go around each other". A 4D being would take exactly the same view of our 3D world.
User avatar
NeatNit
level5
level5
Posts: 2929
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:41 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: Xiotex - On portals and Plane Space

Postby NeatNit » Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:57 pm

xander wrote:
NeatNit wrote:Actually, we see in 2 dimensions. It's just out awesometastic brain that can take 2 2D pics and make em 3D.


Also, if there is/ever was/will ever be a 2D world, it's creatures would see in 1D. That's right, just a line of senseless colors. Also, it would be troublesome to go around each other... Hard world it would be, hard world.......

Why do people say that? It isn't true... If you had only one eye, you might be able to claim that you saw in only two dimensions (you would be seeing the projection of a three dimensional world onto a retina that is basically two dimensional. However, with the addition of a second eye, you are reconciling two 2D projections of a 3D world, and are seeing more than a simple two dimensional projection of a three dimensional space. I mean, if you want to claim that humans see in less than 3D, perhaps 2.5D would be more appropriate? We certainly don't see in only two dimensions.

xander
RabidZombie
level5
level5
Posts: 2414
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:09 pm

Re: Xiotex - On portals and Plane Space

Postby RabidZombie » Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:14 pm

RabidZombie wrote:
xander wrote:
NeatNit wrote:Actually, we see in 2 dimensions. It's just out awesometastic brain that can take 2 2D pics and make em 3D.


Also, if there is/ever was/will ever be a 2D world, it's creatures would see in 1D. That's right, just a line of senseless colors. Also, it would be troublesome to go around each other... Hard world it would be, hard world.......

Why do people say that? It isn't true... If you had only one eye, you might be able to claim that you saw in only two dimensions (you would be seeing the projection of a three dimensional world onto a retina that is basically two dimensional. However, with the addition of a second eye, you are reconciling two 2D projections of a 3D world, and are seeing more than a simple two dimensional projection of a three dimensional space. I mean, if you want to claim that humans see in less than 3D, perhaps 2.5D would be more appropriate? We certainly don't see in only two dimensions.

xander
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: Xiotex - On portals and Plane Space

Postby xander » Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:34 pm

NeatNit wrote:
xander wrote:
NeatNit wrote:Actually, we see in 2 dimensions. It's just out awesometastic brain that can take 2 2D pics and make em 3D.


Also, if there is/ever was/will ever be a 2D world, it's creatures would see in 1D. That's right, just a line of senseless colors. Also, it would be troublesome to go around each other... Hard world it would be, hard world.......

Why do people say that? It isn't true... If you had only one eye, you might be able to claim that you saw in only two dimensions (you would be seeing the projection of a three dimensional world onto a retina that is basically two dimensional. However, with the addition of a second eye, you are reconciling two 2D projections of a 3D world, and are seeing more than a simple two dimensional projection of a three dimensional space. I mean, if you want to claim that humans see in less than 3D, perhaps 2.5D would be more appropriate? We certainly don't see in only two dimensions.

xander

Are you actually going to respond, or just quote me?

xander
RabidZombie
level5
level5
Posts: 2414
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:09 pm

Postby RabidZombie » Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:36 pm

I assumed he was making a point that he thought I was just repeating you. But, uh, I have to say it being a mistake never crossed my mind.
User avatar
prophile
level5
level5
Posts: 1541
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 4:17 pm
Location: Southampton, UK
Contact:

Postby prophile » Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:37 pm

It runs, slowly, on my OS X machine!

Cue OpenGL nazi:
I see an OpenGL error every frame from CFont::RenderText in glEnd - immediate mode is slow and also now deprecated with OpenGL 3.0 so I'd suggest using vertex arrays exclusively. I see many things being rendered which aren't actually on screen - quadtrees are your friends! The OpenGL state is changing a hell of a lot (enabling and disabling GL_TEXTURE_2D?) - this can cause a major performance slowdown, so I'd highly recommend caching the current state of GL_TEXTURE_2D and GL_BLEND and all those other jobbies and changing them only at the beginning of any rendering function if they need changing. You also really don't need to invoke glTexParameterf for each separate item of text. Finally, glGet* are big performance-eaters because they cause a pipeline stall any time you use them - avoid at all costs! It's much better to implement your own matrix class and use glLoadMatrix to set state rather than using the OpenGL syntactic sugar and then pipeline stalling every time you need to find those matrices.

Return to “Introversion Blog”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests