"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> However, often you don't want your final product to be machined, because that's
> prohibitively expensive for a lot of purposes. Pressed (is that the right
> word?) or cast parts or the like are much different: They need special tools
> that need to be made first (e.g., the molds in case of cast parts). Again,
> they're prototypes.

You design your final part in your CAD program, then design the corresponding
tool using the part as a starting point (many CAD applications will do this
semi automatically). You machine your tool, then use it to cheaply punch, cast
etc your main end product.

Bingo!

Post a reply to this message

> Does one exist?

Download and install Visual C# Express edition, click "create new project" 
and then add in a few lines of code to draw stuff on the window (check out 
Mike's recent posts about his flood fill and fire programs).  That's about 
as simple as I can imagine in a window'd OS, I'm sure there are loads of 
tutorials and example projects to get you started.

> Typically you have to register callbacks with the GUI system, and then 
> call a "main loop" function which calls your callbacks when it feels like 
> it.

Dunno about that, in Visual Studio Express I just go to the OnPaint property 
and type in or select a function name from the drop-down menu.  That 
function then gets called when the form/control needs repainting.

> happen while the user isn't pressing anything. (E.g., if you wanted to do 
> something compute-bound, now the GUI stops responding until the compute 
> task finishes.)

Anything that is going to take a while you should probably do in another 
thread so your code can still respond to GUI events.  It's very easy, just 
one call to _beginthreadex windows API function starts off the given 
function in a new thread.

You can also drag and drop a timer onto your form and then tell it to call a 
certain function every so often, which is useful if you want to do some 
simple animation.

And if you want to look into anything more complicated than lines and simple 
pixel animation, DirectX is easier than ever to use now, especially if you 
already understand 3D coordinates and stuff.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> scott wrote:
>>> The hard part is figuring out how to draw the graphics on screen
>>
>> Choose a language / IDE / API that gives you easy access to graphics?
> 
> Does one exist?
> 

C# Maahahaahh ... hahaah.. hah.. <cough> heh.


> 
> Typically you have to register callbacks with the GUI system, and then 
> call a "main loop" function which calls your callbacks when it feels 
> like it. Which is great if you just want something to happen when the 
> user presses a button, but becomes problematic if you want things to 
> happen while the user isn't pressing anything. (E.g., if you wanted to 
> do something compute-bound, now the GUI stops responding until the 
> compute task finishes.)
> 

Huh? Do it on a background thread! For a game that has constant activity 
  (a game loop, many games, but tic-tac-toe doesn't have this 
requirement!) You'd generally have within your message loop a call to a 
function called "DoGameLogicForThisFrame" or some such. It gets a time 
delta from the last frame so you can adapt your logic to the frame work. 
You work your computations in steps, so you don't block the frame for 
too long, which usually works well for most things like character 
movement, etc. Just make sure you calculate the frame quickly so you 
don't kill frame rate. At some point you perform your message pumping if 
any messages are in that thread's message queue.

Keyboard or mouse input can still be handled by event functions, you 
just store the values somewhere convenient for the game loop to get to 
them. I managed to have the keyboard basically act as a game controller 
by handling KeyDown/KeyUp events and mapping to a list of keys.. I could 
then check that list and see if that key were down and up.

>> BTW why don't you just do a text based version?
> 
> Because that wouldn't be very exciting?
> 
> What I'd really like to have a go at is Mahjong... but that would be 
> absurdly hard.

Dude! Mahjong is easy EASY! That was one of the easiest games I ever 
worked on! The ONLY hard part is if you want to give hints or have the 


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> In that case, why are there more jobs of "CNC mill operators" than there 
> are for computer programmers? :-P

well, someone has to maintain the machine and kick it when it 
misbehaves. ;) Oh, and they may be in the office with specialized CAD 
programs making sure the tool paths won't cause the machine to bind, 
jam, cut too much, etc..


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

>>>> The hard part is figuring out how to draw the graphics on screen
>>>
>>> Choose a language / IDE / API that gives you easy access to graphics?
>>
>> Does one exist?
> 
> C# Maahahaahh ... hahaah.. hah.. <cough> heh.

Isn't that based on C? (And hence inherantly "not easy".)

>> (E.g., if you wanted to 
>> do something compute-bound, now the GUI stops responding until the 
>> compute task finishes.)
> 
> Huh? Do it on a background thread!

And now you have to manage thread coordination problems. :-}

But yeah, maybe I'll get to have a go at this some day... when I'm 
feeling brave.

>> What I'd really like to have a go at is Mahjong... but that would be 
>> absurdly hard.
> 
> Dude! Mahjong is easy EASY! That was one of the easiest games I ever 
> worked on! The ONLY hard part is if you want to give hints or have the 


Nooo - the hardest part is drawing thousands of tile images to make the 
game work. :-P

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

>>> Does one exist?
>>
>> C# Maahahaahh ... hahaah.. hah.. <cough> heh.
> 
> Isn't that based on C? (And hence inherantly "not easy".)
> 

OK, then, VB.Net!

>>> (E.g., if you wanted to do something compute-bound, now the GUI stops 
>>> responding until the compute task finishes.)
>>
>> Huh? Do it on a background thread!
> 
> And now you have to manage thread coordination problems. :-}
> 
> But yeah, maybe I'll get to have a go at this some day... when I'm 
> feeling brave.
> 

Not too bad, if you don't have multiple threads sharing the same data

> 
> Nooo - the hardest part is drawing thousands of tile images to make the 
> game work. :-P

How so? Especially in C# ... That's really the simple part.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

>>> C# Maahahaahh ... hahaah.. hah.. <cough> heh.
>>
>> Isn't that based on C? (And hence inherantly "not easy".)
> 
> OK, then, VB.Net!

IT BURNS!! >_<

>> Nooo - the hardest part is drawing thousands of tile images to make 
>> the game work. :-P
> 
> How so? Especially in C# ... That's really the simple part.

Really?

Are *you* good at drawing stuff? Because *I* suck at it! :-P

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>>>> C# Maahahaahh ... hahaah.. hah.. <cough> heh.
>>>
>>> Isn't that based on C? (And hence inherantly "not easy".)
>>
>> OK, then, VB.Net!
> 
> IT BURNS!! >_<
> 
>>> Nooo - the hardest part is drawing thousands of tile images to make 
>>> the game work. :-P
>>
>> How so? Especially in C# ... That's really the simple part.
> 
> Really?
> 
> Are *you* good at drawing stuff? Because *I* suck at it! :-P

Somewhat ... But the designs aren't that tough:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/MahjongTiles.JPG

OK, The chinese characters would be a challenge to get right but the 
dots, etc... are fairly simple.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>>>> C# Maahahaahh ... hahaah.. hah.. <cough> heh.
>>>
>>> Isn't that based on C? (And hence inherantly "not easy".)
>>
>> OK, then, VB.Net!
> 
> IT BURNS!! >_<
> 

Oh, then C# then ;) Maybe J#? Or Managed C++?


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> 
> Mental, eh?

Yes, we have bunch of those at work.

> - 1U rack-mount form factor. (It's bloody heavy BTW.)

No, it's not. DL380G5 on 2U in size.

> - It comes with sliding rails and a bendy cable arm to automatically
> fold or extend the cables as you slide the server into or out of the
> rack. Completely tool-less installation. Everything snaps into place. (I
> have *no idea* how the hell you take it apart again, should you want to.)

It's actually pretty easy, if you'll think it a bit. Those rails really
*are* designed.

> - When mine arrived, I had to open it up and install the optional extras
> myself. In particular, it is highly non-obvious how to remove the air
> baffle. (And I don't want to break a £4,000 server in five minutes!) I
> had to install the second CPU and the second pair of RAM boards.

You grab a hold on the baffle and take it out upwards. Yes, you'll need
to sort out the SAS cables and possibly RAID-controllers battery, but
it's no big deal.

> - The CPU chip comes inside a "processor installation tool". This
> consists of a handle to hold it by, and when you press down it's
> supposed to release the chip [but doesn't]; The chip itself doesn't
> appear to have any pins, which is kinda weird.

Yes, the installation tool sucks. I've always removed the processor from
it and installed the proc by hand.

> - There's a button on the front that turns on a light at the back. So if
> you have a rack with 10 of them, you can figure out which one to plug
> your cables into.

1) If you already have 9 of them, they're probably already plugged in,
so just plug in the one that hasn't.

2) The "blue makes you happy" -button need power, so you'll first need
to attach the power cables anyway ;). At work we hit dymo stickers to
both ends of a server, so it's even easier to know which machine is which.

> - Front-mounted hot-swap drive bays. (I've got 6 drives - and you know
> what? Each one is tiny, yet arrived in a really huge box!)

The earlier huge ones (3,5") arrived at even huger boxes :).

> WHAT THE HELL MORE DO YOU WANT?!?!! >_<

Free tea? :)

> Seriously. This is the puppy.

Yes, quite nice, I like them too.

> ...although, having just said all that, the cable arm isn't as nice as
> the Dell one. It's a bit flimsy, and bends in planes it shouldn't. 

Is it attached properly? It is flimsy if it's attached poorly, but
pretty good when properly in place.

> Also,
> the automated installer doesn't support Windows 2000 Server, which is
> what the company IT department wanted me to use. Wasted a few hours on
> that one. But that's about all I can actually find to complain about.

Try 7-series Smartstart:
http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/SoftwareDescription.jsp?lang=en&cc=fi&prodTypeId=15351&prodSeriesId=1121516&prodNameId=3288134&swEnvOID=181&swLang=8&mode=2&taskId=135&swItem=MTX-38d443ae75914124807c7cf066
(or http://tinyurl.com/smartstart790)

> PS. What *the hell* is a "PPM"? And why is it 80% heatsink??

Processor Power Module. It regulates the power for the processor (that's
why it's 80% heatsink).

-Aero

Post a reply to this message