 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> If you can find a way to run a DirectX game *without* Windows, I'll be
>> impressed! ;-)
>
> Wine.
>
> In fact, I bet this game works on Wine.
Wine supports DirectX?
OK, I'm impressed!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>
>>> If you can find a way to run a DirectX game *without* Windows, I'll
>>> be impressed! ;-)
>>
>> Wine.
>>
>> In fact, I bet this game works on Wine.
>
> Wine supports DirectX?
>
> OK, I'm impressed!
Well don't be too impressed until you get it to work ;)
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> I hope you enjoy my little game. To make it more interesting, I have
>> hidden a few easter eggs for you to find. Questions and comments are
>> always appreciated. Have fun!
>
> It's really cool, the controls remind me a little of the game Thrust I
> had on my old BBC computer - I loved that game. I can see this could
> turn into a really fun game to play too. Good job.
Thanks! Is the collision detection too bouncy? I kind of like it that
way, as it makes the game feel "softer".
As a side note, this was more of a "proof of concept", rather than a
demo. I could have chosen a better description.
> For the whole frame rate / game speed thing, I recommend you read this
> article - it really explains very simply how to make sure your game runs
> exactly the same way (in terms of physics and speed) no matter what the
> frame rate is.
>
> http://www.gaffer.org/game-physics/fix-your-timestep
Thanks, I will read that. I tried to implement a lower limit to the FPS,
but everything I did resulted in an exponential speed increase, hence my
crappy patch in the config file. At least I'm learning to control the
framerate without compromising functionality (ie. collision detection).
> Not many people have 640x480 monitors anymore, perhaps you could make
> some higher resolution tiles and give the option to change the screen
> resolution?
I thought all monitors were backward-compatible. What resolution would
you suggest? 1280x880? I think maybe I could get away with having a
variable resolution, as it appears any speed bottleneck occurs when more
pixels are drawn to the screen. A person could choose a lower res if a
high one is too slow.
> I don't know what plans you have for the gameplay, but you could vary
> the colour of the tiles over a large scale (say repeating every 2000
> units) so that the player has some idea to remember which parts of the
> map they are visiting - it's very easy to get lost because everything
> looks the same.
That's a good idea. It is possible to do this, and I could change the
color at each corner of every sprite for a smoother look. Maybe I could
do it with a perlin noise function, although the only one I found
repeats rather quickly, hence my question in p.programming.
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I thought all monitors were backward-compatible.
It still doesn't look good to have such a big screen and have low
resolution images (or a tiny 640x480 *window* centered in the screen).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Wine supports DirectX?
>
> OK, I'm impressed!
I think the Wine developers worked more on DirectX than on anything
else. How would you get *any* game working on it otherwise? :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> OK, I'm impressed!
>
> I think the Wine developers worked more on DirectX than on anything
> else. How would you get *any* game working on it otherwise? :)
I was under the impression that virtually nothing works properly on Wine
beyond *the* most basic applications. If they can get something as
complex as DirectX to work, that's pretty damn impressive as far as I
can tell. (Especially since Linux doesn't really support 3D hardware
acceleration yet...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> (Especially since Linux doesn't really support 3D hardware
> acceleration yet...)
...
I think I'll let Warp answer that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:31:27 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Especially since Linux doesn't really support 3D hardware acceleration
> yet..
Funny, worksforme here, both ATI and NVidia cards. XGL won't run without
HW acceleration. Maybe you should tell the XGL and Compiz folks that
their software doesn't work... ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> Funny, worksforme here, both ATI and NVidia cards. XGL won't run without
I'll add Matrox G400/550 and Intel GMA945 on the list.
>
> Jim
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethis zbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> (Especially since Linux doesn't really support 3D hardware
>> acceleration yet...)
>
> ...
>
> I think I'll let Warp answer that.
OK, let me rephrase: "Especially since most hardware manufacturers still
don't support Linux yet." That better?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
