Scrolling Game Development Kit Forum
General => Off-Topic => Topic started by: TheLaw on 2009-09-10, 11:16:35 AM
-
Hey, gang:
I confess, I have a lot of time on my hands these days! I've picked up a second project (well kinda at this point anyway). I'd love to write it with SGDK, except this one might look better on an XBOX 360. And as you may or may not know, I've been on other areas of the forums wishing for a 'tile-less' editor and in game GUI.
So I've been wondering about writing a version of SGDK for XNA, with the changes above added, plus any other suggestions. For those who have no knowledge of XNA, briefly, you can write games with it for windows for free, and pay I think about 100 (?) bucks to build 360 games. Here's the site: http://creators.xna.com/en-US/ (http://creators.xna.com/en-US/). There's a video of a tileless type editor in action here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiUdJYFEfIs&eurl=http://www.gleed2d.de/&feature=player_embedded. Also, here's a look at the type of in game GUI I'd like to include: http://www.tomshane.cz/neoforce/Features/tabid/55/Default.aspx.
To be clear, my intent is not to distract from the existing SGDK and all of bluemonk's hard work. I'd like to build it as another optional in-house tool for us all to use - made by us for us kinda thing. Also, at this point it's just an idea I thought I'd post to see if anyone is interested at all.
If I were to do it I'd love to get any and all help either hands on in support and suggestions.
So, 'SGDK-X', let me know if it sounds cool or not.
Thanks,
Lawrence
-
I've always thought about doing that. But I am still learning the C# language. But combining them might be not as easy as it sounds. But I'm ready for a challenge. revolucionstudio@live.com
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqz4dunlhX4&feature=related
want.
-
@TonyX:
It's quite possible I'm missing the true value of what you're saying, but you've already been (sorta) using c# already. SGDK is written in c# and the plan editor is producing c# code for us. Since XNA is programmed exclusively with C#, there should not be any major changes. It's mostly a matter of ever so gently removing OpenGL (actually it's OpenTK...) and putting XNA back in it's place. Which of course is no small task!!!
@Jam0864:
Yeah, get in line!!! Haha. Seems to me this is a game just like my current RPG project. It's really all 3D, put it's considered "2D gameplay". When you do that you can have all that nice lighting. Fortunately for us, I was planning to make SGDK-X into some sorta 2D/3D hybrid. So yeah it's gonna be possible, but you'd have to design your game with 3D models instead of 2D sprites in order to have that.
I'm still in a back and forth over at XNA trying to figure a way to be able to build and deploy (run) 360 games from the comfort of the SGDK editor. It sounds like Visual C# may have to be used in some way. Right now this is the biggest threat to the success of this project! ...Well and also your opinions too. So far it's not generating much excitement...!
-
Well, I'm available for any task. However, I can't be given deadlines. Since I really don't have too much time recently. Plus I think the SGDK-X should be free.
-
Great, TonyX! And you're darn right it'll be free. It wouldn't be SGDK if it wasn't free! It would be done under GPL, which is the same license as SGDK. Although Ben has advised me that there may be a few stones in the road (on the sourceforge end), the idea would be to make it available right along side SGDK2 and have a separate section for it right here in this forum.
And no of course no deadlines. Anyone can pitch in whatever they can, whenever they have some time - there's no money involved here, so we'll just have to do the best we can. Also, toss me some suggestions too. Like I said, this'd be our tool, so I need to know what we want!
I'm slowly getting my ducks in a row here, so I may go weapons hot next week.
-
What exactly are you going to do with SGDK-X?
Doesn't it make more sense to just integrate your improvements with SGDK2? It is open source after all.
Or is your idea so vastly different from SGDK2 that it needs seperation?
-
Doesn't it make more sense to just integrate your improvements with SGDK2? It is open source after all.
Or, better still, why wouldn't I use something else that already offers all I need? As I mentioned I have lots of time, and I'm going to be making an XBOX game at some point. Also, this is my favorite community and SGDK is great software to write 2D games with. I'm simply offering us a chance to make some XBOX games - is all.
Also, this is more of a rewrite than an integration. I'm going to be starting with a blank project and I'll unfortunately only be able to bring in a few bits of the original code here and there. (Ahhh, there should be a fair about I can re-use, but I think it's still classed as a rewrite!)
Or is your idea so vastly different from SGDK2 that it needs seperation?
I think the fact that it's XNA automatically puts it in a class of its own, but, also I think the tileless map editor gives it separation too.
What exactly are you going to do with SGDK-X?
Well here's quick look at my wishlist:
1)I'm gonna rewrite SGDK to make use of XNA instead of OpenGL.
2)Change the map editor from tiled to tile-less.
3)Add an in-game graphical user interface.
4)Add a physics engine for collision and fun.
5)Bring in Boo scripting to assist with games that have a large story line - as well as other things like GUI events and such.
6)Add some form of multi player networking
7)Add support for 3D models.
*This is only a early wish list. Things'll certainly change!
#7 is neat I think. Once the fog clears from my mind I'll know more. But right now I'm thinking I could add a place in the IDE where we could load in a 3D model and kinda zoom it and rotate it, set up some lights, and then take a "picture" of it and use in our 2D levels. ...But I don't know, I'm still wrestling with this one!
-
Wow, this seems ambitious! :o
-
LOL, Yes it sure is! But it must be done for us to be competitive in the wide world of Windows and XBOX games. Could take me a few minutes!!! :laugh:
-
With XNA, Zune is also another possibility for us too! ;)
3D seems like a tough challenge. Perhaps we should add that later, when we get 2D to work. Right? :-\
When do we start development!
(so eager) ;D
-
Yes, I failed to mention the Zune. That's also quite cool.
3D seems like a tough challenge. Perhaps we should add that later, when we get 2D to work. Right?
Well it might not be so bad with another library like this to help: http://www.hilva.com/clients.php
I just have put in some time with all the available libraries to see which ones best suit our needs and also make sure they play nice with each other. (Licence-wise too)
When do we start development!
Well, from now 'till October I plan to experiment with all these libraries and hone my C# skills. Then I won't be around at all for the month of October. Finally in November the rubber hits the road!
So, for me with a month off coming up, I can't commit to much right now other than planning. I would like to have an IM chat sometime if that's alright?
-
I'll give you my msn.
-
Well, here's a crude text document I've been working on. It's a "Wishlist" of some feature I've been dreaming about.
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AarYbzRwn79qZGRkNms2NWpfNWZtNzlwY2dw&hl=en (http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AarYbzRwn79qZGRkNms2NWpfNWZtNzlwY2dw&hl=en)
It's a work in progress still, but check it out if you'd like to see what I'm up too!
Bless the mess/bad grammar/bad English. ...It's "ruff" ???
-
Oh boy! After reading your wish list, I don't have choice but to take my comment "This seems ambitious" back.
This time I'll say this: This is incredibly ambitious! :o :o :o
:laugh:
But hey, you've got to be ambitious to achieve great things. So go for it!
-
Yeah, after about 16 years or so of making insignifigant little toy games/apps, I've decided to strap on a set and try my luck in the big league.
Also, general laborers like myself are out of work around here, so I'd like to use it as a "career launcher" in my portfolio. ...God be willing of course!
Let the good times roll...
-
These are hard times, no doubt.
I wish you all the best! :)
-
Very kind of you, sir! Thanks - I really do need it! :pray:
-
Your document suggests that the benefit of tiling is to reduce memory usage, but in my mind, this is not the biggest benefit. The biggest benefit I got from tiling was simpler, more efficient collision detection. You should maybe mention the physics engine in that section (at least with a "see below" comment). Do you see how a tile-based map would simplify collision detection? I still wonder on a map with a million tiles if an architecture like this can perform comparably to a tile-based map. Are you going to have some kind of tree structure that quickly eliminates far-away objects from consideration in collision detection and drawing? (Is that how it's done these days?) (I would also comment that it's not so much memory I'm concerned about when designing tiles, but rather artwork effort -- I don't have enough time/skill to draw a million tiles' worth of different graphics, never mind how much memory it takes :))
I haven't had time to read all the way through the document yet, but that's the first question that springs to my mind -- managing collision detection optimization... maybe that's the responsibility of the physics engine? What are the limitations of the physics engine?
-
Thanks, bluemonk, this is what I need!
First:
Your document suggests that the benefit of tiling is to reduce memory usage
Haha, yeah, my document probably makes many silly/bold/false claims! It's (currently) not so well thought out!
Do you see how a tile-based map would simplify collision detection?
Well, with tileless, you still are in a sense making tiles, but they do not have to be square or of any particular size. Your "pallette" of artwork to design your level becomes a big collection of any pictures you can find.
Have a look at this video: http://vimeo.com/2769377 to see what Ii mean. ...I can't explain it to well!
Are you going to have some kind of tree structure that quickly eliminates far-away objects from consideration in collision detection and drawing? (Is that how it's done these days?)
Yup, it's all in the algorithm! It's every bit as fast as tiles, perhaps faster, since you're (probably) not making millions of calls to draw little square images. ...Bigger artwork in the level equals less calls to the bitmap blaster. *(There's many variables involved really. So it's not safe to claim that a tileless system is faster, or slower, but they do have their moments. Suffice to say, they can get the job done. I have never heard one complaint about their speed, and I've been around them for a while now too.)
managing collision detection optimization... maybe that's the responsibility of the physics engine?
Yeah, as I mentioned in the doc, you draw out your collision polygons, then I just sorta "upload" those polygons to the physics engine, along with any physical properties (bounciness, etc). Then every crank of the main loop, I just query the physics engine about any collisions that have happened since last time. If there's a collision that requires a reaction (bounce), the physics engine (which would do all the math based on their weight, etc) will tell me what direction and what speed I should change them to. So for simple platforms, you draw poly's around your artwork, and just set it to a simple "you can't go there" type collision. Or perhaps it's a big rock, that would require a run to move the weight.
So yes, the physics engine is the boss of all the polygons in the game and it will tell us when collisions happen and how to respond.
...Sorry I'm just no dang good at explaining things!
I don't have enough time/skill to draw a million tiles' worth of different graphics, never mind how much memory it takes
Don't worry, it's still very tile friendly and aware. You can add tiles to the palette and set up a grid with snap - then it's business as usual.
What are the limitations of the physics engine
Not many! Did you catch the video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oecv7Cg9lCc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oecv7Cg9lCc)
For anyone who still can't get their head around this tileless idea, try downloading this editor:
http://www.gleed2d.de/#download
It's nice and small with no install program. You can be working with it in seconds. There's video tuts for it (http://www.gleed2d.de/#media (http://www.gleed2d.de/#media) ) that can bring you up to speed in about 15-20 mins (just long enough to eat a bag of popcorn!). Then have a go at making a little pretend level and see if you like it (It's not the best, but it's easy to try out). This editor is actually written in XNA, so test it for speed too. I think you'll find the map rather zippy!
Thanks, again BlueMonk. Keep those questions and suggestions coming!
-
The 2D physics demo is pretty cool, but it only shows about one screen's worth of objects at a time, and no background. My concern is what do you do if you want to have a map that's a hundred thousand times the size of the screen? Are there any details about how it handles large numbers of objects or culling invisible objects from consideration or excluding certain objects from interacting from each other? For example, if you think about a world map in an RPG, maybe you have 100,000 patches of background (presumably you're not going to draw the background as one giant image) throughout the world (the background might be 1000 screens wide and 100 screens high, and each patch of background covers a whole screen). It might be odd to have physics on a world map, but assume this is a space game where you're flying a ship through the universe and the background is made of stars, and there are 1000 planets in the universe. And maybe there are about 20 other ships flying through the universe at any given time. Now in the case of a tiled map, the drawing is as simple as one screen full of tiles (plus the number of sprites) no matter how big the universe is. And the collision testing is only as complex as the number of solid tiles that a particular sprite is touching (assuming you make the planets out of tiles and not sprites). So the complexity of drawing the background is O(N), where N is the number of sprites in the universe (20) because the number of tiles being drawn is constant and the complexity of locating the tiles to draw doesn't depend on how large the universe is, and the complexity of collision detection is O(N*N) where N is the number of sprites in the universe (20*20 = 400, although SGDK2 optimizes this significantly with sprite categories so you only have to enumerate the sprites that care about collisions).
But if you are using a physics engine where everything that gets drawn and everything that can interact with other objects needs to be represented as an object, doesn't the complexity increase? It seems to to me that the complexity of the drawing would be O(N) where N is the number of objects in the universe (20 + 1000 + 100000 = 101020 objects to check for visibility). And the collision detection would be O(N*N) where N is the number of objects (101020 * 101020 = 10,205,040,400 -- more than 10 billion checks for objects in the vicinity of each other without some sort of optimization). Do you know how 2D physics engines deal with this or if they don't?
Cool that it's optimized for C#, BTW!
-
The 2D physics demo is pretty cool, but it only shows about one screen's worth of objects at a time, and no background. My concern is what do you do if you want to have a map that's a hundred thousand times the size of the screen? Are there any details about how it handles large numbers of objects or culling invisible objects from consideration or excluding certain objects from interacting from each other? For example, if you think about a world map in an RPG, maybe you have 100,000 patches of background (presumably you're not going to draw the background as one giant image) throughout the world (the background might be 1000 screens wide and 100 screens high, and each patch of background covers a whole screen). It might be odd to have physics on a world map, but assume this is a space game where you're flying a ship through the universe and the background is made of stars, and there are 1000 planets in the universe. And maybe there are about 20 other ships flying through the universe at any given time. Now in the case of a tiled map, the drawing is as simple as one screen full of tiles (plus the number of sprites) no matter how big the universe is. And the collision testing is only as complex as the number of solid tiles that a particular sprite is touching (assuming you make the planets out of tiles and not sprites). So the complexity of drawing the background is O(N), where N is the number of sprites in the universe (20) because the number of tiles being drawn is constant and the complexity of locating the tiles to draw doesn't depend on how large the universe is, and the complexity of collision detection is O(N*N) where N is the number of sprites in the universe (20*20 = 400, although SGDK2 optimizes this significantly with sprite categories so you only have to enumerate the sprites that care about collisions).
But if you are using a physics engine where everything that gets drawn and everything that can interact with other objects needs to be represented as an object, doesn't the complexity increase? It seems to to me that the complexity of the drawing would be O(N) where N is the number of objects in the universe (20 + 1000 + 100000 = 101020 objects to check for visibility). And the collision detection would be O(N*N) where N is the number of objects (101020 * 101020 = 10,205,040,400 -- more than 10 billion checks for objects in the vicinity of each other without some sort of optimization). Do you know how 2D physics engines deal with this or if they don't?
Cool that it's optimized for C#, BTW!
Generally physics engines won't detect physics every frame if the framerate is low either.
You could easily lose nine tenths of your framerate in any sgdk2 game I've seen and the game would still run fine anyway, I'm usually getting 500fps or more.
There's a game called Cortex Command that showcases 2d physics very nicely. Very, very complex physics in that game though, it does get hectic at times causing framerate drops. Whole sprites can break into smaller pieces, calculated dynamically through the physics engine. A very nice game. It's not free, but the demo gives a fair amount of content.
Rocket Crash:
(http://www.datarealms.com/images/ccgifs/rocketboom.gif)
Digging for Gold:
(http://www.datarealms.com/images/digging.gif)
That's all ingame, many similar physics calculations can be taking place at the same time and it runs fairly well for the most part.
-
Haha, the hard question is easy to ask isn't it BlueMonk! LOL! Thank you for taking the time to post such a great question! In fact you made me doubt myself, so I had to get Seth Robinson evolved (creator of NovaShell, and so many other things (http://www.rtsoft.com/ (http://www.rtsoft.com/)) ). He's already been doing most of what I want. Here's what he had to say after I made him read your post!
Hey Lawrence,
Well, he's right, it's tricky. But doable. Just a lot of individual tricks to keep things fast.
Here are some ways Novashell deals with it:
1. Grid partitioning or some other partitioning scheme allows objects to quickly check only those near them for collisions
2. When things stop moving, put them to 'sleep' to stop eating cycles
3. If something IS moving offscreen, it "wakes up" those around it so the physics will work right, and they in turn wake up more, etc, before the real physics math starts for that update cycle. This only time totally breaks down is if you had many screens totally filled with objects that use physics all touching eachother. (design around that happening)
4. Moving objects that never stop (like platforms) can be made to freeze when they go out of scope in most cases
5. NPC movement that happens off screen can be partially faked as long as the door connections/paths can be computed in advance. They don't need physics. So, for offscreen action, "Light AI" is used. I assume this is what Fallout 3, etc does
6. One trick that novashell uses is "Keep running entity for X amount of seconds after it leaves the screen", works good for like, barrels falling or NPC's running around and sort of shutting down when you leave. (Novashell calls it a "Watch list")
7. Because of the spatial optimization, Novashell doesn't need to use the traditional concept of tiles at all, and uses 'patches' for everything. (Sprites/tiles are just floating out in space with an X/Y position and not part of a grid)
The Top down RPG example in Novashell uses physics (you just push around things since there is no gravity, it's not even needed really) and has a pretty large map. You can cut and paste the map a few times and after zooming back in, you should see speed hasn't changed.
I think Box2D is great. One consideration is it does have a max area size which is pretty large but waaay less than something like 100*100 screens.
If you're going to do be doing multiplayer netplay this can introduce further complications which need more work arounds and tricks.
Anyway, feel free to post any of this in the thread.
***"Box2D is a c++ physics engine that he uses in his game engine. ...Same idea as the one I've been looking at, just I had to find one for c#
...So there you have it! There's tremendous "Trickery" involved! Take from it what you will. Myself - haha I've got some head scratching to do!
Thank you so much Ben and Seth!
And thanks Jam for your post too. There's a way to make this happen.
-
I'd just like to add that multithreading is an important part of physics. If the whole game ran on one core it probably wouldn't go too well.
-
If I recall correctly, the 2D physics engine you posted the video about has some advantages over Box2D. And it was for C#. So is that what you are going to use? I'm a little confused on how NovaShell, Box2D, Physics2D and SGDKX all (would) relate. My guess is:
NovaShell is an editor like SGDKX. It doesn't rely on a physics engine, but can generate data in a format usable by a particular physics engine.
Box2D is one physics engine. It works with NovaShell, but is C++ only and has some limitations.
Physics2D is another physics engine. We want SGDKX to work with it. It uses a clean C# design and overcomes some limitations of Box2D (http://groups.google.com/group/physics2ddotnet/browse_thread/thread/87e60ddff9d8f46f (http://groups.google.com/group/physics2ddotnet/browse_thread/thread/87e60ddff9d8f46f)).
SGDKX will be our version of NovaShell with integrated game development features.
Am I close? I assume Seth's reply was in regard to Box2D, but hopefully it applies to Physics2D as well. I'm excited about using a game development IDE that integrates with Physics2D let alone being involved in creating it! :)
-
Yeah, sorry it was never my intent to ever mention NovaShell or Box2D. It's just an example of a completley different project that happens to be accomplishing much of what I'd like to do. So to be clear yeah, NovaShell is a C++ project, we're c#, Box2D is for c++ only (but they may have some sorta .NET wrapper - not interested!), and we need a good equivalent for c#/.net which looks to be Physics2D. Finally NovaShell is ClanLib, we're dealing with XNA.
NovaShell is an editor like SGDKX. It doesn't rely on a physics engine, but can generate data in a format usable by a particular physics engine.
I would say that it fully relies on Box2D. But, again Seth's from Mars and we're from Venus! But his project does accomplish what we want. His source code is available, so if it comes down to it I may have to go learn some tricks from the master!
SGDKX will be our version of NovaShell with integrated game development features.
Precisely! We're gonna one-up him here! Haha, well maybe not, but we're gonna do it our way and make some xbox games! (fingers crossed. I still haven't heard any good news about MSBuilding xbox games. It hurts my head to think about that right now, but here's a link to a post I embarassed myself with over at XNA http://forums.xna.com/forums/p/38710/225169.aspx#225169 (http://forums.xna.com/forums/p/38710/225169.aspx#225169)) --If anyone want's to head-up the xbox/zune building/deploying dept. I'd love not to have to deal with that. (because of the way XNA works, I believe we can persue windows only for a while and let the xbox/zune falll into place. - Our plans (c# code) shouldn't have to change.)
'm excited about using a game development IDE that integrates with Physics2D let alone being involved in creating it!
Yeah, there's plenty to be excited about, but we have many important vegetables to eat before we can have our SGDK-XNA turkey! Open wide! Here comes the Choo-Choo! ...sorry I'm over tired.
Anyway, is everyone comfortable with the tileless editor idea? Have I been able to paint a picture of what we're up to here? Perhaps giving NovaShell a little try would clear things up more. ...but don't get hooked!!! ;)
-
Wow. A lot of promising posts in here... :)
-
Yeah... promising to be a LOT of work ;). I just hope I can get it done before Dec 23/12/2012...! ???
-
Out of curiosity... why that date?
-
Out of curiosity... why that date?
I'm assuming he meant December 21st 2012, which is supposed to be another Doomsday, predicted by the Mayas centuries ago.
-
Well, I was just being a buffoon and saying that I hope I get it done before doomsday! But the 23rd is the date that I've been exposed to. It was the date that was used in 2 shows that I've watched about it recently. It's popular in google search results too. I did a little research and it seems that the 21st is perhaps the most popular, but the 23 is an alternative that some believe in. Here's what the Wikipedia had to say:
December 23
-
I don't know where the idea that the world would end this day originated. The Maya calendar ends on that day, but the Maya never said it would be the end of the world or of time. I guess, someone really wanted to make a big story out of this, because there is really nothing to it. ;)
Maybe the Maya thought their calendar was long enough as it was and would have continued it when the end of the calendar was closer?
Anyway, guessing the exact date of the end of the world based on a calendar is definitely dumb. :crazy: I mean, humans decided that they would make a system to calculate the passing of seasons, days, years and they gave numbers to the years, but it is nothing more than a human way to measure the passage of time. Thinking the world would end on a specific date because of a mathematical coincidence (passing from year 999 to 1000 or the 6th day of the 6th month of year 666 for example) is to be quite gullible. For me, it is like thinking that the earth is at the center of the universe because every star seem to rotate around the earth and because we, humans, are living on it! We humans are so egocentric. ;)
But, it is quite fun to make the others believe that the end of the world is coming and watch them crawl under their beds! Ha ha! :laugh:
-
Not that it has anything to do with our doom, but the "era-2012" is all about the great "Galactic Alignment" (http://alignment2012.com/whatisga.htm (http://alignment2012.com/whatisga.htm)).
I'm still with ya Vincent - it's all a hoax, but I'm saying there's a bit more to it than their calendar ending. :crazy:
...Some are also watching a 6000 year Jewish calendar count down to exactly Dec. 21, 2012 too. ???
-
Who knows what will happen.......
-
Here are are my predictions for december 21st 2012... You will see what a great seer I am!
First, it wil be dark. Then the sun will rise and light will fill the world. The sky will light up and the stars will fade out. Eventually, the sun will come down and the world will be dark again. At that time, the stars will come out of hiding. Finally, it will be december 22nd 2012 and it will be winter. :P
Wow! That was quite an epiphany :pray:
lol! :laugh:
Oh, and knowing myself, I will realize that december 21st 2012 has occured probably a week after it, since nothing special will happen on that day. ;)
-
creeepy!
-
Some of my predictions:
I think I might be standing in line-ups doing my usual last minute Christmas shopping on about Dec 23rd-ish!
I will probably also be waiting to pickup a copy of Halo 4 or something... Or an xbox 720? ...Nah, too early!
...Maybe I'll be getting rich off a great new XBOX game I've developed with SGDK-XNA...! :laugh:
:)
-
Kind of funny how the topic changed.
lol. I thought Vincent was serious, until I read further.
-
I'm only fooling around! :crazy:
-
Hey TheLaw,
Are you still working on your hybrid SGDK-XNA project? How is it going?
-
Last time I checked he was still planning it. But I haven't talked to him for a while, since my laptop is getting repaired. :(
-
@TonyX...Hope ta see ya back in 2010! I need your XBOX expertise!
Oh, hey Vincent. Yeah I'm still gonna do it - for sure. But 'tis the season to not have much time on the computer!
I'm hoping the rubber will hit the road in January. (That's my new years resolution!)
I have all my ducks in a row, and I've got some plans drawn up (I have a big stack of papers here in my desk with sketches and scratches!). I haven't actually done really anything with the SGDK project itself. I've been evaluating and gaining experience with some of the other utilities that SGDK-X will use. It actually has taken more time than I originally thought to go over these utilities with a fine tooth comb and make sure the capabilities I require are complete and bug free, and play nice with all the other stuff. (And just when you get comfortable - they release a new version..!)
But most of that is done. So once the HO-HO's over it's time to throw down.
(Actually I've been busy playing little big planet too. Just looking at that game gets my creative juices flowing!)
Any questions or ideas/feature requests? ...I'm still very open to ideas!
Meantime - I guess it's not too early to say... Merry Christmas to all you hard working scrolling game developers! I hope Santa brings you a million dollar game idea! ;) ;) ;)
-
You can count on me for 2010! I got my laptop back! Turns out the problem was my wireless adapter was not working because I pressed F2 to turn it off. F2 does not make a good save button. :no:
-
You can count on me for 2010! I got my laptop back! Turns out the problem was my wireless adapter was not working because I pressed F2 to turn it off. F2 does not make a good save button. :no:
AHAHAHA... sorry but that's funny.
It only disables the wireless adaptor if you press both fn+f2, at least, with most laptops.
-
Don't feel sorry. I thought it was pretty funny too! lol :laugh:
Yah, what you said is most likely what happened. Since the ctrl was near, I perhaps pressed fn and F2 together, instead of ctrl.
-
So I'm guessing this died? ._.
-
I'm not sure it ever really started.
-
I have been itching to get an XNA engine and editor based on the design and concept of the SGDK...
SGDK is something I would like to see for the time that is left in XNA's lifespan.
-
XNA has some map editors, but nothing like SGDK2.
Whatever happened to TheLaw?
-
I don't know. I guess life happened. :P
-
1)I'm gonna rewrite SGDK to make use of XNA instead of OpenGL.
2)Change the map editor from tiled to tile-less.
3)Add an in-game graphical user interface.
4)Add a physics engine for collision and fun.
5)Bring in Boo scripting to assist with games that have a large story line - as well as other things like GUI events and such.
6)Add some form of multi player networking
7)Add support for 3D models.
Hm. Never fret!
Looking back at that post:
1. XNA Developers are mainly using Monogame to get their projects on other platforms, because it uses OpenGL, with familiar XNA syntax (I don't think you need to do much but just rebuild it with Monogame!)
2. Done (This was no easy task, it involved warping offset values for layers as well as edits to LayerBase.cs) By the way, I still don't understand how to make custom tile shapes
3. Done (Legacy of Kain Revival has a pretty good one :D)
4. Done with Physics.Net or Math.Iridium
5. Done with text files formatted properly
6. Done with Lidgren.Network
7. Done with Meshomatic.dll with OpenTK (Can load models of .md2 and .3ds, as well as DirectX formats, only downside is that it's only the model, you may only choose one texture, and it's painfully slow with Immediate Mode)
I think SGDK2 XNA (For what it was going to be) is already done!
Well, for what it was going to be, from that post. :)
-
Am I correct in assuming that the reason you are interested in an XNA-SGDK2 combination is to be able to develop games for XBox? How well would the HTML5 support of SGDK2 fulfill this role? Does XBox support HTML5-based games running on the web?
-
Am I correct in assuming that the reason you are interested in an XNA-SGDK2 combination is to be able to develop games for XBox? How well would the HTML5 support of SGDK2 fulfill this role? Does XBox support HTML5-based games running on the web?
XBox might be able to run HTML5 games. Will test this out later.
Good news and bad news.
The Good: It looks beautiful. It runs and the D-pad on the controller is the keyboard arrow keys.
The Bad: Input!!!! The only button that interacts with XboxIE (at first test run) is the 'a' game button (which translates to left click for mouse).
But that shouldn't stop us. If we program our games with right click only input, we can pull off a decent game. We can map a certain portion of the game's screen for input only. (ex. a bitmap image of the direction buttons on the screen an action button, when clicking the image it can set off a function to move the sprite make the sprite jump.)
:D
Looking back at that post:
1. XNA Developers are mainly using Monogame to get their projects on other platforms, because it uses OpenGL, with familiar XNA syntax (I don't think you need to do much but just rebuild it with Monogame!)
2. Done (This was no easy task, it involved warping offset values for layers as well as edits to LayerBase.cs) By the way, I still don't understand how to make custom tile shapes
3. Done (Legacy of Kain Revival has a pretty good one :D)
4. Done with Physics.Net or Math.Iridium
5. Done with text files formatted properly
6. Done with Lidgren.Network
7. Done with Meshomatic.dll with OpenTK (Can load models of .md2 and .3ds, as well as DirectX formats, only downside is that it's only the model, you may only choose one texture, and it's painfully slow with Immediate Mode)
I think SGDK2 XNA (For what it was going to be) is already done!
Well, for what it was going to be, from that post. :)
Interesting observations. Now we'll need someone to bring all that together, but I want the web one to pull through for a few good reasons:
1. Easy development
2. Free development
3. Free deployment to the Xbox
4. Free for players. :D
So, commercial html games may not be made with SGDK2 unless someone knows how to do it. I don't know.
EDIT: So, SGDK2 should now be able to boast Xbox support (sorta).
-
According to http://www.wpxbox.com/how-to-use-ie-10-on-xbox-shortcuts-and-controls/ (http://www.wpxbox.com/how-to-use-ie-10-on-xbox-shortcuts-and-controls/) it looks like you need a gold membership to use IE on XBox. Is that true? Maybe it's not so free?
-
Am I correct in assuming that the reason you are interested in an XNA-SGDK2 combination is to be able to develop games for XBox? How well would the HTML5 support of SGDK2 fulfill this role? Does XBox support HTML5-based games running on the web?
XBox might be able to run HTML5 games. Will test this out later.
2. Free development
EDIT: So, SGDK2 should now be able to boast Xbox support (sorta).
[/quote]
Kind of funny how opening IE 9 while running an SGDK2 HTML5 game and pressing F11 will give you the same result as running a game under Win8's WinRT.
Well, with some negligible window resizing and framerate issues.
From my Windows Phone Tango (Seven), it looks like you won't be able to save a copy for local use. With the closed filesystem and all.
-
According to http://www.wpxbox.com/how-to-use-ie-10-on-xbox-shortcuts-and-controls/ (http://www.wpxbox.com/how-to-use-ie-10-on-xbox-shortcuts-and-controls/) it looks like you need a gold membership to use IE on XBox. Is that true? Maybe it's not so free?
Woops. Forgot to correct myself. I made that realization moments after posting.
So, it isn't exactly free for players, and prices for Gold varies.
But unlike most arcade titles in the XBL marketplace, this is still a free for the Gold members.