 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
|
|
3
|
Games Center / WIP games, tools & toy projects / Re: My First Java Game (Heavy WIP)
|
on: 2013-04-14 11:10:07
|
|
I understand that feeling of accomplishment. :] I do all of my world/level generation via .png files as well for the sake of being able to visually glance at things and see them in action. That, and it's incredibly easy to make levels with a tool like GIMP if you go the hand-drawn route, assuming you adhere to a palette your engine can parse. For my own project, as I'm using libgdx and they have built-in support for Tiled maps, I plan on encoding my output to the Tiled file format (.TMX), not to mention for the fact that I can easily see my maps through the Tiled application without having to run my game engine. Thought I'd mention in case you have thoughts of trying yourself or going down that route; it's not mandatory by any means but feels like something that would be a neat way to utilize more of the framework, and Tiled beats a map renderer I'd be able to make in a reasonable frame of time.
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
Game Development / Newbie & Debugging Questions / Re: How to use character images?
|
on: 2013-04-14 10:57:33
|
|
The image you're referring to is called a "sprite sheet" and is used fairly ubiquitously in terms of 2D game animation. libgdx does offer the TextureAtlas option, and in a situation where you wanted to dissect an existing sprite sheet that hasn't been "packed", you would more than likely have to piece it apart image by image using a tool like GIMP to repack the image and turn it into a TextureAtlas. This is how you would go about using it the "libgdx" way, at least as far as my present experience has shown. Otherwise, you could just go about dissecting the sprite sheet at runtime based on the dimensions of each image (i.e., make a Texture that is 24 x 16 for one image and another Texture that's 26 x 16 for another, etc.). Assuming all of the images have the same height and width is fine if you design your sprite sheet this way, and indeed, you see a lot of sprite sheets that have consistent dimensions, but the sprite sheet shown here has some sprites that are differently sized. This has in-game repercussions as well in terms of collision detection, but this is fairly easy if you use box-based collision detection that depends on the size of the sprite to begin with. Dissecting the sheet into separate images and creating the TextureAtlas would probably be easier and the route I would take, if just a little bit tedious, but it's up to you.
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
Game Development / Performance Tuning / Re: Limited Palettes
|
on: 2013-04-07 02:13:33
|
HeroesGraveDev is correct, he said "unless you use a different format".
You can tell in what format an image will be stored in graphics memory, when you load it with glTexImage2D for example (google it and you'll find all the color formats listed).
OpenGL fixed pipeline does have support for palettes and color indices (never used it though, and I dunno how do it with shaders either), but it's rarely used, because nowadays it's not worth the hassle. I doubt LibGDX uses it, it probably just tells OpenGL to store all pixels in graphics memory as 32bit, to keep things simple. You'd have to code directly with OpenGL to use its palette capabilities.
Just work in 32bit color depth, that way:
- you have all the colors you want
- you lose no performance, and almost nothing in terms of memory
- you have alpha
- you don't have to worry about anything, it'll work (tm)
Limit your palette on the artistic side, when you create your images/sprites, NOT on the technical side, which just brings more troubles than benefits.
I see. That makes sense, especially considering the fact that I would like to be able to incorporate colored box2dlights, shaders, Post-Processing, and whatnot, but it was nice to at least think about it and figure out why it wouldn't work. Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
7
|
Game Development / Performance Tuning / Re: Limited Palettes
|
on: 2013-04-07 01:43:14
|
Indexed colours only reduce file size. Once the file is loaded, every single pixel will have a 32-bit int for it's colour, unless you use a different format. Unfortunately that also decreases your available choices before you even make a palette.
But yes, as said, the difference is not worth it.
I was under the impression that was not the case, otherwise it would just make sense to use 32-bit color to begin with. My understanding is the pixels are rendered based on offsets rather than storing their own color data. Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article: "Indexed color saves a lot of memory, storage space, and transmission time: using truecolor, each pixel needs 24 bits, or 3 bytes. A typical 640×480 VGA resolution truecolor uncompressed image needs 640×480×3 = 921,600 bytes (900 KiB). Limiting the image colors to 256, every pixel needs only 8 bits, or 1 byte each, so the example image now needs only 640×480×1 = 307,200 bytes (300 KiB), plus 256×3 = 768 additional bytes to store the palette map in itself (assuming RGB), approx. one third of the original size. Smaller palettes (4-bit 16 colors, 2-bit 4 colors) can pack the pixels even more (to 1/6 or 1/12), obviously at cost of color accuracy." Article for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indexed_colorUnless I'm misunderstanding what it says? |
|
|
|
|
8
|
Game Development / Performance Tuning / Re: Limited Palettes
|
on: 2013-04-07 01:30:54
|
Appreciate it. Didn't really have what I was looking for, though. I was thinking more along the lines of indexed colors, which I read more about through just the Wikipedia article and was able to learn a bit more about it. I may do some research into it with OpenGL, but arnaud's information suggests it may not be worth the time. Yeah, except from the memory savings, you won't gain much (if any) performance, as today's cards and architectures are tuned for 32-bit colors.
And the memory savings will be negligible if you use pixel art. A 32x32 sprite costs nothing, even at 32-bit color depth:
32pixels x 32pixels x 1byte = 1kb for 8-bit (256 colors)
VS
32pixels x 32pixels x 4bytes = 4kb for 32-bit (true colors + alpha).
So I'd say you'll always be safe with pixel art and OpenGL.
Correctly using sprite sheets will have a lot more impact.
I see, I see. At least I know where to focus my efforts! ;] Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
9
|
Game Development / Performance Tuning / Re: Limited Palettes
|
on: 2013-04-07 01:04:09
|
|
I see what you mean. I know the Color class in libgdx can set its integer representations to 16, 24, and 32-bit, but I don't see any 8-bit options. I'm just trying to think if it would be worth settings something like that up by hand for any sort of gain. I can't imagine the gain would be extreme, but it would be nice to be able to take advantage of a 256-color palette in that regard. :]
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
Game Development / Performance Tuning / Limited Palettes
|
on: 2013-04-07 00:40:45
|
Hey all! Haven't posted in a little bit. Basically, I've made the switch to libgdx and I enjoy it quite a bit. I also recently read up on my pixel art theory and the like and have grown fascinated with the idea of using limited color palettes. In particular, this resource has made me realize what I've been looking for for quite some time: http://www.pixeljoint.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12795My question is--in addition to the fact that you maintain visual consistency throughout your piece and lend a (perhaps subjectively) nice element of aesthetic pleasure to your pixel art--is there a performance gain to be had with using a limited color palette? The above work shows the use of 16 colors, which is frankly quite amazing and works pretty well, but I'm thinking more along the lines of pursuing 256 colors after doing some posterizing tests and such with GIMP on some game art I've picked off Google. I'm still learning a lot about graphics but want to know if having a limited palette could lend a boost in performance through libgdx, or least OpenGL, more specifically. I apologize for my naivete! Thank you in advance for your help and suggestions. Colton |
|
|
|
|
11
|
Game Development / Game Mechanics / Re: Why is there no circle class? What do you use?
|
on: 2012-08-16 08:06:13
|
is it? Cool. It makes sense to me. I was rethinking this after writing a brute force collision algorithm (every item against each other) and feeling like there had to be a better way. So I tried to forget about programming and envision the situation in the "real world". What happens when two items collide? There is no searching for neighbors and testing of boundaries. The collision occurs in the space itself. So why not replicate/model "space" (only one thing can occupy a space and the thing itself is in that space).
It seems to me a clear case can be made that scaling up is linear--the test remains the same no matter how many objects there are. The only thing that increases in cpu cycles is that each object takes a bit more effort to move and track. But again, scaling is linear, yes? The task of moving item A is the same no matter how many other items are in the model.
My guess is if the method is not used, it is because it is kind of anti-intuitive. Who wants to go to all the extra trouble managing the "space" model, especially with shapes that are kind of large and complex?
I agree, it makes more sense than having a brute-force method that checks each entity against every other entity in the game space.  That, and it's somewhat elegant. It seems all the best algorithms and ways of doing things are fairly simple compared to what most people would think of. Recursion, for example, tends to be so beautiful and simple compared to the ways in which you would have to implement the same algorithms using alternative methods. Colton |
|
|
|
|
12
|
Game Development / Game Mechanics / Re: Why is there no circle class? What do you use?
|
on: 2012-08-16 07:02:55
|
But other then that... what do you guys use for collisions besides rectangles? or do you use the Geom package at all? One can use the equations for a rectangle, or square, or circle directly, without involving the Geom package. When doing a circular check, I like using Point2D objects and the distance() method. Other folks here probably have more efficient ways of calculating distance between two locations, but the distance() method is pretty good, too. When using rectangular or shape bounds, I have to admit I am kind of lazy and like to use the contains() method that is in many Graphics2D shapes. You could also use a mapping method, no math involved whatsoever! But I am the only person I know playing around with that. I have an app where I place links to the object occupying a space into the 2D array slot that corresponds to that space. The rule is that only one object can occupy the given space, so the space on the screen that corresponds to that array point has to be pretty small. (The array becomes perhaps as big as the display, or a quarter size if you work with units of 4 pixels.) A single object can thus occupy a couple dozen array spaces. It makes moving the objects more cumbersome, but collision checking (which can grow geometrically) becomes trivial as a result. It is a tradeoff that might work well in special cases (e.g., lots and lots of small objects possibly colliding). That actually sounds a lot familiar to something that Cas described to me, whereby entities are kept track of in a grid-like system. Seems like that's the latest trend these days!  |
|
|
|
|
13
|
Game Development / Game Mechanics / Re: Why is there no circle class? What do you use?
|
on: 2012-08-16 06:05:49
|
well an ellipse is an ellipse because its got two foci points and therefore it doesn't have a radius. Whereas a circle only has one focus point and it does have radius where any distance from the focus point to any point in the circumference of the circle would be constant.
Now a square is a square because its width and height are equivalent.
You can't just say a rectangle is technically a square and an ellipse is technically a circle. They're all different else they wouldn't have different names and mathematical explanations of what they represent.
But other then that... what do you guys use for collisions besides rectangles? or do you use the Geom package at all?
Nobody's saying that squares and rectangles are the same and that ellipses and circles are the same. A circle falls under the category of ellipse, just as a square falls under the category of rectangle. They're both special instances of each category, much like how ellipses and rectangles fall under the category of shape. You could go even more generic with rectangles and say they stem from parallelograms but differ in that their angles all must be right. A line from Wikipedia to clarify the definition of a circle as related to an ellipse is the following: "A circle may also be defined as a special ellipse in which the two foci are coincident and the eccentricity is 0." That's basically a rehashing of what I said previously. Now, if you want to know how to do collisions with circles.... well, just use the distance formula. It's easier than dealing with ellipses, thanks to the fact that there's only one focus, essentially. Colton |
|
|
|
|
15
|
Game Development / Game Mechanics / Re: Why is there no circle class? What do you use?
|
on: 2012-08-16 03:21:36
|
Doesn't the ellipse class technically use an underlying Rectangle? it says so on the API. It's still not a perfect circle.  Also circles are so simple I generally wouldn't use the geom versions anyway. Same goes for rects. So you don't use classes from the geom package for collisions? What do you use? Correct me if I'm wrong, but a circle is a type of ellipse that just happens to be symmetrical from its center to any point lying on its edge. Also, a square is just a rectangle that has all equal sides. Therefore, it shouldn't matter, should it? |
|
|
|
|
16
|
Game Development / Newbie & Debugging Questions / Re: While loop help
|
on: 2012-08-14 17:12:43
|
I leaned how to code java with notepad first then I jumped up to notepad++ I was suck a boss. I actually had this guy in my data structures class that was wondering why all his stuff sometimes had to have static in everything and face palmed. He ended up getting a higher grade.  I am not saying static does not matter as it does obviously. Its just that there are many places where use can use it without causing any issues. If I am coding something that will be used by others and needs re-usability, I will do everything properly. For me it seems that when you want really good clean documentation, code, and readability, then you start dropping all the short cuts and hackyness. Indeed. I'd like to think there's a time and a place to use static methods and when not to use them, even if you can get away with either more or less of the time. Currently, my engine has a few static methods, but 99% of the whole thing is non-static. A couple examples I have are a few pixel map to image functions, as well as functions between two of my procedural generators that allow them to work together without needing to instantiate both of them. Aside from that, we ain't havin none of that static By the way, I do love Notepad++.... that's what I was coding in for a long while before I jumped on the NetBeans bandwagon. |
|
|
|
|
17
|
Game Development / Newbie & Debugging Questions / Re: While loop help
|
on: 2012-08-14 17:04:01
|
Eclipse didn't tell you to make everything static. You tried calling non-static methods from a static context, and the compiler complained. So the "obvious" fix was just to make everything static, rather than create a non-static context, i.e. instantiate an object.
Every time I see yet another person say "Eclipse made me do X" or "I put this in and Eclipse wouldn't take it", I become more convinced that newbies simply shouldn't ever be taught with IDEs. It's not the IDE's fault, but it certainly isn't helping anyone learn.
I agree. Having built a significant amount of my game's ancestral engine code with GCC and the command prompt, I can say that taught me a lot about spotting bugs and figuring out the right thing to do without an IDE's guidance. Now I just abuse the crap out of using NetBeans Colton |
|
|
|
|
19
|
Discussions / General Discussions / Re: Memory, Then and Now
|
on: 2012-08-12 10:40:44
|
Colton - you made me blush. Take my advice with a grain of salt, because I burned out royally, and left programming for an awful long time. I only discovered Java, and that programming could be fun again, a couple years ago, and there is a LOT about modern programming that I know little about.
Also, computers were a lot simpler then. Windows did not exist. The Web did not exist. Color and graphics, also much, much simpler. Thus, less cleverness was needed than now.
Still, it is generally good to be curious and to check things out. So if your intuition is saying "go take a look," it is probably worth doing so and finding out for yourself.
I think that programming then and now are completely different paradigms, to be honest. Java's great, but I think it's lost some (not all!) of what it meant to program at times like then, where programmers were much closer to the hardware. Java's abstraction, however, also allows wonderful things to happen thanks to all the work that has gone into putting layers over the difficult aspect of coding low-level. I don't think most of what we accomplish today can be done with raw assembly coding, which is why I look at the two paradigms as meritable in their own ways; surely learning more low-level coding is essential to being a fantastic high-level programmer, and I'm already learning some interesting stuff from Abrash's book; in fact, he was the co-creator of Quake, having been a developer at id, and id was the company that Jon Blow (the guy who gave the aforementioned talk) referred to when he was talking about criticizing code as a college student. It's sort of crazy how all of this stuff sort of ties together! I really love programming and learning about all of this stuff, so I'll probably end up pursuing assembly language with C soon and programming on emulators and using the Gameboy SDK and whatnot just to get some experience with it, because it sounds like a very challenging but knowledgeably rewarding endeavor. I think there's a lot about programming that we all don't know, so I figure a wise path might be to start more at the true fundamentals of it all Plus, there really is nothing quite as intriguing as firing up DOS and programming like it's 1990 XD Colton |
|
|
|
|
20
|
Discussions / Miscellaneous Topics / Re: What is wrong with me?
|
on: 2012-08-12 05:11:58
|
I was working on my game engine, and it has a "Game" class. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
| public abstract class Game
{
protected int stupidVariable1;
public void doSomething()
{
}
} |
and then I have my game's class, which extends Game. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
| public class MyGame
{
private int anotherVariable = 1;
private boolean useShaders = true;
public MyGame()
{
doSomething();
}
public void doSomething()
{
System.out.println(anotherVariable);
System.out.println(useShaders);
}
public static void main(String args[])
{
new MyGame();
}
} |
Ok, looks good so far. But wait... why does the println's return 0 and false respectively? It looks like they are at their default values. However if you initialize them inside of a method, they work fine. My best guesses are: 1. I fell asleep in the java class where they told me about this. //HIGHLY LIKELY. 2. There are aliens in my computer. 3. This is a bug, or a corrupt JVM. What are your thoughts/suggestions to resolve this? P.S. If you hit tab while typing up up a post, it focuses you on the search bar. Sort of annoying when you are formatting code (Just my $0.02) With the code you gave me, I get 1 and true on my end. Is there something we're missing that you're not providing? EDIT: Also, this thread seems like it would have been better suited for the "Newbie and Debugging" forum. Not that you're a newbie!  Colton |
|
|
|
|
21
|
Discussions / General Discussions / Re: Memory, Then and Now
|
on: 2012-08-12 02:47:42
|
Try PS3 or Wii. Even less RAM. Play Uncharted 2 or 3. On consoles memory is still important, imho. I worry about it too. And I think a lot of libGDX users too. Memory is important and I think because programmers have such an abundance of it, we are wasting it. If you look back to gaming, games did not need loading screens and load times were nil. As time progressed, we got more memory and instead of making games more efficient with the technology, we just made everything a lot more bulky. We have to sit down and wait for almost everything we do now. I think about 30% of our time in front of the screen now is wasted on waiting for applications to start or switch phases.
It takes time to load textures/sounds etc o.o Of course this allocates more memory but as you can see on console there is a limit to it. Most texture seem blurry on console and clear on PC So technology moves on and better graphics/sounds mostly need more memory -> loading time. I guess at least... Indeed, they do a pretty sweet job. From what I've heard, assembly is still used quite a bit in the console industry to squeak out some extra juice. As an aside, do you guys think it would be worth my time to read Michael Abrash's Black Book of Graphics Programming? I have myself a copy and it looks interesting, but most of the material looks dated. I have kind of a thing for old-school graphics and game programming and stuff, but I'm more concerned about whether it will teach me a lot about things I can apply to today's game programming world :p EDIT: I also have a bunch of Andre LaMothe's old game programming books I plan on getting into DOS emulator, here I come! EDIT 2: I took a look at just the first chapter of Abrash's book.... and it came straight back to something I was taught about the other day on these forums about serialization...  Colton |
|
|
|
|
22
|
Discussions / General Discussions / Re: Memory, Then and Now
|
on: 2012-08-11 21:31:10
|
I believe big titles on the 360 still have to worry about RAM, since they only have 512 mb. I believe to have read that they had to make a more narrow field of view on one of those shooting games, but that as to be a GPU problem with too many polygons. I'm not sure. A limitation nonetheless.
True, 512m can be quite a small amount by today's standards. Consoles are still quite limited, unfortunately, and I think they always will be in relation to computers simply because of the model they're based on. I'm sure a lot of ingenious programming does still take place in the console field because of how tough they are to program well for in comparison to computers, which have such wonderful tools and resources available to make it relatively easier. Well on the other hand, developers for the 360 only has to worry if it'll run on that one machine. We (PC people) have to worry that it'll run on all kinds of hardware. Both can be painful. For PC's we can of course just say "Meh, we don't want our game on silly specs", but then you're limiting the market. I'm looking forward to the Ouya though, if that ever happens. I saw that and thought it was very interesting, though one of my friends was worried that the creator would be sued by Microsoft for their controller design, since it was too similar to the Xbox's controller. It's a nice step for independent game development, though, so I hope it comes through and that it doesn't have too many setbacks from entities like Microsoft or the like. |
|
|
|
|
23
|
Discussions / General Discussions / Re: Memory, Then and Now
|
on: 2012-08-11 21:03:53
|
I believe big titles on the 360 still have to worry about RAM, since they only have 512 mb. I believe to have read that they had to make a more narrow field of view on one of those shooting games, but that as to be a GPU problem with too many polygons. I'm not sure. A limitation nonetheless.
True, 512m can be quite a small amount by today's standards. Consoles are still quite limited, unfortunately, and I think they always will be in relation to computers simply because of the model they're based on. I'm sure a lot of ingenious programming does still take place in the console field because of how tough they are to program well for in comparison to computers, which have such wonderful tools and resources available to make it relatively easier. |
|
|
|
|
24
|
Discussions / General Discussions / Re: Memory, Then and Now
|
on: 2012-08-11 20:21:59
|
Memory is important and I think because programmers have such an abundance of it, we are wasting it. If you look back to gaming, games did not need loading screens and load times were nil. As time progressed, we got more memory and instead of making games more efficient with the technology, we just made everything a lot more bulky. We have to sit down and wait for almost everything we do now. I think about 30% of our time in front of the screen now is wasted on waiting for applications to start or switch phases.
People usually think of games in terms of content, instead of how this content affects user experience. More content = the better. More graphics = the better. However, when you finally sit down to play the game, most of the time is wasted on waiting for the content resources and sparkly graphics to load up. User experience suffers, but I fit over 1000 different options for my game with graphics that outshine Halo. This type of thinking is what has led gaming down a sinkhole.
Limits are good, because it forces you to think about what is important when you are designing. In most cases, it makes sure that people have to focus on the game play more than any other aspect. To be honest, working on game play is the #1 thing that will make a game last a long time. All great games have 1 thing in common, they draw you back in to keep playing. What creates that draw? The game play. Everything else is just fluff and pizzazz, to draw users into looking at it.
I don't want to move too far off-topic though, but memory is very important even in a environment where it is abundant. The best programs are going to be the ones "who are effective at getting one thing done really well." It doesn't matter if it is a game or application, or what time it is written. The computer world does not differ from the real-world. We still should actively try to manage our resources and reduce waste to form a better community.
Agreed! Well said. :] |
|
|
|
|
25
|
Discussions / General Discussions / Re: Memory, Then and Now
|
on: 2012-08-11 10:43:08
|
"Britches (monkey), a baby monkey removed from a laboratory by the Animal Liberation Front"
What? D:
lol, it's a variant of "breeches", spelled like it's pronounced, at least where I'm from (California). |
|
|
|
|
26
|
Discussions / General Discussions / Re: Memory, Then and Now
|
on: 2012-08-11 10:36:38
|
Does anyone have experiene with open source JVMs?
In the end, this JVM could be used as a pure verification engine, to assert that the game runs in the low-mem requirements.
While also running in the Standard JVM to be visible to the public.
In the end, it doesn't matter to me, so long as I get to see you guys all duke it out for whoever can program the best game using such minimal resources Memory then is to Memory now as Processing speed now is to Processing speed with quantum computers in 10 years time blown out of the milky way.
BigO notation will be renamed LittleO™ and people will start to analyze how best to slow down the quantum processing speed in order for us to have time to see all the things that it's doing.
And this is when a change of britches will be required. |
|
|
|
|
27
|
Discussions / General Discussions / Re: Memory, Then and Now
|
on: 2012-08-11 10:27:06
|
Artificial limitations are fun, but would a java forum be the best place? Why not make a tiny JVM (no allocateable objects, only static methods) instead, then it make sense.  Sure, why not! I figured it'd be cool though among the members here at the forum, but I mean maybe even at GameDev or something of the like, the competition could be advertised, where they have a larger volume of members. We don't even really need to use a JVM, because many emulators, like I mentioned before, offer the ability to program virtual tapes and disks and whatnot and some have SDKs, so one of those could be established as the required interface and then would be just a required download for anyone involved. I don't know; just my thoughts! :} Colton |
|
|
|
|
28
|
Discussions / General Discussions / Re: Memory, Then and Now
|
on: 2012-08-11 10:16:42
|
Yes, I think there needs to be some virtual (fixed) Machine to be interfaced to.
It does not really need to be some real-life machine. But something that suits the purpose of running a game.
So this virtual machine is providing input events, and accepts output events to it fixed-size "video RAM" and sound generator.
The gamelogic gets to strict limit to only use a size limited amount of static memory.
(no dynamic instancing, everything has to be computed using a staitic array of ints,booleans or bytes, wich have an upper limit)
Precisely. And then perhaps the winner of the competition can have a special thread made in Showcase to show their results? Or perhaps a new forum branch can be opened dedicated to showcasing just these, if there are enough? How many moderators say "Aye" or have other suggestions? |
|
|
|
|
29
|
Discussions / General Discussions / Re: Memory, Then and Now
|
on: 2012-08-11 10:10:05
|
It's be easier to have a virtual machine to program to. (Humm...I have a java 6502 emulator that I wrote somewhere). A vector machine would be fun.
Ah, yes, that'd be cool. Gotta love emulators. For a case like this, I think your 6502 would be perfect. :] Colton |
|
|
|
|
30
|
Discussions / General Discussions / Re: Memory, Then and Now
|
on: 2012-08-11 09:58:45
|
Speaking of low RAM gaming.
How about a "MicroRam" Java Contest.
Somehow severely limiting the Heap Memory allowed to be used.
Im not shure how that would technically work over the different JVM Versions (maybe running a anlysis program to assess
the actual used memory by the game, while ignoring the JVMs inherend Memory use that cant be avoided)
the "-Xmx1m -Xmx1m" probably does not give a constant usable amount of memory on different systems.
Or the programmer is only allowed to use a bye array
byte[] mem=new byte[256];
as workmemory, and can not instantiate any objects or variables apart from it.
(excluding a fixed minimal set of Input/Output functions to interface with the machine)
Im shure it would be a nice challenge.
I think that would be very interesting, actually! I'd be interested in seeing what the more experienced people here could come up with; I probably couldn't come up with much. I'm fairly sure the contestants could be tested with profilers to make sure they don't exceed an established guideline amount of memory; this way, their methods on top of their variables could be monitored. I'm sure there's a better way to do it, but that's the first thing that pops into my head. Colton |
|
|
|
|
|
Add your game by posting it in the WIP section,
or publish it in Showcase.
The first screenshot will be displayed as a thumbnail.
|
|
