|
"Cool Library Name" however is not yet taken.
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
Orzo posted:Side question, why on Earth would anyone name their framework 'Futile?' I assume it's so google is almost useless when you have a question about the codebase. Same reason you'd name your library "Processing"!
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
Actually Futile seems pretty decent for Google searches, since it's not a common word. I just can't imagine the thought process that went into choosing a word that evokes feelings of hopelessness and...well, futility.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
What if it were for a library that deals with electrical resistance?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Orzo posted:I just can't imagine the thought process that went into choosing a word that evokes feelings of hopelessness and...well, futility. Partly a serious answer; if Futile as a 2D library actually deals with tiles then at least having 'tile' in the name makes sense. Though 'Motile' would have been better.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
Motile is my favorite Mortal Kombat boss.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
Orzo posted:Actually Futile seems pretty decent for Google searches, since it's not a common word. Having worked in 2d Unity it gives me the impression that the author of Futile knew precisely what he was doing when he chose that name.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
But...then you should choose a name that represents triumph over a difficult scenario, not one that says 'welp, I tried to do 2D in Unity, and it's pretty futile, but here's my code anyway.'
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
Having used 2DToolkit. It's generally pretty good, although there are some UI design decisions that I find highly questionable (delete and commit buttons right next to each other, no confirmation on the delete). How well Unity works in 2D depends on the type of game your making, any game that's physics based will probably be fine. However if your making a more arcade like platform game, or anything that requires collision detection but without realistic physics then your going to be seeing problems.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
Can't you just turn physics off entirely in Unity, do the collision math yourself, and then implement your own physics events for 2D games?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
Orzo posted:Can't you just turn physics off entirely in Unity, do the collision math yourself, and then implement your own physics events for 2D games? EDIT: VV I think we were disagreeing on whether to use CharacterController or not. In which case, I still use CharacterController, but I've rolled my own movement scheme to drive it (as opposed to using the standard stuff that Unity ships with). That said, I've since come to the conclusion that you'd want to bin CharacterController too, if possible / especially in 2D. The only reason I didn't is because it makes interactions with rigid bodies and moving colliders an absolute nightmare to handle. Shalinor fucked around with this message at 00:31 on May 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
Shalinor posted:Yep. You have to do this period, 2D or 3D, if you want control feel that doesn't suck / "feel like a Unity game." I swear the last time I expressed this viewpoint, around the time of you finishing up Jones On Fire, you were of the exact opposite opinion. Did something specific change your mind, or am I misremembering seiken fucked around with this message at 00:17 on May 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
We ended up using Nape for our 2D physics in Unity. It's WAY faster, especially on mobile devices, than Box2D (and uh, the other one we looked at that I can't remember the name of). Granted using it requires you to walk down the Haxe-in-Unity path, but hey, there's fun in them thar hills!
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 00:17
|
|
|
Orzo posted:Can't you just turn physics off entirely in Unity, do the collision math yourself, and then implement your own physics events for 2D games? Yup but by the time the it had become enough of a hassle that it occurred to us to do this we had already had most of the movement and collision code done and we needed to move onto other things. By and large the actual physics (gravity/velocity etc) is custom in the sense that it doesn't use the stock character controller and is all controlled from script. The only part that is from Unity is the OnTrigger and OnCollision events. Yeah we're not making that mistake again.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 00:44
|
|
|
Yeah I don't think the character controller can be used at all in a Unity 2D game. I don't find it that difficult to still interact with stock physics though. I think the important part is not using physics to move your character, but you can attach a child rigidbody object to get physics data from other objects and interpret that data to your custom character controller without letting Unity get involved. So when a thrown object hits your child rigidbody you feed the collision information to the custom character controller and have it move the character in an appropriate fashion. This seems the best way to get platformy physics for the player while still letting Unity handle projectiles, bouncing balls, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
FuzzySlippers posted:Yeah I don't think the character controller can be used at all in a Unity 2D game. I don't find it that difficult to still interact with stock physics though. I think the important part is not using physics to move your character, but you can attach a child rigidbody object to get physics data from other objects and interpret that data to your custom character controller without letting Unity get involved. So when a thrown object hits your child rigidbody you feed the collision information to the custom character controller and have it move the character in an appropriate fashion. This seems the best way to get platformy physics for the player while still letting Unity handle projectiles, bouncing balls, etc. Dealing with rigid bodies is weird in both cases, though, the second you want to push something out of the way. I really wish the CharacterController had been built with a concept of max force to apply, such that it could push colliders, instead of how it presently works (where it flat out can't push anything / you have to "push" for it in an OnCollision response or with a secondary trigger volume bubbled around the controller). ... incidentally, none of this is the fault of Unity, per se. These are all limitations associated with the PhysX engine. Havok's better, especially at handling depenetration / code-driven movement in rigid bodies, but eh, oh well. EDIT: You know, I haven't looked, but I assume there's a better Controller on the asset store. It isn't like it's a novel problem to solve, it's just time consuming / takes a lot of previous experience to know to do it "right." Shalinor fucked around with this message at 03:09 on May 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
So if I'm looking to make a 2d platformer would I be better off just rolling with something like monogame, or would unity be difficult, but doable? I'd really like to move into 3d games in the future so it seems like a good idea to jump into unity
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
SharpDX just released a new dev package that includes a bunch of updates to SharpDX.Toolkit. For those that don't know, it's an XNA-like API that provides a high level wrapper around all the low level DirectX 11 stuff. It was fairly incomplete before but with the latest build it has gotten a lot more feature complete. I've been playing around with it for the past few weeks and it works great. The new version includes some neat features like model rendering and an input system nearly exactly like the XNA.Input API.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 06:15
|
|
|
I've been messing around with JavaScript component-based game engines, and I'm a little torn between Quintus, which seems better-documented, and Crafty, which has an actual forum as opposed to a Google+ community for discussion, and seems like it's being more actively developed. The other question I have is: neither of them seem to have any notion of component update sequencing. For example, suppose I have a 'gravity' component and an 'AI' component. I might want the gravity to apply a negative acceleration before the AI does its thing, or I might want to do it after, and neither of them seem to offer me the ability to specify which. Is that a thing I actually want, or am I thinking about this all wrong?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 06:27
|
|
|
Redoing my Torque2d thing with Box2d\LibGDX + Tiled (old video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUbversAbWo) I am totally in love with LibGDX, it is so simple. After just like a week of work I have a good portion of the functionality I had back, like jump through platforms, enemy damage, animations, general framework and motion, jumping. Working on the antigravity stuff again. Need to re-do parallax backgrounds, dialogue boxes, spikes, death, saving\loading, HUD, boss, all the enemies, level content, attacking and player stats, doors and general map switching...oh dear god that's a lot of stuff to redo.  But still, it's going to save a ton of time in the long run, since Tiled has so many nice features...like copy\paste and resizing the maps and moving around batches of tiles. Torque2D would have none of that. I'm sure everyone knows of these things, but http://www.mapeditor.org http://libgdx.badlogicgames.com http://box2d.org I feel so much more comfortable now using a language with real inheritance and garbage collection. SSH IT ZOMBIE fucked around with this message at 06:31 on May 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 06:27
|
|
|
SuicideSnowman posted:SharpDX just released a new dev package that includes a bunch of updates to SharpDX.Toolkit. Cool. I didn't even know that SharpDX was doing this. Seems like it could be a smart move if there is C# support for the new Xbox.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
Coldrice posted:So if I'm looking to make a 2d platformer would I be better off just rolling with something like monogame, or would unity be difficult, but doable? I'd really like to move into 3d games in the future so it seems like a good idea to jump into unity I found getting a platformer started in Unity way easier than XNA or pygame but this is obviously a huge YMMV. I'm a bit of Unity fanboy now. In particular what I like about Unity is getting to the "I have poo poo moving on the screen!" stage takes just moments, but it is in no way limited by that functionality.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 06:47
|
|
|
Coldrice posted:So if I'm looking to make a 2d platformer would I be better off just rolling with something like monogame, or would unity be difficult, but doable? I'd really like to move into 3d games in the future so it seems like a good idea to jump into unity Honestly depends what you're looking for, because it's a 3d engine Unity makes it very easy to do 3d things that a pure 2d platformer would have difficulty implementing such as easy physics and cool lighting, zooms and using 3d models for characters, etc.. it also comes practically with all the tools included (level editor !) which is awesome. But on the other hand if you want to use handdrawn sprites/frame by frame animations and go for a classic 2d look, doing some of the 2d stuff that would be trivial in a 2d engine or even in a homebrew solution in Unity is kinda awkward and that's when you end up deciding to get a full 2d system with custom editors for everything off the asset store or write your own which kinda defeats the point when you could've practically done the same on top of OpenGl ..
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 13:57
|
|
|
yaoi prophet posted:I've been messing around with JavaScript component-based game engines, and I'm a little torn between Quintus, which seems better-documented, and Crafty, which has an actual forum as opposed to a Google+ community for discussion, and seems like it's being more actively developed. You wouldn't really have a 'gravity' component. You would just have all of your components / entities worth within a gravity, uh, 'framework' that you set up and apply to them. As for AI, it's really up to you to figure out how to do that, and depends what kind of game you're making. You could have them all update every game frame, wait for player input, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
Unity Pro went subscription based: https://store.unity3d.com/products/subscription
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
Hey guys, quick game dev question for you. I've been working with a pixel artist on a mockup 2d jrpg styled game in flash/actionscript for portfolio purposes, and I'm wondering which language would be easiest to continue the project on "for reals", considering that all the art assets / level design will be complete, and all character formulas like stats and level progression etc... Are totally complete. My only real programming experience is with flash/as, so I'm a little scared to jump in to c++, but I guess I gotta do what I gotta do. Would unity work for a 2d project such as a lite jrpg? Is there some kind of "in between" language I could work with? Or is that childish?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 16:18
|
|
|
I wouldn't really call it an "in between" language but Unity allows you to write in C# which is a lot more accessible than C++ and a lot more powerful than Javascript and Actionscript.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
Baldbeard posted:Hey guys, quick game dev question for you. I've been working with a pixel artist on a mockup 2d jrpg styled game in flash/actionscript for portfolio purposes, and I'm wondering which language would be easiest to continue the project on "for reals", considering that all the art assets / level design will be complete, and all character formulas like stats and level progression etc... Are totally complete. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what you use. C++ has been popular for countless years, but professional developers can and have used ActionScript beyond as a prototyping tool. Many respectable independent developers use Unity3D, UDK, and similar engines with their scripting languages. GameMaker is even a valid option; quality games like Spelunky and Barkley:Gaiden were made with GameMaker. It's actually a Good Platform once you delve into GML. There are some languages that just aren't suited to making games, but there's still a real wide selection. So if you haven't been running into limitations with Action Script, I'd suggest building off your prototype. If you have, I suggest moving onto an object-oriented, beginner-friendly language like Java or Ruby.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
Baldbeard posted:Hey guys, quick game dev question for you. I've been working with a pixel artist on a mockup 2d jrpg styled game in flash/actionscript for portfolio purposes, and I'm wondering which language would be easiest to continue the project on "for reals", considering that all the art assets / level design will be complete, and all character formulas like stats and level progression etc... Are totally complete. If you're not aware already, you can publish AS3 projects as a standalone AIR captive runtime thing: http://help.adobe.com/en_US/air/build/WSfffb011ac560372f709e16db131e43659b9-8000.html This will package it up as a executable file that can be installed and run without anyone even realising it's Flash. Plenty of legit "for reals" games on Steam have done this. Performance tends to be much improved over being run in a browser, too.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
Didn't know that, thank you. I thought flash based games were seen as kind of low brow in the industry.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
The end result is what matters, really. Flash has limitations, but if your project doesn't push against those limitations, it's not that big a deal. Binding of Isaac, for example, is the poster child of trying to make ActionScript 2 do way too much. On the plus side, if you start making a project in AS3, and it turns out you don't want to do Flash anymore, migrating your code to Haxe is fairly straightforward, as these things go.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
Tendales posted:The end result is what matters, really. Flash has limitations, but if your project doesn't push against those limitations, it's not that big a deal. Binding of Isaac, for example, is the poster child of trying to make ActionScript 2 do way too much. Binding of Isaac is AS2? I'm simultaneously impressed and completely taken aback...
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
I have a newbie Unity3D question that I can't figure out despite searching Google. Let's say I have a GameObject, like a sphere. How do I just apply a basic color to it, like red? I've figured out how to apply a texture, but is that it? Do I have to find a red texture or is there some other way?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
the posted:I have a newbie Unity3D question that I can't figure out despite searching Google. You'll want to change the color property on the material: code:
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
So I've built a model (code, not 3d) of a generic creature. Bones, circulatory/nervous/pulmonary systems, muscles, flesh. If I destroy veins/nerves, things work properly with blow flow being cut off, paralysis etc, etc. It's time to start applying damage to it in the form of weapons. For blunt I figure something like:  With piercing weapons being a special case of blunt with a very small force area. I figure I'm going to have to use Young's Modulus to figure out how far the material stretches, and if stretch > thickness, it begins to intrude on the next layer. And past a certain point the material fails, takes damage and maybe bleeds if it has blood flow. I think this is the right track, I'm not sure how to handle cutting weapons, though.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 23:37
|
|
|
Armourking posted:Bones, circulatory/nervous/pulmonary systems, muscles, flesh. If I destroy veins/nerves, things work properly with blow flow being cut off, paralysis etc, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
Orzo posted:Haha, what the gently caress are you making, that sounds awesome.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
Wow if that's for an rpg combat system and you pull it off the results are going to be insane.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
It's nothing Dwarf Fortress doesn't do. I just got sick of having generic hit points, and have gone down a looooong rabbit-hole.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
It can be difficult to make such a complicated system deep enough that it's distinguishable from a far more trivial system to the casual observer. That is, does all this simulation have obvious consequences that couldn't exist without it or does it end up like an XX% chance to cut off head with nobody any the wiser? (I have no context on what kind of game you are doing. Just rambling.)
seiken fucked around with this message at 00:12 on May 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 00:06
|
|