Archive for March 2008

Some GameDev Math Resources.

March 26, 2008 by Mark.

I’ve been scouring the internet for some decent resources on math, collision detection, and physics, so here are some:

More to come, later.

Posted in Radiant, 3D Stuff, C/C++, Stuff, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Real-Time Collision Detection

March 24, 2008 by Mark.

With all the craziness that last weekend brought, one of which was a book I ordered from Amazon. Just like the title says its a book about collision detection within 2D and 3D environments. It’s a bit on the expensive side, about $50, but its worth every penny. I had a chance to read the first 5 chapters on Sunday. It started off with a quick math primer and then dove head first into how collision detection works. It has a few chapters on bounding volumes and space partitioning; the two topics I have been obsessing over for the last few weeks.

Possibly the best thing about this book when compared to my other math books is that it explains the concepts with code, more then with math. For most programmers, this is a godsend. Reading a few lines of code is much easier (at least, for myself) then trying to comprehend or remember mathematical symbols.

Regardless, If you’re building an engine of some sort (Graphical, Physics, etc), this book is definitely an asset. Collision detection is not only used in physics engines, it is the core functionality of Octrees and Scene Management. Ergo, it is an integral part of an engine. Although, I don’t recommend this book to novices, or people that do not have any 3D engine building knowledge under their belt. It is Math and Algorithm heavy and requires substantial engine design theory.

EDIT: Looking through some of the supplementary books from the Morgan Kaufmann series, they all seem very interesting. If those books are of the same quality as the Real-Time Collision Detection book, then this entires series of books will end up on my bookshelf very soon. It’s something to be desired.

Posted in 3D Stuff, C/C++, Stuff | No Comments »

To OSG, or not to OSG.

March 17, 2008 by Mark.

I have been working on my game engine (Which still does not have a name; Suggestions are appreciated) for a while now. It has seen its share of refactors ever since I started on it back in 2006. But recently, I have come to a fork in the road. I am overwhelmed with the amount of things that I need to keep track of which makes me second guess some of my design decisions that I have made. One of which, is weather or not to write my own scenegraph or to use a stock one, say, OpenSceneGraph.

From experience, I can tell you that the amount of time that it would require to learn, implement, and test OSG’s implementation would be comparable to the amount of time it would take me to write one from scratch. I have been plagued with these sorts of decisions ever since I started the rewrite of my code. The benefits of using a library over writing your own can only be determined by the ease of use of the library. For example, if its easy to build, incorporate and debug then it probably is better to choose it then to write one from scratch. In the case of OSG, the library is big. No, its Massive!

I am still not convinced that OSG would be worth using over my own implementation, simply because of the learning curve and the work required to properly incorporate it into my engine. I would literally have to wrap my engine around OSG, rather then have it work symbiotically. That just does not sit well with me. Regardless, I will still poke around inside OSG and learn how their scenegraph implementation works.

Where is my trusty Bearded Axe, its time for some hacking!

Posted in Radiant, Open Source, 3D Stuff, C/C++, Stuff | No Comments »

The Moz Cause

March 9, 2008 by Mark.

Being an avid slashdot reader, I read a lot of stories that are mostly based off fact. Then again, some are based off of total trash. I have witnessed the lack of informational prowess by story writers, but in this latest case, I don’t know where I should stand. The article in question is about the Acid3 test that browsers are benchmarked on. According to this story, Safari scores 90% and my favorite browser of all (Firefox) scores a mediocre 69%. This tells me one of two things, either the story is a complete joke or it’s a bold statement about Firefox’s web compliance. I have use Safari and I am not very impressed. It has many flaws that hamper my browsing experience (such as tables not being aligned correctly, flash issues, colors, etc). But those are all small things and if this Acid3 test is the industry “standard”, then I say its not much of one. I believe it might be favoring the Safari side or that it was built off standards that Safari developers pushed forth. In essence, a standard is a standard is a standard and should be taken with a grain of salt when trusting it’s verdict.

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments »

|