Mon Jan 23, 2017 2:32 am
Thank you very much for the answers, and good luck with LT. I look forward to that (semi)weekly log!
This 99%.Dinosawer wrote:all you need to do to get my trust back is do what you promise to do.
Flatfingers wrote:FIREWORK POSTS ARE NEVER REQUIRED. SIMPLE IS ENOUGH.
Please print out the above statement in a suitably large typeface and pin it immediately above your main working computer.
I've backed several games on KS. Some have panned out nicely, some have just panned. KS is a gamble, and I'm fine with that; mostly I just hate the not knowing. Interestingly, I find myself caring more about the developer than the game here. Maybe because you've been so open about the problems you've had? Regardless, fortnightly communications, even "I've made no progress, but other than that, I had a nice week." will satisfy me.charnode wrote:I do think, however, that you're misreading the community's expectation regarding desired information. Sure shiny stuff is nice, but I will always take bits of Information on the current state, with or without visuals. Backers went on an Adventure with you, not against you. It was very clear that there was a risk of Limit Theory never happening. As long as it is though, please keep talking to us, no matter however mundane you deem progress is. The suggested every other week rhythm would seem to be a nice middle ground to not distract you too much from working on Limit Theory.
Sad to see that you have abandoned the likely correct approach. I, too, am a software engineer / project manager, and deal with (very) large codebases, so I know what it's like. But what you need to do, is instead of developing each of those in parallel, develop and complete each one separately, so you focus solely on them and they are 100% built before moving onto the next separate module. Document your code and structures well (each and every bit of logic, each and every function, each and every class, each and every source and header file, each and every module) and keep the same formatting standards, so when you come back (which you inevitably will, to make little tweaks) it is easier to pick up (and it is your code, you know your code better than anyone else). At this point, you should never need to go back and rewrite substantial amounts of code, as you are well versed in what you need to achieve and how to achieve it - nothing should be foreign or require much thought from you any longer. When a module is completed, you can now swap the contents of that memory, and mark that memory area as "available to allocate more memory to", as you will no longer need to remember the entire structure of that module, rather just a high level "table of contents", if you will, so you can easily jump to and track down the relevant and necessary section / information from your documentation that you made. You shouldn't ever need to retain the complete contents of more than one module at a time in your mind as, as you have experienced, quickly suffer burnout. Also, take the weekend off. Don't post status updates on Sundays, do it at the end of the week on Fridays.JoshParnell wrote:With the most practical option shot down, I switched attack vectors and tried what seemed to me the next most practical: splitting the C++ into smaller bits to make it more manageable. I split up what was a 'monolithic' engine, compiled all into one library, into component pieces compiled into different libraries (libltcore, libltrender, libltui, libltai, etc.); this was an attempt to increase both runtime efficiency and my ability to keep all code in RAM. This attempt, luckily, only cost me a few months, as I quickly learned that code is code, and the programmer RAM limit applies no matter how you divvy up the lines. Another solution shot down, another lesson learned.
Uhh, what? Yes, of course!JoshParnell wrote:Is anyone still listening?
to say it bluntly: Du bist ein Depp! ("you are a fool")JoshParnell wrote:Cornered and out of options, with a community expecting an imminent RTB post, my kernel crashed. And it crashed hard.
could you share some of those gameplay thoughts with us?Gameplay, yes.
Q. Sweet, so, screenies?
All ears! The vivid imagery and character of your posts have upon me an unparalleled entrancing power.JoshParnell wrote:Is anyone still listening?