Return to “Announcements”

Post

Re: The State of Limit Theory Development, 2017 Edition!

#151
There's also this:
JoshParnell wrote: 3. I could absolutely not afford to hire another developer(s) for any substantial amount of time. I work for LT for the cost of my living, meaning essentially free labor (with, you know, the promise of future riches :ghost:). Developers, on the other hand, are not cheap.
Bankrupting the project by hiring extra software devs won't get us to release.
Shameless Self-Promotion 0/ magenta 0/ Forum Rules & Game FAQ
Post

Re: The State of Limit Theory Development, 2017 Edition!

#152
Grumblesaur wrote:There's also this:
JoshParnell wrote: 3. I could absolutely not afford to hire another developer(s) for any substantial amount of time. I work for LT for the cost of my living, meaning essentially free labor (with, you know, the promise of future riches :ghost:). Developers, on the other hand, are not cheap.
Bankrupting the project by hiring extra software devs won't get us to release.
Luckily some of us would work for free to produce the scripts to do particular things if requested. :ghost:

If Josh really wanted some help, he could put up a forum request.
Give us a set of requirements, and we build the LUA script to do that thing.
We can iterate off of each other, and produce things, and then Josh can just pick them up at his leisure. :3


But I am 100% sure that Josh won't do that, it'd be like admitting defeat, and when you are sure you can kill the beast that is the programming requirements for this project, these is no admitting defeat. :D

Code: Select all

<+BMRX> Silver Invokes Lewdly Verbose Experiences Readily With Absurd Rectal Expeditions
Post

Re: The State of Limit Theory Development, 2017 Edition!

#153
Silverware wrote: Luckily some of us would work for free to produce the scripts to do particular things if requested. :ghost:

If Josh really wanted some help, he could put up a forum request.
Give us a set of requirements, and we build the LUA script to do that thing.
We can iterate off of each other, and produce things, and then Josh can just pick them up at his leisure. :3
Goat-LT confirmed!? :o :mrgreen: :ghost:
Resident derp.
For some reason, I feel obliged to display how many people have talked in IRC over the past 2 hours: Image
Post

Re: The State of Limit Theory Development, 2017 Edition!

#154
Great stuff, very fun to read about professional-level programming issues.

Since I missed the KS, this game is still firmly in my "Buy On Release" bucket. Just biding my time with X-Rebirth, Elite Dangerous, and simulation games (Banished, Planetbase, Forest Village(on release)), and of course anything procedural.

Coincidentally, my pet project/hobby at the moment (i.e., for the last twenty years), is also a simulation. Didn't stumble upon component based entities until this year, but I'd never have needed the performance or wanted the complexity anyway :) It's helping me learn Java, though.

Your description of the issues you're facing hints at difficulties I'll find when I attempt LOD simulation. THIS is why I like hearing from Josh.

Don't underestimates your audience's desire for code.

And screenies of course.
Post

Re: The State of Limit Theory Development, 2017 Edition!

#155
Detritus wrote:
Silverware wrote: Luckily some of us would work for free to produce the scripts to do particular things if requested. :ghost:

If Josh really wanted some help, he could put up a forum request.
Give us a set of requirements, and we build the LUA script to do that thing.
We can iterate off of each other, and produce things, and then Josh can just pick them up at his leisure. :3
Goat-LT confirmed!? :o :mrgreen: :ghost:
GOATLIMIT CONFIRMED!

Code: Select all

<+BMRX> Silver Invokes Lewdly Verbose Experiences Readily With Absurd Rectal Expeditions
Post

Re: The State of Limit Theory Development, 2017 Edition!

#159
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Velifax wrote: component based entities
When googling and reading about that term i found
this
Looks interesting, maybe interesting for someone else as well.
Well above my ken, I'm afraid. I grasp the absolute basics of complement based systems, communicating and forming bigger entities. But the alternative he advocates completely evades me.

Thanks for the brain exercises!
Post

Re: The State of Limit Theory Development, 2017 Edition!

#160
Velifax wrote:
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Velifax wrote: component based entities
When googling and reading about that term i found
this
Looks interesting, maybe interesting for someone else as well.
Well above my ken, I'm afraid. I grasp the absolute basics of complement based systems, communicating and forming bigger entities. But the alternative he advocates completely evades me.

Thanks for the brain exercises!
Component based approaches are great, it's what Urho3D is based on.
Especially for games they work like a charm.
Need a thing to put out light? Add the <light> component.
need it to be destructible? Add the <health> component (or whatever you have called it)

Incredible flexibility for Stricter OO languages.
For things like JS, you can do component-like stuff without actual components.
Yay for JS objects. :D

Code: Select all

<+BMRX> Silver Invokes Lewdly Verbose Experiences Readily With Absurd Rectal Expeditions
Post

Re: The State of Limit Theory Development, 2017 Edition!

#162
Been doing component-based entities in LT for as long as I can remember :)

Yeah, with a dynamic language it's pretty awesome how easy it is. Components in LuaJIT are going to be ridiculously easy :geek: OTOH it was a whole lotta template madness to get it to work at maximal performance in C++ (and even then, I think there was still a bit of perf loss).
“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.” ~ Henry Ford

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: Lavaflow and 1 guest

cron