Re: Increasing Typing Stability.
Re: Increasing Typing Stability. Interesting. I haven't tested myself in ages, but last time I tried, I think I was around 90-110 at normal speed, and 120-130 if I tried really hard to be fast and let my accuracy tank. That was in high school though, so I might have increased slightly.I wonder if another reason I never got into mechanicals is the same reason I don't like weighted keys on musical keyboards. I always prefer synth action/non-weighted. Not exactly sure why, other than maybe I prefer having something with a firm bottom which is easy to reach, and the mechanicals I've seen are not that. Sure the key travel for a mechanical is minimal with certain switches, but the bottom feels too deep. The clicky/tactile feedback doesn't do much for me. It's just part of the texture on the way to the true bottom. It's not distracting per say, it just doesn't feel like it helps. Same with the deeper membrane keyboards too, they're not shallow enough. And while I'm out of practice on laptop keys, I used to prefer them as well. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/618368/#p618368 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Increasing Typing Stability.
Re: Increasing Typing Stability. Interesting. I haven't tested myself in ages, but last time I tried, I think I was around 90-110 at normal speed, and 120-130 if I tried really hard to be fast and let my accuracy tank. That was in high school though, so I might have increased slightly.I wonder if another reason I never got into mechanicals is the same reason I don't like weighted keys on musical keyboards. I always prefer synth action/non-weighted. Not exactly sure why, other than maybe I prefer having something with a firm bottom and very little resistance to get there, and the mechanicals I've seen are not that. The clicky feedback doesn't substitute for a bottom very well for me, it's just part of the texture on the way to the true bottom. It's not distracting per say, it just doesn't feel like it helps. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/618368/#p618368 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Increasing Typing Stability.
Re: Increasing Typing Stability. Unpopular opinion time.For me, I've noticed my typing depends a lot on how alert I'm feeling. There are in fact times when I pretty much give up on typing because I'm too tired to type anything that makes sense, and then later I go back and edit what I wrote and I can't even read half of it because there are so many mistakes. But even when I'm doing well, my accuracy isn't great, I mean it's pretty good I guess but I make mistakes all the time.Personally I never found mechanicals to improve my typing too much. I've gone back to slim membrane and I don't feel my performance has taken that much of a hit. But I'm probably weird like that. In fact, I'd venture to say that, if your keyboard has no real physical issues, your best bet is probably to practice on it, rather than switch to a keyboard that will supposedly make you type better. For me anyway, switching hurt me initially more than it helped; I spent probably the better part of 2 weeks after every keyboard switch asking myself why I had done this again, because I was literally making mistakes I never recalled making before, and when I eventually stopped doing that, I was still fixing dumb typos on a regular basis.Now, if you feel like the key response of your keyboard is hindering your technique or is becoming uncomfortable or something, then I'd say sure, go for something different and that may improve your typing. But don't get caught up in that like I did, and search for the holy grail. I mean if you find your absolute favorite, don't hesitate, enjoy it! But I went through a really obsessive period where I was convinced I needed to find something revolutionary, but I didn't find it, not with the resources currently available to me anyway. That's not a fun phase to be in, btw. So I stopped caring and went back to basics since I didn't have an issue with them before I got curious about different keyboards. Eventually when I'm not lazy, I'll try to isolate the part of my technique that needs work if my typos bother me enough.So that's basically all the advice I think I can give right now. Admittedly, it isn't much lol URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/618188/#p618188 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: trying to solidify my understanding of coding concepts, and failing
Re: trying to solidify my understanding of coding concepts, and failing @8, thanks for the perspective!See, I wouldn't have known that BGT is the least helpful ever for getting you to think about design patterns. I guess I latched onto the fact that it does go for quick gratification, and, I thought the tutorials were doing their job well since almost everything I read caused me to think and absorb new information, unless I got stuck lol. So I felt like I was learning something.The one thing I didn't feel I learned much about, though, was how to think through design patterns like you say. I feel like the manual often explains how something works, and on occasion why something works, but not enough about when concepts are appropriate. Sometimes it does, but I can't count how many times I come away from a few paragraphs going "Okay I sort of follow you but how did we get here again?" I find the manual goes back and forth between handholding and setting you on your own in a jarring kind of way... but I have always believed that was normal and expected for any tutorial. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/608787/#p608787 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: trying to solidify my understanding of coding concepts, and failing
Re: trying to solidify my understanding of coding concepts, and failing Thanks guys for your responses!@2, You basically showed me that my hunches about handles are correct. While I will have to study what you did a few times to solidify it, I feel like I'm on the right track with that at least. It still feels weird to me that I can't just load the sounds I want in the main body of the player class, so I'm still wondering if there's an obvious reason for that or if it's just BGT being how it is. I only ask because if there's an obvious reason for it, knowing it might help me figure stuff out.Hmm... after sleeping on it, I just realized that I could use the class constructor and destructor to load and destroy sounds inside the class if I didn't want my objects to be globals. I haven't tried anything like that yet, but I think I'll try it later. Either I've stumbled across an invaluable technique or a trap. I have no idea which, I guess it'll depend on where I go...@3 and @5I agree with your sentiment that I shouldn't use BGT. Mainstream help is way more available with other languages as you said, and using something like Python would eliminate the false virus issue that plagues many bGT games.I'd like to try something else, but there are a few reasons I'm afraid to jump ship.I started with BGT, and I'm afraid I'll only be confused if I try to drop what I know and get used to another language with its own quirky rules. Yes, as you can tell I know very little, but I still have something to hang on to.When I read the things devs post and need help with, I am often shaking my head and saying "That sounds complicated, I'm not ready for that!" Whether they use BGT or something else. Of course there is the odd exception, and I haven't read enough posts here to say that every one is beyond me, but I know many are.Also, BGT isn't perfect by any means, but I find that since it forces me to use its tutorials and fixed reference guide, I at least don't have to worry so much about making poor choices regarding what guides and examples to look at. I also don't have to worry about relying on suboptomal dependencies eg. sound management is native to BGT so I just need to learn how it works. I know programmers say BGT's approach does not allow you to expand your horizons, and I agree with the sentiment, but as a beginner among beginners, the cocoon is still very comforting.I realize this may come off as whining that I don't want to change. The thing is, I'm not opposed to the change itself, I just don't have any confidence in my abilities to progress after trying to switch. I know most people say "Do research, man!" And that is something I often willingly do, but I become easily overwhelmed if I start to lose sense of direction. Trying to learn to code has been, for me, mostly a sense of struggling in vane to get my direction, and while I'm sure that's a common feeling among beginners, it's taking me a very long time to overcome it.I suppose frustration is factoring into it too because this stuff does make sense to many people much more easily. Ever since BGT's existance, the difficulty bar has been set much lower when it comes to making a working game. Of course that can be a good or a bad thing depending on how you look at it. But my point is that if BGT really does make game creation so easy, why do I have so much trouble getting it?I guess I could always turn this around and blame BGT and say I'm going to switch to something which comes easier to me. If @4 is right and Python makes handle management easier, maybe that's a compelling reason to switch to Python for instance. But I also know how easy it is for me to get into a dangerous loop, where as soon as I struggle with something, I give it up and look for something else. I'm trying to avoid that tendency because I know a certain amount of struggle is necessary and good.Anyway sorry for rambling so much, I'm just trying to figure things out. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/608699/#p608699 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: trying to solidify my understanding of coding concepts, and failing
Re: trying to solidify my understanding of coding concepts, and failing Thanks guys for your responses!@2, You basically showed me that my hunches about handles are correct. While I will have to study what you did a few times to solidify it, I feel like I'm on the right track with that at least. It still feels weird to me that I can't just load the sounds I want in the main body of the player class, so I'm still wondering if there's an obvious reason for that or if it's just BGT being how it is. I only ask because if there's an obvious reason for it, knowing it might help me figure stuff out.Hmm... after sleeping on it, I just realized that I could use the class constructor and destruct or to load and destroy sounds inside the class if I didn't want my objects to be globals. I haven't tried anything like that yet, but I think I'll try it later. Either I've stumbled across an invaluable technique or a trap. I have no idea which...@3 and @5I agree with your sentiment that I shouldn't use BGT. Mainstream help is way more available with other languages as you said, and using something like Python would eliminate the false virus issue that plagues many bGT games.I'd like to try something else, but there are a few reasons I'm afraid to jump ship.I started with BGT, and I'm afraid I'll only be confused if I try to drop what I know and get used to another language with its own quirky rules. On the same vane, when I read the things devs post and need help with, I am often shaking my head and saying "That sounds complicated, I'm not ready for that!" Whether they use BGT or something else. Of course there is the odd exception, and I haven't read enough posts here to say that every one is beyond me, but I know many are.Also, BGT isn't perfect by any means, but I find that since it forces me to use its tutorials and syntax, I at least don't have to worry so much about making poor choices regarding what guides and examples to look at. I know programmers say that approach isn't good for learning how things actually work, and I agree with the sentament, but as a beginner among beginners, the cocoon is still very comforting.I realize this may come off as whining that I don't want to change. The thing is, I'm not opposed to the change itself, I just don't have any confidence in my abilities to progress after trying to switch. I know most people say "Do research, man!" And that is something I often willingly do, but I become easily overwhelmed if I start to lose sense of direction. Trying to learn to code has been, for me, mostly a sense of struggling in vane to get my direction, and while I'm sure that's a common feeling among beginners, it's taking me a very long time to overcome it.I suppose frustration is factoring into it too because this stuff does make sense to many people much more easily. BGT is proof that we've set the difficulty bar much lower when it comes to getting a working game. Of course that can be a good or a bad thing depending on how you look at it. But my point is that if BGT really does make game creation so easy, why do I have so much trouble getting it?I guess I could always turn this around and blame BGT and say I'm going to switch to something which comes easier to me. If @4 is right and Python makes handle management easier, maybe that's a compelling reason to switch to Python for instance. But I also know how easy it is for me to get into a dangerous loop, where as soon as I struggle with something, I give it up and look for something else. I'm trying to avoid that tendency because I know a certain amount of struggle is necessary and good.Anyway sorry for rambling so much, I'm just trying to figure things out. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/608699/#p608699 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
trying to solidify my understanding of coding concepts, and failing
trying to solidify my understanding of coding concepts, and failing
Hi all,I've posted a few times on audiogames about how I will never be able to code games, even in comparatively simple languages such as BGT, and how frustrated I was while trying to learn. Nevertheless, something in me keeps me coming back and trying, despite my dozens of impulses to just throw in the towel and give up the endeavor. I guess I have always dreamed of designing something and trying to make it happen, because musically I'm pretty good at doing just that. and I enjoy games enough to have a spark in me that keeps wanting to try. And I do make progress with coding, so not all hope is lost.I'm more comfortable with basic constructs like loops, functions and conditional statements than I ever was before. I'm not at a level most would consider good, but I definitely feel a lot better than I did, and have made a few small programs with those constructs. But I still struggle to know if i'm coding cleanly, or even to know if I can code something at all.Right now, I'm working on trying to understand objects/classes in BGT. I get their purpose at least on a basic level. But when we start talking about handles is where I run into trouble.The BGT manual does mention what handles are, but I'm having a hard time understanding how I can use them for things.BGT Manual wrote:You may want to pass objects around various functions of your own. To do this, it is essential that you pass handles, and not the object itself. A handle is essentially a reference to the original object. To do this, you would do something like the following:sound@ play_sound(string filename){sound the_sound;the_sound.load(filename);the_sound.play();return the_sound;}void main(){show_game_window("My Game");sound@ ambience=play_sound("curry.wav");ambience.volume=-6;@ambience=null;}In short, when you declare an object handle, you put an @ (at) sign after the variable type. You can then use this variable as if it were a standard object, the only difference being that you are referencing the original variable. When you want to change the value of your handle, for example to make it point to another object of the same type, you simply put the @ (at) sign before the variable name.You can destroy a handle by setting its value to null. This is the object equivalent to 0. With this in mind, though you cannot manually destroy the contents of an object, a way to work around this is to set all your global objects as handles, and only use the objects themselves in functions. This way, although the objects themselves are local variables, they have global variables still referring to them. Therefore the object will always remain usable until its last handle is destroyed.On a basic level, I understand what this is doing: it's basically showing how you can play a sound using a function and handles. My understanding right now is that a handle is just a reference to an object, but the object the handle references can change at any point. However, I'm not sure if there is a specific reason why a handle must be used when creating a function which returns an object. For example, why does play_sound start with sound@ the_sound? Perhaps this is just the way BGT does things, or maybe it makes logical sense? I dunno, I'm still trying to figure that out.Apart from that, I think I've figured the example out, but I'm still stuck on where I would personally use handles myself. I'm sure if I were at a stage where I was ready to write complex games, I would already know, but at this stage, I don't really know and I feel like I need to before moving forward.Something else I have been grappling with which is probably related.I've noticed that there are limitations on when you can do certain things. For example, while you can do basic object setup globally, you can't actually use methods unless you are doing it inside a function/method. I just recently figured that out, and I'm certain this structure is a major source of my struggles.As a test, I tried to make a player class with a move method. Getting the class to move my player left and right for a side scroller, for example, was actually easy. But when trying to figure out how I could hear footsteps, I ran into trouble. In the end, I had to settle for one of two ways, and I'm not sure if either are ideal.Method 1. Create a global sound object for the footstep. Then inside the function which runs the game, load step.wav in that object so either it or my player class can make use of it.Here's the code:player you;
sound step;
class player
{
int pos = 1;
void move()
{
step.play();
pos++;
}
}
void main()
{
show_game_window ("test");
step.load("move.wav");
while (true)
{
if (key_pressed(KEY_UP))
{
you.move();
}
wait (5);
}
}It looks a bit cluttered since I'm using my step sound three times: first time globally to set it up, second in the game function to load step.wav, and thirdly in my move method to actually play it. I have no idea if this is how
trying to solidify my understanding of coding concepts, and failing
trying to solidify my understanding of coding concepts, and failing
Hi all,I've posted a few times on audiogames about how I will never be able to code games, even in comparatively simple languages such as BGT, and how frustrated I was while trying to learn. Nevertheless, something in me keeps me coming back and trying, despite my dozens of impulses to just throw in the towel and give up the endeavor. I guess I have always dreamed of designing something and trying to make it happen, because musically I'm pretty good at doing just that. and I enjoy games enough to have a spark in me that keeps wanting to try. And I do make progress with coding, so not all hope is lost.I'm more comfortable with basic constructs like loops, functions and conditional statements than I ever was before. I'm not at a level most would consider good, but I definitely feel a lot better than I did, and have made a few small programs with those constructs. But I still struggle to know if i'm coding cleanly, or even to know if I can code something at all.Right now, I'm working on trying to understand objects/classes in BGT. I get their purpose at least on a basic level. But when we start talking about handles is where I run into trouble.The BGT manual does mention what handles are, but I'm having a hard time understanding how I can use them for things.BGT Manual]You may want to pass objects around various functions of your own. To do this, it is essential that you pass handles, and not the object itself. A handle is essentially a reference to the original object. To do this, you would do something like the following:sound@ play_sound(string filename){sound the_sound;the_sound.load(filename);the_sound.play();return the_sound;}void main(){show_game_window("My Game");sound@ ambience=play_sound("curry.wav");ambience.volume=-6;@ambience=null;}In short, when you declare an object handle, you put an @ (at) sign after the variable type. You can then use this variable as if it were a standard object, the only difference being that you are referencing the original variable. When you want to change the value of your handle, for example to make it point to another object of the same type, you simply put the @ (at) sign before the variable name.You can destroy a handle by setting its value to null. This is the object equivalent to 0. With this in mind, though you cannot manually destroy the contents of an object, a way to work around this is to set all your global objects as handles, and only use the objects themselves in functions. This way, although the objects themselves are local variables, they have global variables still referring to them. Therefore the object will always remain usable until its last handle is destroyed.On a basic level, I understand what this is doing: it's basically showing how you can play a sound using a function and handles. My understanding right now is that a handle is just a reference to an object, but the object the handle references can change at any point. However, I'm not sure if there is a specific reason why a handle must be used when creating a function which returns an object. For example, why does play_sound start with sound@ the_sound? Perhaps this is just the way BGT does things, or maybe it makes logical sense? I dunno, I'm still trying to figure that out.Apart from that, I think I've figured the example out, but I'm still stuck on where I would personally use handles myself. I'm sure if I were at a stage where I was ready to write complex games, I would already know, but at this stage, I don't really know and I feel like I need to before moving forward.Something else I have been grappling with which is probably related.I've noticed that there are limitations on when you can do certain things. For example, while you can do basic object setup globally, you can't actually use methods unless you are doing it inside a function/method. I just recently figured that out, and I'm certain this structure is a major source of my struggles.As a test, I tried to make a player class with a move method. Getting the class to move my player left and right for a side scroller, for example, was actually easy. But when trying to figure out how I could hear footsteps, I ran into trouble. In the end, I had to settle for one of two ways, and I'm not sure if either are ideal.Method 1. Create a global sound object for the footstep. Then inside the function which runs the game, load step.wav in that object so either it or my player class can make use of it.Here's the code:player you;
sound step;
class player
{
int pos = 1;
void move()
{
step.play();
pos++;
}
}
void main()
{
show_game_window ("test");
step.load("move.wav");
while (true)
{
if (key_pressed(KEY_UP))
{
you.move();
}
wait (5);
}
}It looks a bit cluttered since I'm using my step sound three times: first time globally to set it up, second in the game function to load step.wav, and thirdly in my move method to actually play it. I have no idea if this is how you're
Re: Game In Development - Seven Summits: Mount Everest
Re: Game In Development - Seven Summits: Mount Everest Hmm. I didn't have much trouble finding her as she will stop if you get too far away and wait for you.Is losing your footing implemented? I've never had it happen. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/592459/#p592459 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Khalil Alston - Zlind the Zookeeper
Re: Khalil Alston - Zlind the Zookeeper Nice simple game! But finding it a bit difficult at the moment.After I collect 2 or 3 animals, I am unable to collect more, I don't really know why. I'm trying to heed my buddy's prompts about bumping into a wall, but I'm still unable to collect more than maybe 3 animals.On my end at least, the sound isn't really 3D, since the only directional feedback you get is left/right. Forward/backward is conveyed by volume, which is fine, but makes it hard to tell whether the sound is in front or behind you. The only way I know is by walking; if the sound becomes louder I know I'm heading the right way, if not then I'm heading the wrong way. Turning speed is a bit dizzying, but I'd rather it be too fast than too slow, within reason of course. At the speed it is now, I'd say it would suit a fast action game. For exploration, the speed is a bit fast for me, though it's not creating a problem. It just takes a little getting used to.It's a great start, though! URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/592161/#p592161 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Danny Delgado- Earthquake Escape
Re: Danny Delgado- Earthquake Escape Hi Danny, this is a great start, especially for a concept demo! I love the feeling of walking around the devastated town.Just a thought, maybe this would be better in the new releases room?I do have some critiques though. But nothing bad.1. Investigating the town doesn't really seem to serve a purpose so far as I can see; the helicopter is very close by when you start. But the atmosphere is great. Perhaps have the helicopter be randomly placed?2. I am unable to run into anything. If I run into an obstacle, I pass through it. Same with the helicopter. So in my experience, the game can neither be lost or won at present.3. The naration. I'm not too picky about this in games, but technically I think the way it is handled could use some work. Specifically, there should be a way to stop the opening dialog. The opening dialog also seems to be treated as an object; you can turn and walk away from the speaker as he speaks which is a bit odd.4. The purpose of the f, g, h and j keys is confusing. I was kind of expecting them to be some sort of interactive guiding system, but instead they seem to play static prompts which are not always applicable. For example when pressing F, this message plays: "By now you are wondering why your surroundings sound different. You have probably entered a new area worth investigating..." This is a helpful tip but it confuses players if presented at the wrong time. My suggestion would be to make these prompts interactive i.e. perhaps speak the G prompt before you even start walking, as it is a brief overview of your task. Play the f prompt when you enter a new area. Play the h prompt when the player is too far away from the helicopter/has gone off track, and play the J prompt when the helicopter is close. I think these should play only once, that way they dont' get annoying.5. While approaching objects feels really smooth and fluid, I did have issues with obstacles eg. fire and a few other sounds, popping out of nowhere. In addition, there's no way to tell the difference between in front and behind. I don't think it's an issue in this game, but binaural audio positioning would make the atmosphere much more immersive, and there are a number of Unity games which do it. I know very little about how Unity actually works though or what tools they use, so I'm not the one to give out recommendations as for how to do it sadly.Anyway, that's my feedback. Really looking forward to seeing more from you! URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/592077/#p592077 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Why do people still use bgt?
Re: Why do people still use bgt?
Haha reading this thread makes me feel a bit self-conscious I guess. I'm not even sure why I'm posting this, I guess I'm just that bored.ironcross32 wrote:It can be summed up in the following sentence. If you use BGT, you are lazy and unwilling to learn. That's it, full stop.Not really sure how I feel about this.When I was a teenager, probably from ages 12-16, I wanted to make games and programs. I had no clue how to learn to program, but I felt like I could learn if I had a starting point. But even BGT goes above my head. I know variables, if statements and how to use the built-in functions, but I can't put it all together right, which you sort of need to do to write user functions, user classes and make a game. The manual, as well-written as it may or may not be, even confuses me after a very short while, yet underneath that I can see it's trying to be as approachable as possible for a complete newcomer, so I'm not sure what to make of it.When I try to think of coding a project, my brain twists itself up into knots. So I end up spamming if statements, creating waaay more variables than I need, because they're constructs my little brain can follow, sort of. I refrain from touching user functions or the other outer limits of what I think I understand, because it's too painful for me to work out how to use those to put something together, and then to debug it. The only time I'll use them is if I'm thinking especially clearly one day and can sort of form a picture of why I'm doing this and have the energy to tackle it. Kinda feels like my mind is just a bit slow in the uptake.As an example: void main()
{
int x=add_numbers(3, 5);
alert("Wow", "3 + 5 is... " + x + "!");
}
int add_numbers(int first, int second)
{
int result=first+second;
return result;
}That confused me waaay more than it should have. We're talking days and it was probably one of the most creative humbling experience I've had in a long while, as petty as that may sound. Once I did figure out what the various parts actually meant, my first thought was, "why didn't they write it like this?"//step 1 make the function
int add_numbers(int FirstNumber, int SecondNumber)
{
return FirstNumber+SecondNumber;
}
//show the function working
void main()
{
alert("Wow", "3 + 5 is... " + AddNumbers(3,5) + "!");
}Or... why even use a function at all? I could do that in less code without the function.Then in frustration I came to the realization that I was missing the point and none of that mattered. Yet, without thinking that way, I would still be stuck on functions. I wouldn't know why user functions are so important. I do understand it now, but only becaus I spent that ridiculous amount of time working it all out.If, that example, was enough to drain me, then how could I start anything significant enough to get excited about? Sometimes I go back and forth wondering how much effort I should put into this, but one thing's for sure, if BGT is tripping me up this much, I wont' be using anything else any time soon unless it is just as simple. Call me lazy if you like, but hey, I'm trying, and I have a lot of respect for people who can do more than me, even if they're lazy and not willing to use something decent in the game development world.I guess the smart thing to do would be to accept I can't do it and give up. Making games and programs was probably just a stupid childhood dream anyway. Still, when my friends either use BGT and won't change their minds, or decide to move on, I feel at a bit of a loss, like I'm missing out on something just out of my reach.Ah well, I guess it's similar to my chiptune stuff; there's a certain way of understanding music and sound that's unique to working with retro sound chips. Some people naturally take to it and others do not. I'm actually more surprised that I do, since I had very little exposure to electronic music until I was in high school, and the exposure I did get wasn't very encouraging. I didn't like it much and the people around me didn't seem to either, but I guess I still managed to hold onto the curiosity that kept me wondering how certain sounds were made, so chiptunes became a really big hobby of mine since around 2010, and I'm becoming increasingly less reclusive now because I'm finding outlets for it. I hang out especially often with fully sighted creative chiptune music types, not the big demoscene people or anything, just random people who enjoy making chiptunes and who I think are good at it. I guess that natural aptitude is similar with programming and I just don't have it.But yeah, this is called the dev room for a reason. People discuss development of games. I'm just envious of those who actually have something to contribute to the BGT discussion. My mind goes back to the aspirations I used to have, that I might, by this point in life, be contributing directly to said discussion.That said, if anyone can relate to what I'm actually saying, I'd be curious to hear wh
Re: Why do people still use bgt?
Re: Why do people still use bgt?
Haha reading this thread makes me feel a bit self-conscious I guess. I'm not even sure why I'm posting this, I guess I'm just that bored.ironcross32 wrote:It can be summed up in the following sentence. If you use BGT, you are lazy and unwilling to learn. That's it, full stop.Not really sure how I feel about this.When I was a teenager, probably from ages 12-16, I wanted to make games and programs. I had no clue how to learn to program, but I felt like I could learn if I had a starting point. But even BGT goes above my head. I know variables, if statements and functions, but I can't put it all together right, which you sort of need to do to write classes and then to write a game. The manual, as well-written as it may or may not be, even confuses me after a very short while, yet underneath that I can see it's trying to be as approachable as possible for a complete newcomer, so I'm not sure what to make of it.When I try to think of coding a project, my brain twists itself up into knots. So I end up spamming if statements, creating waaay more variables than I need, because they're constructs my little brain can follow, sort of. I refrain from touching functions or the other outer limits of what I think I understand, because it's too painful for me to work out how to use those to put something together, and then to debug it. The only time I'll use them is if I'm thinking especially clearly one day and can sort of form a picture of why I'm doing this and have the energy to tackle it. Kinda feels like my mind is just a bit slow in the uptake.As an example: void main()
{
int x=add_numbers(3, 5);
alert("Wow", "3 + 5 is... " + x + "!");
}
int add_numbers(int first, int second)
{
int result=first+second;
return result;
}That confused me waaay more than it should have. We're talking days and it probably the most creative humbling experience ever, as petty as that may sound. Once I did figure out what the various parts actually meant, my first thought was, "why didn't they write it like this?"//step 1 make the function
int add_numbers(int FirstNumber, int SecondNumber)
{
return FirstNumber+SecondNumber;
}
//show the function working
void main()
{
alert("Wow", "3 + 5 is... " + AddNumbers(3,5) + "!");
}Or... why even use a function at all? I could do that in less code without the function.Then in frustration I came to the realization that I was missing the point and none of that mattered. yet, without thinking that way, I would still be stuck on functions.If, that, was enough to confuse me, then how could I start anything significant enough to get excited about? Sometimes I go back and forth wondering how much effort I should put into this, but one thing's for sure, if BGT is tripping me up this much, I wont' be using anything else any time soon unless it is just as simple. Call me lazy if you like, but hey, I'm trying, and I have a lot of respect for people who can do more than me, even if they're lazy and not willing to use something decent in the game development world.I guess the smart thing to do would be to accept I can't do it and give up. Making games and programs was probably just a stupid childhood dream anyway. Still, when my friends either use BGT and won't change their minds, or decide to move on, I feel at a bit of a loss, like I'm missing out on something just out of my reach.Ah well, I guess it's similar to my chiptune stuff; there's a certain way of understanding music and sound that's unique to working with retro sound chips. Some people naturally take to it and others do not. I'm actually more surprised that I do, since I had very little exposure to electronic music until I was in high school, and the exposure I did get wasn't very encouraging. I didn't like it much and the people around me didn't seem to either, but I guess I still managed to hold onto the curiosity that kept me wondering how certain sounds were made, so chiptunes became a really big hobby of mine since around 2010, and I'm becoming increasingly less reclusive now because I'm finding outlets for it. I hang out especially often with fully sighted creative chiptune music types, not the big demoscene people or anything, just random people who enjoy making chiptunes and are good at it. I guess that natural aptitude is similar with programming and I just don't have it.But yeah this is called the dev room for a reason. People discuss development of games. I'm just envious of those who actually have something to contribute to the BGT discussion, and the aspirations I used to have that I might, by this point in life, be contributing directly to said discussion.
URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/571759/#p571759
--
Audiogames-reflector mailing list
Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com
https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: the slowness of bgt
Re: the slowness of bgt camlorn wrote:@55This thread never had a question and this is an internet forum. What's the problem with it going off topic, especially when it's still sort of on topic?The main thing I'm struggling to understand is, does the op actually have slowness in his game and rather than search for a syntactical reason for it, got angry with BGT and thinks PB is better because it handles his unoptimized coding practices better? Perhaps I'm still holding out hope that this is the case, for a couple reasons. First if you don't know anything about coding, you have literally no concept of how breakable or optimizable (is that even a word?) code can be. Also, I like to see the good side in everything and don't like to accept that people post stuff like this just to see where the dirt flies. But maybe I'm wrong.In any case Post 4 did have some takeaway value for me. You can't get accurate timing measurements by doing a naive test. If I hadn't read that, I would've tried that myself if I ever had a reason to do so. Now I know not to bother, or I can do research if I feel like I need to know more. But after that, I didn't quite know what I was supposed to be taking from it.Yes things go off topic. I didn't have a problem with the posts about C++ and other languages and how they work. I didn't really get any of it, but the drift seemed logical if not a little sudden. I'm not a dev though, so I'm not meant to understand when things go that way. But when the whole 2 vs 30 ms thing came up, which is something I do understand well since audio production is my primary hobby, and is imho a far less interesting or technical topic since it needs context to have any use, I became concerned about where the thread was going. On one side we have people discussing technical jargon way over my head, but on the other we're debating the value of the millisecond, the basic glue that holds most game designs together, with bassless claims being made without context. Totally the opposite, and there's not really a link in the middle, to my perception, which says hey, this all amounts to one big idea. I leave this thread wondering what the point was.My first idea is to spend a few weeks learning BGT and some other language well enough to load and play sounds to see if I can find any sort of case where the difference in load times matters to me. But even then I wouldn't be doing myself any favors. If I did manage to code things in such a way that I notice a concrete difference, previous experience with games tells me I'm probably doing it wrong and my rationale tells me that's not the first thing you should be doing with a language, it's probably the last actually and only reserved for a script you don't intend to use, or at best, you save for demonstrations of how not to do things. But let's say I hypothetically ran into a real issue with load times in my game. My first reaction in such a case is to find those who have made the same mistakes I am hypothetically making so I can learn something, so I was perhaps hoping to see that in this thread. But perhaps you're right. This question, if that's what it was ever intended to be, is too trivial and I'm reading things incorrectly. I won't argue the point. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/506385/#p506385 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: the slowness of bgt
Re: the slowness of bgt I'm not a coder. I dabble in a few code-related things but still struggle with basic concepts, so I'm largely a player of games and don't much care about the language. Therefore I'm not the target audience here and probably not in this room in general, but I feel like this thread has devolved and isn't very productive so I want to offer my insight. Take it or leave it.rory-games wrote:Pure basic: *loads step sound in 2 ms*bgt: *loads step sound in like 20-30ms*No example code to prove it, no description of the methodology used to test it.@4 seems to be an appropriate answer based on the limited information we at first got.camlorn wrote:2ms vs 30ms is within the margin of error for anything doing disk I/O. Purebasic is faster in the general case because it's basically C, but the above benchmark isn't useful and may actually come out with BGT as the winner if ran properly.There are something like 4 or 5 levels between you and the disk. As one concrete example, one of these is the page cache, which uses supposedly unused ram to keep files loaded in memory in case another program tries to read them after, which means that it matters which program ran first.There are also something like 4 or 5 kinds of timers provided by the operating system, some of which can't even give values at a resolution higher than 1MS and which make basically no guarantees to accuracy, up to give me the literal number of clock cycles this took.I could go on for a while, but if you're timing anything more complicated than a math loop you need an absurd amount of control over the environment, and if you're timing a math loop some compilers will just go "hey, the result of this is never used, so let's not do the work" and then it'll take 0ms or some other value way less than it should because it's not doing work you think it's doing. That said I don't think either BGT or Purebasic is complicated enough to be doing that level of optimization, but C++ and anything that uses LLVM internally certainly does.From this point I would've expected this to be acknowledged but it instead devolved into which programming language has the best performance for OS development and is 2 ms vs 30 ms important? And to my perhaps shallow mind, the whole idea of load times in BGT being slow, which the op was initially talking about, became irrelevant. I wouldn't know if it's a real issue, I would suspect not since the BGT games I play don't feel laggy but what do I know? The point is that now we're just comparing 2 ms to 30 ms for the sake of comparing 2 ms to 30 ms without context, and in this comparison context is everything.Can you tell the difference when loading sounds? As other people have said, loading sounds is normally done before gameplay, so I'm not sure what the op is taking issue with here. Some games take minutes to load, so the difference between 2 and 30 ms is negligible. And hey your computer might just be working a little faster one day than on another day, because a background service is or isn't running. It's at best a curiosity reserved for computer geeks.On the other hand, if an enemy is firing a machine gun and for some reason each bullet in BGT waits 30 ms to play the sound while in PB it takes only 2 MS, that, might, be noticeable depending on the other sounds around and the other factors in the game. A more extreme case is when two sounds are played on top of one another. You could definitely hear the difference between 2 and 30 ms then. IN fact, you can easily hear differences between fractions of an ms if you do that. If you play two sounds on top of each other, but in one case you delay the second copy by 0.5 ms and in the other case you delay the second one by 0.6 ms, you'll know they're different. Easily. But do the same with 30.5 and 30.6 and you probably won't; the changes are less audible the higher you go.So does 28 ms actually make a practical difference? It's a big fat depends. But without at least preliminary code or methodology of testing or some detail on what the op is trying to do, we can only speculate, and that speculation has lead us well off track. This is precisely why making claims without evidence is a bad thing.If the op is reading this, I would encourage them to find more objective, less persuasive means to communicate. Drilling a point with persuasion has its place in marketting, public speaking and other fields. Not coding or science. Simply stating X is sooo slow because it takes 15 times longer to do a task than Y doesn't prove the inefficiency of X. At best, it shows a vague objective difference which might not even be valid if post 4 is correct. At worst, it creates confusion, misinformation, and useless banter, especially if you can't make a case for why it actually matters for game development. If you're simply concerned about speed and shy away from one language because it's slow, that's your call, but the general opinion I"m reading is that programmers rarely conside
Re: Found something for anybody using any language
Re: Found something for anybody using any language Will the problems/answers be archived so that people who find this in 6 months can, if they're bored enough, work through them? URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/482428/#p482428 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
