Creating AVI/MPG

satchmo

Try AVI constructor, at http://www.aviconstructor.com/. It says the shareware version is fully functional, and seems do what you need although I haven't tried it myself.

Nice screenshot, I'm looking forward to seeing the demo.

Void

Cheers Jazz, I'll give that a go.
Should get a movie done up over the weekend.

black_wizardd

damn that games lookin sweet...great work man...wish i could program somethin like that ...awell maybe in a few years eh!!

Void

Cheers BW.
You shouldn't just "wish" you could do something like that, just get off your ass and start learning! That's what I did. And it only took me 3 years to get this far Look at the original screenshots on the site, they suck! There are millions of tutorials and stuff on the web to get you started with OpenGL (easier to learn than Direct3D).

Also, notice the space station is called Zion! Hands up who knows why (Matrix kiddies go away)?

Hint: I have a mate doing up a new model for it, with hyroponic domes filled with ganja

Greenbean

Void I think the any avi creation would slow the engine down alot; its probably best to get a screen capture card, or run the engine real slow and write to disk once every various frames or so.

Void

I want to create a demo movie from my game. How do I go about doing this? I'm thinking I write some code to dump a screenshot every 1/20th of a second, 1.bmp, 2.bmp, 3.bmp etc. Then I need a program to string these together and compress them yeah? Anyone know of such a program?

New screenshot: http://hosted.quake.ie/void/pics/zion.jpg

tobi

Void just a question, I’m in second year at the moment and we’ve just started Windows programming.

Do you have to have a good understanding of the Windows API before you start messing with OpenGL?

Void

Greenbean - you're dead right. I realise this, and I've factored the time taken grabbing the fame buffer into account, so it doesn't affect the physics calculations. Runs like a dog though

Tobiwan - Absolutely not! You need some _basic_ knowledge to get things up and running, and for doing timer code, that's about it. Once you get your "foundation" laid, you don't really use the Win32 API. I can send you an OpenGL skeleton app if you want. Put it like this, I can code a mental 3d engine, but I have mad difficulty doing simple buttons and menus in VC++

[This message has been edited by Void (edited 10-02-2001).]

Baz_

wow sico is l33t!!!

Cake Fiend

i maed hangman in VB fag0ts

Hobbes

VB is pretty much on par with VC++ now. If it's absolute speed then you can write the function in VC++ or ASM and then link your VB program to it. I find a lot of people who say VB is kack haven't and/or can't use it.

Void

Hobbes, without getting long-winded about it, suffice to say your little comment there was uninformed rubbish.

VB is not on a par with VC++. They are designed for completely different things, and should be exempt from silly advocacy debates. I'll give you one glaringly obvious reason for this: Visual Basic is not a true OO language. I dare you to tell me otherwise.

ecksor

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Void:
VB is not on a par with VC++. They are designed for completely different things, and should be exempt from silly advocacy debates. I'll give you one glaringly obvious reason for this: Visual Basic is not a true OO language. I dare you to tell me otherwise.
</font>

What's your point?

Greenbean

What do you mean what's his point?

"VB is not on a par with VC++."

Thats the point, isn't it?

ecksor

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Greenbean:
What do you mean what's his point?
</font>

I mean, what's his point?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
"VB is not on a par with VC++."
</font>

I got that bit.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Thats the point, isn't it?</font>

My question applied to what came after the bit you quoted. To be specific, I can think of a few reasons why you'd want to use C++ over VB and vice-versa (C++ is probably better suited to what void is going for example), and I can think of a few reasons why you might want to use an OO language to develop an application (although that's a matter of preference). I can even think of a few reasons why you might say they were designed for completely different things. I don't see why you would use OO as a reason to say that two languages were designed for different purposes.

Void

This is difficult to explain, because it's an abstract concept. We should probably start another thread, but I couldn't be bothered.

Consider the evolution of both languages in question. C++ builds on C. What does it add? Object orientation. Why did they bother? Because OOP reduces development time and increases code reuseability for large projects. C++ is a "scientific" language, designed for flexibility and power. Visual Basic is an evolved Microsoft scripting language for GUI development. It was never designed to have the flexibility and power of C++. I like to think of it as "commercial" vs "scientific".

It's difficult to make the move from procedural design to OO design, but once you've done it, you won't go back. My engine was originally written in C. It's complexity grew exponentially, until I reached the point that it was impossible to add new features without breaking everything else. I have since rewritten everything from scratch using C++ and proper OO techniques. The difference is amazing. Consider the following (basic) example:

Planets are game objects the same as ships etc. Both inherit from a virtual Update() physics function. The make the planets behave differently (they orbit the sun/other planets, ships etc have linear velocities) I simply override the planet's Update() function with some simple time based code to make it orbit around something. This, of course can be done in C/VB, but not as elegantly. I didn't have to modify anything in the programs design to add this functionality, it just went straight into planet.cpp, overriding the default linear Update() function.
A more complex example involves multiple inheritance (this incurs a more substantial performance hit, dunno if I should be using this). Certain objects can contain other objects (although, nearly everything should be a container, except missiles, laser blasts), so I inherit from an abstract class cContainer (which sets up a primitive hash table etc) in addition to the main abstract cGameObject class.
Example:
class cSpaceStation : public cDynamicObject, public cContainer
{ /*blahblahblah*/ };

Super fun happy extra special bonus C++ OO tip:

class cShip : public cDynamicObject, public cContainer
{	
public:
	cShip(int _type, char *_name);
	~cShip();
   // *snip* lots of stuff cut out.
	// ship_instances is a static array shared between all instances of cShip.
	// Display lists for ships only need to be loaded if the ship is being drawn.
	// ship_displaylists contains the OpenGL display list numbers for each ship.

	static int ship_instances[numshiptypes];
	static int ship_displaylists[numshiptypes];
	static DtShapeRef ship_shapedefs[numshiptypes];

protected:
   // Huge massive wodgers of stuff.
};

Notice the static arrays, they get shared between all instances of cShip. Basically, the cShip class keeps track of the number of ships in the game, and loads a particular display list if necessary, unloads it if not needed anymore (a display list is a cached series of OpenGL commands, stored on the gfx card).

Lalalalalalalalalalal anyways.

Basically, my point is, OOP is GOOD. I couldn't live without it, and I certainly wouldn't try to write a large complex program in Visual Basic, because it isn't designed for that. In my experience (as a professinal VB programmer), VB programs mostly consist of a bunch of forms, their associated code, and some shared code in a module, easy monkey. VB's beauty is it's pure event driven nature, which lends itself perfectly to GUI development. Polymorphism is actually available in VB, it works by inheriting ActiveX interfaces though, and is a halfassed attempt at "getting on par with C++". Look in the Visual Studio help for "polymorphism" and check it out for yourself. VB is a good language for prototyping (messing around!). You can get OpenGL and DirectX libraries for it, so I'd actually recommend it to anyone who wanted to mess about with 3d graphics. OO isn't the *only* difference between VB and C++, but I think it's the most significant one. Sorry if I forgot my point there/wasn't clear about it or whatever. A lot of this is pure opinion, and every programmer has their own preferences. However, I strongly disagree with your comment X_OR: "I don't see why you would use OO as a reason to say that two languages were designed for different purposes". I definitely would use that as a reason, and a very good one at that.

I strongly believe that procedural programmers days are numbered though, it's time to jump on the OO bandwagon

Further reading:
http://www.camtp.uni-mb.si/books/Thinking-in-C++/Chapter06.html

Disclaimer: Whatever.
Afterthought: See? You made me get all long-winded about it!!!

[This message has been edited by Void (edited 12-02-2001).]

black_wizardd

void...ur right i know i cant "wish" to have the know how 2 program a game...methinks i choose the wrong wording...i should of said i wish i had the time to learn how 2 program a game...im finishing my diploma year @ the moment (4 which im makin a game in *ahem* VB *ahem* who said that, not enough time 2 do it in C++ ) so i dont have the time 2 learn OpenGL/DirectX etc...but i hope 2 make a start over the summer...void heres a question 4 ya...do ya need 2 b REALLY good at maths 4 3d games programming....if so then GULP!! i gotta lota work 2 do...

SheroN

Allrite Void that looks pretty decent, any sites with OpenGL tutorials?. I've been doing c++ for about two years....any suggestions on where to start for doing stuff like that?........

-sHer!

ecksor

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Void:
OO isn't the *only* difference between VB and C++, but I think it's the most significant one. Sorry if I forgot my point there/wasn't clear about it or whatever. A lot of this is pure opinion, and every programmer has their own preferences.
</font>

Ok, here you use the words "difference" (I mean, what two languages don't have differences?) and "opinion", when the question I asked was why you presume that an OO language is automatically designed for different uses to non OO languages (I'm not just referring to VB and C++).

Btw, just because I questioned your statement didn't mean that I was unfamiliar with OO design and was looking for a tutorial or evangelism (I did say I could see why people would want to use it).

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">However, I strongly disagree with your comment X_OR: "I don't see why you would use OO as a reason to say that two languages were designed for different purposes". I definitely would use that as a reason, and a very good one at that. </font>

Ok, all I'm getting from what you said is that OO languages are very well suited to OO programming, which is fair enough, but I thought you were implying something more.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I strongly believe that procedural programmers days are numbered though, it's time to jump on the OO bandwagon
</font>

Gosh, you mean that OO is a new thing? How did people write the programs they wanted to write all those years before OO was invented?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Afterthought: See? You made me get all long-winded about it!!!
</font>

Be honest, can you really explain it without waving your arms around a lot?

Void

Phew, tired from writing that last post

BW - If you want to write a game, then just get stuck in, once you overcome the first few problems and get going, you'll be grand. I've found that working on this project has taught me a lot about programming in general (much more than programming in my job has). I'd definitely recommend it to students (if you actually got up in the mornings your days would be longer, do you all realise this?). As for the maths, unfortunately it's *brutal*. I used to think I was good in maths at school (A2 in Higher Level), but I now stand corrected. Luckily, one of my mates studied maths in TCD and is a bit of a head case, so he helps out (AI is the most difficult *shudder*). Still, don't let this discourage you, just go for it. You'll run into problems, but with a bit of study/help you'll figure them out.

Sheron - I've posted some useful links at the bottom, try to get a test app up and running, one that just draws a triangle or something. If anyone has *ANY* trouble with setting up C++/OpenGL I can help, just ask. I've run into just about every stupid little problem that can occur.

OpenGL is fading in popularity unfortunately (debatable), and I direct your attention to Direct3D. The theory behind the two is the same of course, but I think OpenGL is better for beginners like myself, it's syntax is much cleaner. Also, I have a really early Direct3D program I wrote in VB. It just sets up some basic stuff. BW - this might be for you, don't worry about C++.
Here it is: http://hosted.quake.ie/void/code/vbengine.zip

Here's my C++ maths library (it's very functional):
http://hosted.quake.ie/void/code/maths.h

Very good OpenGL tutorials here:
http://nehe.gamedev.net
I just see that geezer put up a tutorial on collision detection *SNATCH*!

Void

X_OR: Evidently I failed miserably to explain my point to you. I wasn't trying to preach to you, I was merely providing supporting examples. I think you know what I was trying to say. It's a moot point anyway, languages are tools, and we don't ask "Which is better? A screwdriver or a wrench?" (people in Limerick favour the screwdriver).

I will admit to not being able to explain it without "waving my arms about". As to whether this is down to my inability to articulate the concept properly, or your inability to understand what I was saying, who knows? There's no need for pedantic sarcasm though, it only annoys people.

Hobbes

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Void:
Consider the evolution of both languages in question. C++ builds on C. What does it add? Object orientation. Why did they bother? Because OOP reduces development time and increases code reuseability for large projects. C++ is a "scientific" language, designed for flexibility and power. Visual Basic is an evolved Microsoft scripting language for GUI development. It was never designed to have the flexibility and power of C++. I like to think of it as "commercial" vs "scientific".</font>

Maybe 5 years ago. Try reading the manuals or using the recent version it's come a long way. Anything C++ can do, VB can do. If it didn't you could just write up that function in VC++ and call it from the VB App.

Oh yea, VB is object orientated. It even has *gasp* classes.

I find there is a lot of snobbery when it comes to VC++.

[This message has been edited by Hobbes (edited 12-02-2001).]

regi

Void,

Can you throw up some sample texture .bmps for that vbengine example you did?

ecksor

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Void:
X_OR: Evidently I failed miserably to explain my point to you.</font>

Why are you so sure that you're right then?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I wasn't trying to preach to you, I was merely providing supporting examples. I think you know what I was trying to say.</font>

I know exactly what you're trying to say, I don't think you're following what I'm saying. I can see your points about how OO can be very nice and useful and a good idea. I'm just saying that it doesn't necessarily follow that you must create certain programs using OO languages.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">It's a moot point anyway, languages are tools, and we don't ask "Which is better? A screwdriver or a wrench?" (people in Limerick favour the screwdriver).
</font>

I'm not debating one language over another.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I will admit to not being able to explain it without "waving my arms about". As to whether this is down to my inability to articulate the concept properly, or your inability to understand what I was saying, who knows?</font>

You still haven't attempted to answer my question, so we'll never know.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">There's no need for pedantic sarcasm though, it only annoys people.</font>

I do use sarcasm too much (especially when people use what I consider to be silly arguments), but then, your last paragraph explaining why you hadn't put your point across was plain patronising, which is even more annoying. You are obviously a good programmer (your void stuff looks very good) but that doesn't mean the rest of us are thick.

Basically, I don't see OO advocacy as a convincing argument of the limitations of other non OO languages.

Void

Hobbes: No. Please reread my previous large post. I use VB 6.0, this is the latest version yes? I know the next version is due very soon (maybe even in beta at the mo).
The "textbook" answer to the question "Is VB a true OO language?" is "No, because it doesn't support true polymorphism, it supports inheriting interfaces", which is a subtle difference. This is straight from the VB help files! You might think this is a small point, but I disagree because I make heavy use of these "advanced" features in C++. If you would like to continue this conversation, I suggest you open a new topic. And I amn't trying to be a snob, I'm trying to be pragmatic.

Regi: Did you get that thing to run already? I'm impressed, I haven't looked at it in years I didn't upload the textures with it, coz they are big. There's a link below to a more complete zip with textures etc. You need the DirectX 7 SDK to get this to run btw (there are hacks to get earlier DX versions to run, but official support is only with DX7+). You can get the DX7 SDK off the microsoft website, it's a BIG download though (>100Mb), I might try to isolate the VB specific parts and upload those.

VB Engine with textures (still sucks though!):
http://hosted.quake.ie/void/code/vbenginefull.zip

(I'm uploading this as I make this post, so if it doesn't work, give it a second)

Void

X_OR: I apologise if my last post was patronising, I honestly didn't intend it that way. I think you've distilled this little conversation down it's point at last, I commend you on your deductive skill!

"Basically, I don't see OO advocacy as a convincing argument of the limitations of other non OO languages."

This is basically the old C vs C++ debate!! I'm on the C++ side. We'll agree to disagree.

ecksor

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Void:
This is basically the old C vs C++ debate!! I'm on the C++ side. We'll agree to disagree.
</font>

Fair enough, although that is not I was getting at.

Void

OO lends itself to large complex software development processes. I know this empirically. I wrote a 3d engine in C. Then I rewrote it in C++. The flexibility and power the new design offers is staggering. Therefore, I believe non OO languages are unsuitable for large complex tasks. Is that the point I was trying to make? Mmmarvelous.

SCRUB

here void could I get your email address off you ?

want to ask a fwe questions cheers

el_scrub