Arent I a retard. I was coding a platform in As3, trying to get used to it. It was crashing when the player hit the level, so obviously something wrong with my hitTest function, and was checking it for like 10 minutes until realised I had used _y instead of just y.
What a fucking prick ;D
also Russell Howard is a beast
I've optimized my 30 MB game down to 12 MB. So close...
I don't got permission to submit larger then 10 MB from Tom too yet - probably digging threw emails.
Ya can't optimize an optimized flash can you? I just gotta take it down 2 more MBs.
At 12/21/09 07:10 PM, TheCriminalDuder wrote: I've optimized my 30 MB game down to 12 MB. So close...
I don't got permission to submit larger then 10 MB from Tom too yet - probably digging threw emails.
Ya can't optimize an optimized flash can you? I just gotta take it down 2 more MBs.
your limit should be raised now
None
At 12/21/09 04:59 PM, Deadclever23 wrote: So logically 1/0*0 = 1 because the /0 and the *0 cancel each other out.
In the realm of non-real maths, anything that "logically" makes sense can sort of happen! Hurrah!
Although keep in mind that you can't say 1/0 equals 2/0 (because they don't). However, you can say that 2/0 = 2*(1/0) if you're choosing to define 1/0 as something.
Mathematically though, anything *0 is equal to 0.
In the real world, yes. But crazy things can happen when dealing with things which don't 'exist'!
For example, there is a mathematical rule that the (square root of one number) multiplied by (the square root of another number) is the square root of (both numbers multiplied together).
But when dealing with the imaginary [positive] square root of -1, i, this rule simply isn't true!
Remember that the rules you've learnt through schooling are true for the numbers you learned them with, but you can't say that the rule is true for everything until you've proven it free of logical inconsistencies with those numbers (and of course, the point you made in your post Deadclever was that there is a logical inconsistency with the non-real number 1/0 and the rule that multiplying by 0 always equals 0).
I've oversimplified and almost made a farce of mathematics, but it's vaguely easier to understand than Toast's complicated (yet beautiful) explanation.
Doomsday-One, working on stuff better than preloaders. Marginally.
Johann Loschmidt was a smart cookie...and he had help. :)
Overshooting
So for my final film project for a class called 'Expression in Time and Motion', I did this film/animation hybrid. It took me like a week or so just to learn how to use After Effects and render out in the correct codecs for the film footage and layer composition. Then I got everything together with the sound and got all the effects and title/credits sequences done. I saved most of the animation till last just to make it choppy if I needed to, to finish it on time.
Looks like I'll be doing that because once again, I think of outrageous ideas that take way too long to do.
I'm trying to figure out how to more effectively estimate how long it takes to do things, but it seems like it always takes longer than I think it will, even while budgeting for a lot of extra time. Some things I do to personally up my own standards end up really good for what they are, but incomplete due to deadlines...
the events are merely fictional, written, directed, and acted out by all who create them
At 12/21/09 07:19 PM, Luis wrote:
your limit should be raised now
And the almighty mod Luis spoke onto thee that thy limit be increased.
And he spoke-eth the truth.
A few scary small things here and there created by the optimization, but ya still can see what I've made.
At 12/21/09 09:20 PM, TheCriminalDuder wrote:
And the almighty mod Luis spoke onto thee that thy limit be increased.
And he spoke-eth the truth.
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/52 1992
A few scary small things here and there created by the optimization, but ya still can see what I've made.
Hey ur preloader is screwed and it doesnt seem to be loading for me, might just be me though. But yeah ur preloader is screwed either way hahaha. Loading bar's mask doesnt seem to work
At 12/21/09 06:29 PM, Toast wrote: I was gonna make an analogy on how e^ln 0 isn't equal to 0 just like 1/0*0 isn't equal to 1 because e^ln don't cancel each other out like /0*0 since ln 0 is undefined.
ln(0) tends to negative infinity
e^(-inf) tends to 0
makes perfect sense to me why they would cancel
At 12/21/09 09:35 PM, zrb wrote:At 12/21/09 09:20 PM, TheCriminalDuder wrote: A few scary small things here and there created by the optimization, but ya still can see what I've made.Tell me the semi broken preloader isn't part of that D:
I noticed the broken bar.
Dont care though the loader does work.
To fix it right now I'd have to go into the fla file figure out whats wrong, fix it, then export it as the 30 MB swf, then opt it down to a 12 MB swf and this entire thing will take up nearly half an hour most likely.
But ya I'll get to it I just want to chill for a moment - play ten or so minutes of fallout 3.
Ah fuck it I'll fix it now.
Fixed it. Works before its optimized. If it doesnt turn into the fixed version soon then I'm guessin' my optimizer kills masks.
At 12/21/09 11:06 PM, zrb wrote:
1) Would a game written entirely in separate .as files have a higher performance than one written in as3 but solely in the .fla? If so by a lot or just a bit ?
It would eliminate all of the fluff that the main timeline adds (such as auto-importing all built in classes) As far as the amount of performance gain, I would say that unless it's something that is already incredibly intensive, you'd never notice a difference. I think the only code I've been using on the main time line lately is something to initialize my main class. 2-3 lines generally.
2)Would using only 1 frame in your .fla and clearing the screen and putting new graphics be dumb as opposed to having separate frames and have your game just go to the different frames ?
(all codes written in external files)
Depends. If all of those instances have code attached to them, the code doesn't go away just because the playhead reached a new keyframe. Apparently, it's how Flash compiles things.
At 12/21/09 11:06 PM, zrb wrote: AS3 Questions:
1) Would a game written entirely in separate .as files have a higher performance than one written in as3 but solely in the .fla? If so by a lot or just a bit ?
Not directly, what you get out of that is organization, which can be a vessel for optimizations. You'd be surprised how much extra a little organization lets you do.
For Tetraform, I had 3 types of classes, "Attractable", which contained a graphic class (flash-generated), and an AI class. It allowed me to pretty much combine different things together to create my enemies, and a couple of them use the same class but with a different graphic and attractable parameters.
Midway through development, we were like "hey we need life bars". Bam, edited it into the attractable class, and everything got appropriate lifebars. Super fast addition there that would have been way too much of a pain to do if all the enemies were distinctly separate. It also meant, when I needed to fix something about attractable, or the enemy base, I knew right where to look and didn't have to dig through thousands of lines of frame code to find it.
2)Would using only 1 frame in your .fla and clearing the screen and putting new graphics be dumb as opposed to having separate frames and have your game just go to the different frames ?
(all codes written in external files)
A combination of both is usually best IMO. Flash is great for menus and stuff, so take advantage of that when you can.
I discovered a store near my house that specializes in retro gaming, as well as new shit, but they STARTED with retro....
They have every AMAZING ps1 game you can think of BRAND NEW still in the original shrink wrap! A wall of Final fantasys, chrono crosses and legend of dragoons!
Then they have the S/Nes section, where you can buy pretty much ANY S/NES game, like chrono trigger (which is like 90$) and shit, original zelda's still in the box!
Then we go to the Genesis section, or the Dreamcast, or N64, they have EVERYTHING!!! Even ps2/xbox/ps3/360/wii etc etc
I"M SO EXCITED!!! I almost dropped 200$ on all of the final fantasy's unopened :D Instead i just got brand new Legend of Dragoon for like 30$ Im not sure whether i should open it or not, but its awesome.
So everyone come to winnipeg, we have fun times :D
At 12/22/09 12:01 AM, Duchednier wrote:
They have every AMAZING ps1 game you can think of BRAND NEW still in the original shrink wrap! A wall of Final fantasys, chrono crosses and legend of dragoons!
reminds me i lost my ff7 and ff9 :(
the events are merely fictional, written, directed, and acted out by all who create them
At 12/22/09 12:45 AM, Starogre wrote:At 12/22/09 12:01 AM, Duchednier wrote:They have every AMAZING ps1 game you can think of BRAND NEW still in the original shrink wrap! A wall of Final fantasys, chrono crosses and legend of dragoons!reminds me i lost my ff7 and ff9 :(
Come get em in winnipeg :D
is it just me or are tom's puns getting worse every day?
Sig made by me
Once again i'm falling down a mountain like a metaphor
Here ends another post by the grand master of all things: fluffkomix
At 12/21/09 06:29 PM, Toast wrote: I was gonna make an analogy on how e^ln 0 isn't equal to 0 just like 1/0*0 isn't equal to 1 because e^ln don't cancel each other out like /0*0 since ln 0 is undefined. But apparently according to google, ln 0 isn't defined but e^ln 0 is 0. Go figure. It might just be because of complex logarithms though, because google takes negative values in logarithms too.
Ok I get what you're saying. e^In(0) = e^-Infinity = e*10-Infinity
Which isn't 0 but is so close that mathematically it becomes 0.
Is that right or am I lost?
"To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all."
- Oscar Wilde
Pssssssssssssssttttttt!!!!
Ya'll should give this a good honest review. I want to see if I can get that Underdog of The Week or whatever trophy. The one where ya'll get the good or best reviewed game award for the week. I'm gettin' good feedback for my latest shiny rock. Give Duder some love if ya got a minute or two for a review eh? I ain't saying go and review ten in mass amounts to for sure make my flash win an award - that's retarted and wouldn't work and be shameful - I'm asking to review in the masses for me to see if I'd get the underdog trophy cause right now I feel like an underdog with all this positive vibes and energy about this flash.
At 12/22/09 04:19 AM, Deadclever23 wrote: Which isn't 0 but is so close that mathematically it becomes 0.
Is that right or am I lost?
no it IS zero.
Infinity is a weird number not defined in the real or complex number system, and introducing it makes all sorts of weird anomalies pop up, some of which make sense (1/inf = 0, e^-inf = 0, etc) and some of which don't ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s _paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel ), but the value of a function at +/-inf is well defined. 1/x at infinity is not "arbitrarily close to zero", it IS zero
At 12/22/09 07:20 AM, fuckyouwasim wrote: okay..............
here you go!!
You're Mario--Master--for--life--1997?!
Wasim you son of a bitch
At 12/21/09 11:32 PM, zrb wrote: Why don't you use a document class ?
Gust yelled at me and it made sense, so I stopped using it altogether for my main code. Since it runs before everything, I use it as a handy place for a preloader that calls my other classes (That contain my menu and/or main code depending on the setup) when it's finished. Couldn't be happier. (Sorry if my last post wasn't clear about where I instantiate my main classes)
Everything makes a bit more sense now on the OO side. You already treat each thing as an individual object, so why not use the same mentality on the Display Objects themselves.
With display objects, the only things I add to the stage now is the main Display Container. (or 2-3 of them, depending on the project) Everything, listeners/clips/code is handled inside or added too of those containers.. and I never have to reference the stage (or root) again.
Adding/Removing things becomes much easier, as does debugging.
Adobe started making tutorials.
But what's more interesting is Glaiel's "Closure" is there in the "get inspired" section. Just thought I'd post this if it hasn't been posted before.
Nice to see something like that there.
At 12/22/09 12:17 PM, Johnny wrote: With display objects, the only things I add to the stage now is the main Display Container. (or 2-3 of them, depending on the project) Everything, listeners/clips/code is handled inside or added too of those containers.. and I never have to reference the stage (or root) again.
Adding/Removing things becomes much easier, as does debugging.
Yes, my games usually consist of a main game clip, and a main hud clip on the main timeline, then within each one has all the layers for graphics and bitmap effects and that's where I add stuff in to.
Sometimes I get a bit sick of trying to reference things by parent.parent. and having to count how many nested clips down to go (this usually only applies to menus and occasionally calling a timeline synced function), or trying to access the base clip from a different class without referencing stage or root.
My solution?
class Globals {
static public var base:MovieClip;
};
in the main timeline i set Globals.base to whatever my "root" is, then anything anywhere can reference it that way (Globals.base) since it's static
At 12/22/09 02:01 PM, 4urentertainment wrote: But what's more interesting is Glaiel's "Closure" is there in the "get inspired" section. Just thought I'd post this if it hasn't been posted before.
Ya, adobe has been showing off at events as "Hey guys look what you can do with PixelBender". Hence why I keep persuading people to stay with the times and learn the new features they add into flash when it comes out, cause if you're the first to use a feature, adobe LOVES it.
At 12/21/09 09:36 PM, Glaiel-Gamer wrote: ln(0) tends to negative infinity
e^(-inf) tends to 0
makes perfect sense to me why they would cancel
Erroneous reasoning.
-1/x tends to negative infinity as x->0
e^x tends to 0 as x->-inf
yet e^(-1/0) does not equal e^log 0
It is obvious that e^log x tends to 0 as x->0, but to prove that e^log 0 = 0 you need to do more than evaluate limits. Your claim that it makes perfect sense why they should cancel each other out might be true, but your arguments don't justify it.
At 12/22/09 02:52 PM, Toast wrote: yet e^(-1/0) does not equal e^log 0
let me rephrase:
yet e^(-1/0) does not equal zero because -1/0 - while having -inf as a limit - is not defined. Similarly, log 0 is not defined, but for some reason e^log 0 is, unlike e^(-1/0), defined. The reason why this is true is not because log x tends to -inf and e^x tends to 0 x->0, because otherwise e^log 0 would be equivalent to e^(-1/0).
At 12/22/09 08:24 AM, Glaiel-Gamer wrote: no it IS zero.
Infinity is a weird number not defined in the real or complex number system, and introducing it makes all sorts of weird anomalies pop up, some of which make sense (1/inf = 0, e^-inf = 0, etc) and some of which don't ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s _paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel ), but the value of a function at +/-inf is well defined. 1/x at infinity is not "arbitrarily close to zero", it IS zero
That's weird.
Are there any actually real universal rules for maths that exist or is this why the foundational crisis of mathematics happened, because maths makes no sense. Lol.
Results 09.
They are here, the Flash Forum Awards 09 - Results.
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1131 691
"To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all."
- Oscar Wilde
I'm actually really happy 2 of my local colleges have actual 'Game Designing' courses. Both use Flash, but in a pretty limited way, and one focuses alot on 3D and more advanced programming languages. Doubt I'll be able to keep up, but I can see it being a lot of fun.
Also, does anyone stretch/gauge there ears?
At 12/22/09 04:42 PM, Saza wrote: I'm actually really happy 2 of my local colleges have actual 'Game Designing' courses. Both use Flash, but in a pretty limited way, and one focuses alot on 3D and more advanced programming languages. Doubt I'll be able to keep up, but I can see it being a lot of fun.
Also, does anyone stretch/gauge there ears?
Be careful because 'Game Design' courses. A lot are looked down on by employers as they much prefer qualifications like Maths and Programming. Try not to limit your options but still aim for the dream.
"To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all."
- Oscar Wilde
At 12/22/09 04:59 PM, Deadclever23 wrote:At 12/22/09 04:42 PM, Saza wrote: I'm actually really happy 2 of my local colleges have actual 'Game Designing' courses. Both use Flash, but in a pretty limited way, and one focuses alot on 3D and more advanced programming languages. Doubt I'll be able to keep up, but I can see it being a lot of fun.Be careful because 'Game Design' courses. A lot are looked down on by employers as they much prefer qualifications like Maths and Programming. Try not to limit your options but still aim for the dream.
Also, does anyone stretch/gauge there ears?
Well it's actually called Media Production, and involves alot Product research and management, Software design and has both the programming and animation side taught at seperate times (although, the animation seems to be more 3D).
Thanks for the advice though :)
