Robo war competition

[3qX21hU5]

As I said adding a =0; at the end makes it a pure virtual method and turns the class into a abstract class which means it can't be instantiated. Child classes of the abstract MUST override/implement all pure virtual functions or else they won't compile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_function

Though back to the point I'm hoping to start on basic game entities tonight and maybe crank out a prototype of the robot entity if I have time. So if anyone has any suggestions or ideas on what the robots functionality should be I'll add it to a list I am going to write up and then start implementing the functionality from the list.

As for right now I just have some basic stuff like

Robot Movement
- Accelerate
- Decelerate
- Rotate Robot

Weapons
- Rotate Main Gun
- Fire Main Gun

[N36fSL3A]

Thanks, didn't know I could do that.

After you get that prototype done, add multiple entities, and test damage. I hope I get my dev PC back from my dad soon, I can learn SFML and help out in spare time.

[3qX21hU5]

I just wanted to let everyone know just in case anyone is still following this or is waiting on the game client, that for the next couple of months I won't be able to contribute as much time to this as I previously thought I would be able to.

I just got slammed with a huge project at work today and won't have as much time to contribute as I thought I would for the next month or two.

So if anyone else is interested in taking the lead on getting a client for this up and running feel free to fork my repo (Let me know if you do this I still got some local changes on my computer I haven't pushed to the online repo yet) and continue on it or start up your own design for it.

I will still be able contribute to the project here and there when I can but for the next month or two I will be really stressed on time and will only have a few hours a week to contribute.

[N36fSL3A]

I can probably donate an hour here or there but I just applied for a job and I need to put in five hours a week...

[Thumper]

@Zereo
Are you using Qt4.8 or Qt5?

[3qX21hU5]

I was using QT 5.1.1 and QT Creator 2.8.1 though there is no QT dependent code in the project (Other then my project solution and QMake file).

[ResidentBiscuit]

QT5.2 is out, and it supports mobile platforms :o

[3qX21hU5]

Ya I just noticed that also might have to test that out and see how well it works for mobile game development sometime.

[Thumper]

There were some major overhauls between 4.8 and 5.x, which is why I ask.
First thing I'm going to do is migrate the build system to CMake for cross platform builds. Once I figure that shit out I'll try to contribute a bit to the source.

[o1vk4iN6]

I'd vote for sticking with qmake really. CMake may make it easier for the end user to compile but it doesn't make it any easier for the one creating the cmake files.

[Thumper]

Isn't the end-user experience what we're programming for in the first place? It's not supposed to be easy for me.
besides, if we stick with qmake then we'll have all sorts of weird cross-platform issues. I.e., library location.

[o1vk4iN6]

qmake isn't that much harder to use than cmake for the end user

[Thumper]

But library locations in the .pro file are static. Each end user would have to modify it to compile right. Besides, CMake isn't that much harder for us to use anyway.

[3qX21hU5]

I would actually vote for the CMake build system instead since it provides easy cross compiling. But either way doesn't really matter to me.

[o1vk4iN6]

But library locations in the .pro file are static. Each end user would have to modify it to compile right. Besides, CMake isn't that much harder for us to use anyway.

Guess that's a matter of opinion, i would rather have the source/headers of the the libraries contained within the project. Even having to set each one manually. Rather than the scripts used to search for the libraries, if they aren't provided you'd have to create your own and from the ones i've seen they aren't relatively small. Not to mention if they aren't written properly or if they don't detect the libraries properly then you'll end up going through a lot more trouble trying to get them to work, if you don't provide a way to manually set them that is, then it's no different.

[Thumper]

xerzi wrote:

i would rather have the source/headers of the the libraries contained within the project.

That's practical until you get to things like Boost which is incredibly large in size. Then what sense does it make to copy it all over your hard drive? None.

xerzi wrote:

if they [CMake search scripts] aren't provided

I can't name a single major library we'll be using that doesn't provide a search script for CMake.

Either way CMake's build system is always better because it handles that shit.
If you don't want to do it, don't. But don't bitch because I want to.

[o1vk4iN6]

humper wrote:

But don't bitch because I want to.

Lol what ? Calm down buddy it isn't that personal. I dislike CMake and i was simply making a suggestion, if you are going to solely be the one doing all the CMake work then go right ahead.

[Thumper]

xerzi wrote:

it isn't that personal

I didn't think it was, it just seemed like you were finding every thin excuse to not use it.

xerzi wrote:

I dislike CMake

I used to dislike it until i started working on the same projects on both my windows, ubuntu, and os x machine. It wasn't until then that I realized how damn handy it was.

xerzi wrote:

if you are going to solely be the one doing all the CMake work

Yeah I have absolutely no problem with that. I'm pretty familiar with it at this point.

[Lowest0ne]

There's no reason you can't have both build systems in the project.

[o1vk4iN6]

I didn't think it was, it just seemed like you were finding every thin excuse to not use it.

Well you were making a point against qmake and for cmake that was kind of silly. Yes using a script is easier than manually setting the location but making something that's already quite easy easier (using a relatively complicated script) isn't that grand of a leap forward. Just a note not once has cmake been able to find an installed library on Windows for me, boost or otherwise. There's no standard location for libraries to go, unless cmake specifies one. If it does i haven't been able to find where in the documentation it says so.

I used to dislike it until i started working on the same projects on both my windows, ubuntu, and os x machine. It wasn't until then that I realized how damn handy it was.

Well i find cmake just to be a way to manage projects for different platforms, such that you have to write platform specific code for each. Whereas qmake actually makes strives to avoid writing duplicate code for supported compilers. For example if you want to enable C++11 on the compiler in cmake you have to query a string that specifies the compiler name (as far as I know CMake doesn't provide a macro to check what compiler is being used, it only provides this http://www.cmake.org/cmake/help/v2.8.8/cmake.html#variable:CMAKE_LANG_COMPILER_ID which makes no guarantees) and then you have to research how to enable C++11 for the respective compiler. In QMake you just do CONFIG += c++11 and for supported compilers qmake will take care of it.

lowestone wrote:

There's no reason you can't have both build systems in the project.

There is, it's just twice the amount of work you have to do for essentially the same result.