Pages: 12

closed account (*o1vk4iN6*)

That's my point, you can create a 2D gaming using the same 3D matrix algebra, simply setting z = 0. You can't tell how something is done without looking at the code so generalizing a 2D game as beginner only because it is 2D is flawed.

xerzi wrote: |
---|

That's my point, you can create a 2D gaming using the same 3D matrix algebra, simply setting z = 0. You can't tell how something is done without looking at the code so generalizing a 2D game as beginner only because it is 2D is flawed. |

I never said 2D games in general or period, my exact words were

If you are using 3D matrix algebra then it is no longer a simple game as 3D matrix algebra isn't a simple matter. Though I do love how you seem to argue your point by generalizing your comments and somehow generalizing my comment. Simple 2D games are Pong, Breakout, Tetris, Super Mario Bros, and such. I would say any 2D game that requires 3D math would not be simple anymore (even if it was a clone of those above games).

closed account (*o1vk4iN6*)

So you are saying a simple game like pong is beginner but the same game using the same techniques but simply adding z and setting it to 0 is different and somehow makes it not beginner ? "3D math" I had a laugh. So normalizing a vector2 and vector3 are different somehow which require more ski11z.

I think I would describe it as a semantic argument. Semantical wastes a whole syllable. Perhaps it's more advanced because it has more syllables?

closed account (*o1vk4iN6*)

There are only so many conversations to burn time in the day until they don't burn enough time.

Well you can argue semantics all you want, but I've yet to find a site that says normalizing a vector is for a beginner. In my college courses we didn't even touch normalizing vectors or 3D math until after we did Algebra, Calculus, and Physics (then we did math for computer programmers and discrete math). They were set in order and couldn't be skipped so you had to do them in that order (though the calculus course had calc and trig).

I think you people are straying from the subject.

I've always found algorithms and data structures (they're closely related) to be a perfect way to get better at programming (functionally, anyway). They're well-documented and often easy to compare performance.

Start with something easy, like a Dijkstra's algorithm with various implementations of the Priority Queue at the basis of the algorithm. Start with a linear search, then a sorted list, then Heaps.

I've always found algorithms and data structures (they're closely related) to be a perfect way to get better at programming (functionally, anyway). They're well-documented and often easy to compare performance.

Start with something easy, like a Dijkstra's algorithm with various implementations of the Priority Queue at the basis of the algorithm. Start with a linear search, then a sorted list, then Heaps.

Topic archived. No new replies allowed.

Pages: 12