Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bricks]

It does look kind of strange.  Either the purple material on the bottom should remain sharp and blocky, or all the edges should get rounded down.

Maps are looking pretty cool, I can't wait to see what bizarre structures this generates.

[Outcast Orange]

That is five kinds of awesome.

I think the only thing I DON'T particularly like is the sharp line in the middle of the formations.
I haven't looked at any of your algorithms, but how hard would it be to dither those hard edges together a bit?

EDIT:
Even better, rather than just designating the whole bottom half of a formation to be the magic purple material,
Put a cap on the bottom and then have purple 'veins' run up into the stone and dirt layers, like adamantine veins.

I only propose these ideas because I've seen what you're capable of.
Take it all with a grain of salt.

Cool ideas!

First though:
 The purple part is not applied half way through,
 but it taken directly from the universe map.

Here's a side by side:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

In that third view, I've added an edge variation,
 and stalactites.

I like the idea of the veins, but not for the purple material.
I'll definitely keep that in mind
 as I work on the bottom-side effects.

Maps are looking pretty cool, I can't wait to see what bizarre structures this generates.

Thanks!

EDIT:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Armok]

Woah! Awesome!

there is one thing that anoys me tho; it's still blocky "sideways".
Also,it looks a bit to clean in some ways, you might consider adding some deformation after all the other stuff (just before growing trees).

[Outcast Orange]

And then I see my own screenshot,
 feel really happy,
 and get the desire to add something new and bizarre.

Any ideas?

What was I supposed to be working on?
Oh yeah, .oggs.

Well, I can hold off on that.

EDIT:

Okay, scratch that.

Ugh... how can this sort of thing happen?
I've played the game for ten minutes,
 and I found five horribly irritating bugs,
 which weren't there before,
 and are completely unrelated to the recent changes.

Do programs just go rogue after a while?
This is more upsetting then when it
 was randomly creating landscapes out of nothing.

[Armok]

Do programs just go rogue after a while?

This is basically it. You can delay it by using stuff like comments , modular design, proper OO, etc.

[qwertyuiopas]

Often a new feature may reveal a bug that was previously unreachable(program-flow wise). I think.

[Siquo]

Do programs just go rogue after a while?

Yes. The computer as a deterministic finite-state-machine is an illusion. C++ has even more gremlins than any other language. No this is not sarcastic, I'm having the same kinds of troubles. 

[Outcast Orange]

I know what you mean...

Sometimes back when I was using Jamagic,
 I used to get these terrible errors with no solution,
 then I would just redo that part of code,
 and they would be gone,
 even thought the difference was basically invisible.

[qwertyuiopas]

Happened to me:
A semicolon after a for() turned into a bug.
A local variable that wasn't initialized just happened to cause text writing to mess up in such a subtle way, that it would skip one word in a string(coincidence only, though) leaving no clue why(Looking back, it is obvious, considering how the stack works, or at leasy my knowledge of it, but just looking at the code, a missing =0 is unnoticable).

[darius]

That's why i love Object Oriented Programming
Of course placing a ';' after a for() happened to me twice or more... hard to find, stepping program helps sometimes and worst is there is no cure for mistakes like these. ( i mean cure how not to make them)

[Outcast Orange]

Happened to me:
A semicolon after a for() turned into a bug.
A local variable that wasn't initialized just happened to cause text writing to mess up in such a subtle way, that it would skip one word in a string(coincidence only, though) leaving no clue why(Looking back, it is obvious, considering how the stack works, or at leasy my knowledge of it, but just looking at the code, a missing =0 is unnoticable).

I've never done that.
I guess I don't write enough classes.

[qwertyuiopas]

Object Oriented Programming does *not* protect you from uninitialized ints.

(What follows assumes C)
Maybe uninitialized objects, but even then writing a function to return NULL or an object(really an allocated and initialized struct) is a better way, since you get the same results as a C++ constructor. However, you also are forced to see and handle the allocation itself, so you can better understand how it works and/or why. Such a function would work much like a factory object, and likely predates it by decades.

The main advantage of the OOP style is that it is always automatically called, so you can't accidentally forget to let it clean up first.


Also, the biggest peroblem with for(); is that you likely will have the resulting statement(s) occur exactly once... on the nonexistant last+1 element of the likely array you are working with!

[Boksi]

I know what you mean...

Sometimes back when I was using Jamagic,
 I used to get these terrible errors with no solution,
 then I would just redo that part of code,
 and they would be gone,
 even thought the difference was basically invisible.

You used Jamagic?
Duuuude.
I always wanted to try that program.

[winner]

in C it would do your statement on the last+1 element.
in C++ it would complain that you shouldn't be using a variable that you declared inside a for loop, outside of it.

[qwertyuiopas]

Depends where the variable was declared. Only if it was declared in the for() itself, and then C would likely also give that same error.

If, for any reason, you ddeclare and optionally initialize the variable before the for();, C++ wouldn't give an error either.

Example: If you looped an array and did a break; on the first element that gave a specific return value, then after tested the iterator, or any situation where the iterator was needed after the loop was complete...