How to start with programming games

Uzytkownik "Oliver Dietz" <spamentsorgung@gmx.net> napisal w wiadomosci
news:cphbu3$l9n$02$1@news.t-online.com...
> Hello @all,
>
> i want to start programming games - i've programmed for a while now,
but
> i've no plan about anything that has to do with games-programming.
[...]

It could be useful to play around with a game developing environment
like Gamemaker for a while.

http://www.cs.uu.nl/people/markov/gmaker/index.html

isi

Hi,

>> i want to start programming games - i've programmed for a while now,
> but
>> i've no plan about anything that has to do with games-programming.
> [...]
>
> It could be useful to play around with a game developing environment
> like Gamemaker for a while.
>
> http://www.cs.uu.nl/people/markov/gmaker/index.html

realy nice! played for an half hour with the demo ...
But my interest is more to program 3D games with all the whistles and bells
;-))

I think "this basic games" are no problem to do with my knowledge of VB ...

Yesterday i've bought "Introduction to 3D Game Programming with DirectX 9.0"
(the bad for me ... maybe 14 days of shipment :-(( ) ... so my problem to
"getting started" is fixed for the moment!

Thanks!
Oliver

Peter Ashford wrote:

> I *understand* test driven development. The OP was asking about how to
> get into games programming. There are a lot of issues to understand
> about writing games before you come to development process issues.
> Hence the horse before the cart comment.

To learn game architecture, the OP will find themselves tweaking the sample
code from books, and books from Free Software sites.

Tweaks suck. Learning to tweak safely might move the OP ahead faster.

--
Phlip
http://industrialxp.org/community/bi...UserInterfaces

In article <mqDvd.46682$Qv5.25469@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com> ,
phlip_cpp@yahoo.com says...
> Peter Ashford wrote:
>
> > Talk about putting the cart before the horse! How about getting the
> > realtime and scheduling basics sorted before signing on to the design
> > buzzword du jour.
>
> I need you to imagine the ability to change any line in your program, at
> whim, even the scheduler, hit a button, and instantly know you broke
> _nothing_.
>
> If you did break something, you tap Undo, get the tests to pass, and try
> again.

'Imagine' is the operative word, because this is just a fantasy about
how programming ought to be.

- Gerry Quinn

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2004-12-15, isi scribbled these
curious markings:
> It could be useful to play around with a game developing environment
> like Gamemaker for a while.

That might be nice for Windows programmers, but that's all.

Best Regards,
Christopher Nehren
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFBwGjRk/lo7zvzJioRAtINAJ9ZjwHGsOk2fHs4SLUQZEvzedoAfACcC9Ce
QDnh0BH9rMSDs78ny2bquUE=
=4ri0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
I abhor a system designed for the "user", if that word is a coded
pejorative meaning "stupid and unsophisticated". -- Ken Thompson
If you ask the wrong questions, you get answers like "42" and "God".
Unix is user friendly. However, it isn't idiot friendly.

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Gerry Quinn wrote:

> In article <mqDvd.46682$Qv5.25469@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com> ,
> phlip_cpp@yahoo.com says...
>> Peter Ashford wrote:
>>
>>> Talk about putting the cart before the horse! How about getting the
>>> realtime and scheduling basics sorted before signing on to the design
>>> buzzword du jour.
>>
>> I need you to imagine the ability to change any line in your program, at
>> whim, even the scheduler, hit a button, and instantly know you broke
>> _nothing_.
>>
>> If you did break something, you tap Undo, get the tests to pass, and try
>> again.
>
> 'Imagine' is the operative word, because this is just a fantasy about
> how programming ought to be.
>

Though you can get, say, 95% close. I tend to be fairly sure about where
any breakages I introduce will appear, for example, which is why I work a
tiny bit at a time.

--
flippa@flippac.org

"My religion says so" explains your beliefs. But it doesn't explain
why I should hold them as well, let alone be restricted by them.

Gerry Quinn wrote:

> phlip_cpp@yahoo.com says...

> > I need you to imagine the ability to change any line in your program, at
> > whim, even the scheduler, hit a button, and instantly know you broke
> > _nothing_.
> >
> > If you did break something, you tap Undo, get the tests to pass, and try
> > again.
>
> 'Imagine' is the operative word, because this is just a fantasy about
> how programming ought to be.

I'm sorry you have never experienced it. In my (greenfield) projects, it's
routine.

--
Phlip
http://industrialxp.org/community/bi...UserInterfaces

Phlip wrote:

> Peter Ashford wrote:
>
>
>>I *understand* test driven development. The OP was asking about how to
>>get into games programming. There are a lot of issues to understand
>>about writing games before you come to development process issues.
>>Hence the horse before the cart comment.
>
>
> To learn game architecture, the OP will find themselves tweaking the sample
> code from books, and books from Free Software sites.
>
> Tweaks suck. Learning to tweak safely might move the OP ahead faster.
>

Tweaks are how you learn. TDD is what you worry about when you already
know basically how things should go and actually have a product to produce.

Phlip wrote:
> I need you to imagine the ability to change any line in your program,
at
> whim, even the scheduler, hit a button, and instantly know you broke
> _nothing_.

I need you to imagine the ability to post a message on a games
development newsgroup and get feedback related to games development
instead of frothing at the mouth XP evangelists spewing their rethoric
over and over and over.

T

In article <e01wd.8906$nE7.7153@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com> ,
phlip_cpp@yahoo.com says...
> Gerry Quinn wrote:
> > phlip_cpp@yahoo.com says...
>
> > > I need you to imagine the ability to change any line in your program, at
> > > whim, even the scheduler, hit a button, and instantly know you broke
> > > _nothing_.
> > >
> > > If you did break something, you tap Undo, get the tests to pass, and try
> > > again.
> >
> > 'Imagine' is the operative word, because this is just a fantasy about
> > how programming ought to be.
>
> I'm sorry you have never experienced it. In my (greenfield) projects, it's
> routine.

The only code I've ever seen from you (script for creating a 3D graphic)
had no tests at all.

- Gerry Quinn