All users will need to merge their Minecraft Forum account with a new or existing Twitch account starting October 23rd. You can merge your accounts by clicking here. Have questions? Learn more here.
Dismiss
  • 3

    posted a message on Business wise is it a mistake for Mojang to not at least start on the ground work for MC2?
    Java is what makes Minecraft as mod-friendly as it is, so switching to a different programming language would mean modding would be impossible without an extensive API. Considering that they have promised such an API for Minecraft for years now, without any results, it seems unlikely that they would be able to provide it for "Minecraft 2" within a reasonable amount of time.

    As a result, they'd be better off sticking to Java, and if they're sticking to Java, they might as well stick to the game that they already made. Minecraft has a very iterative development process; it would make more sense to continue to improve the current game than to throw it all away and start over from scratch. Apart from switching to a different programming language (and even that isn't completely impossible - just way too much work), most features that could be added to Minecraft 2 could just as well be added to Minecraft 1 instead.
    Also, releasing a Minecraft 2 would split up the community, and probably make a lot of people unhappy because they would feel more or less forced to upgrade.What it comes down to is that developing a sequel would cause quite a few issues, and there wouldn't really be too many advantages to it. They could definitely do it, and they would most certainly make a lot of money in the process, but it seems Mojang would prefer keeping their community happy to making a lot of money (which, by the way, they have already done). They seem less like a company focused on maximizing profit, and more like a company focused on making enjoyable games.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 9

    posted a message on Are you nice to your animals?
    Well...




    I think the answer is no.
    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • 3

    posted a message on My New Game
    Quote from danield1697

    first off look up ASCI on google, ASCI came before ASCII , ACSII is a extension of ASCI, and ASCII binary is a Character set of binary with ASCII character sets,

    also ram does read binary, if your ram and other components in your computer could not read binary they would not function at all, and binary is a just a controlled flow of voltage that tells the ram, processors, ect. what to do.

    RAM does not read binary in the same way that a book does not read the alphabet.
    Posted in: General Gaming
  • 1

    posted a message on How do you get internet drivers on a refurbished laptop?
    You will find the network drivers on the website of the laptop's manufacturer.
    Posted in: Hardware & Software Support
  • 1

    posted a message on Code Golf: Sum of integers 0 to N
    Have some R.

    > sum(0:6)
    [1] 21
    Posted in: Hardware & Software Support
  • 1

    posted a message on 2D gravity simulator
    By request, I've uploaded the source to GitHub; you can find it here: https://github.com/B...oot/GravityGame
    Feel free to fork it, and if you have any questions about the code, just send me a PM.
    I have no plans to update the game at this time.
    Posted in: Hardware & Software Support
  • 1

    posted a message on My First Build Has Been A Failure
    In a case like this you'll want to eliminate as many variables as possible. Also, a detailed description of exactly what it does can be useful.

    Does it stay on, but does it not make a POST beep? In that case, possible problems can include a dead motherboard, a GPU that isn't functioning properly or maybe broken RAM though that's most likely not the case.

    If it does actually shut itself down immediately after powering on, that'll most likely because of a critical failure like a short circuit or because your CPU overheats. Make sure that your heatsink is properly secured in place and thermal paste has been applied.
    If that isn't the problem, it could very well be a short circuit. To test this, you'll want to run the motherboard as 'bare' as possible (this is also generally a good thing to try, as it eliminates as many variables as possible, allowing you to figure out which part is causing you trouble). disconnect all SATA devices and cables, remove your graphics card (use integrated graphics instead), remove all USB devices, and disconnect all your frontpanel connectors, so that there are only three cables or cable bundles going into your motherboard: the 24-pin motherboard power connector, the 4/8pin CPU power connector, and, on the back/side, a video cable going from the VGA/DVI/HDMI out port on your motherboard to your monitor. You can power on your computer by either shorting the PWR+ and PWR- or PWR+ and GND pins on your motherboard front I/O header, (refer to your manual to find out which pins you need to short). You can short them using a screwdriver. Alternatively, some motherboards may have an on/off button, which should also do the trick.
    If it does power on now, and you get something on your monitor, then one of your devices, cables or connectors creates a short circuit. At that point, it should be fairly easy to figure out which one it is, by simply adding them to you computer again, one by one, checking if it still boots after you've added each part.
    Posted in: Hardware & Software Support
  • 1

    posted a message on 2D gravity simulator
    Quote from fm87

    I'm curious how difficult the physics were to get like this, they seem to work rather well.

    Reminds me a lot of universe sandbox, though not horribly taxing and only in 2D.

    Well yeah since it's 2D its impact on performance is smaller.

    On the physics subject, it's actually quite simple.
    The two main features are of course gravity and collision detection.
    Collision detection is actually ridiculously easy, since we're only dealing with circles.
    To check whether two objects are colliding, it first finds the distance between the two objects on the horizontal and vertical plane.
    dY = target.Y - self.Y
    dX = target.X - self.X

    then it calculates the actual distance between the two objects, using Pythagoras' theorem.
    r = sqrt(dY^2 + dX^2)

    Since we're dealing with circles, the actual checking if a collision occurs is simply done by checking whether the distance between the two objects is equal to or less than the radii of both objects added together.
    collision = (r <= target.Radius + self.Radius)


    Handling gravity is slightly more complicated. First, the game loops trough all objects, and for each object, it calculates how much force all other objects exert on it. All these force vectors get added together, so each planet ends up with one final force vector.
    After that's done, the game loops trough all objects a second time, applies the force to all objects, which changes their velocity, and then moves the objects based on their velocity. Finally, the force vector gets reset to zero, so it can be used again for the next pass.

    Calculating the gravitational force is done using Newton's law of universal gravitation, F=G*(m1*m2)/r^2, where F is the gravitational force, G is the gravitational constant, m1 is the mass of object 1, m2 is the mass of object 2, and r is the distance between the two objects. At least, that's how it's supposed to be. As I already explained in the original post, I chose to use r^3 rather than r^2, to make the gameplay a bit more interesting.
    The actual C# code for this calculation (above examples are in pseudocode) is rather simple:
    float force = Universe.GravitationalConstant * ((mass * go.Mass) /(float)Math.Pow(r,3));

    And after that, it's simply a matter of adding up vectors:
    this.force.Y += dY * force;
    this.force.X += dX * force;
    Posted in: Hardware & Software Support
  • 1

    posted a message on 2D gravity simulator
    I made this game a couple months ago, and then kind of forgot about it, but today I noticed it and thought it'd probably be nice to show it to some people, so I fixed it up a little and put it in a semi-releaseable state. Maybe you'll get some enjoyment out of this, in which case, I can consider this 'release' to be successful :)

    On to the game itself.. It's a very simple game, that allows you to simulate the effect gravity has on bodies, presumably planets. You can add planets of different sizes, give them a velocity, and watch how they interact.
    The game also has a text console that allows you to do things like saving and loading worlds (or rather, universes). It also allows you to remove planets.


    Graphically it's hardly something to get excited about, but here's a screenshot nonetheless:

    Basic playing instructions are displayed once the game starts. Here are some additional instructions that may be of use:
    You can pause the game by pressing P.
    To save the game, open the console by pressing the tilde (~) key, enter save <name> and press enter. Similarly, using the load command you can load a game.
    Removing planets is a bit tricky, as I haven't really implemented a proper method for removing them (yet). Right now, you can keep track of all planets in the universe at the top left.of the screen. Each GravityObject is a planet, and each planet has a number. The first planet you add has number 0 and therefore will be displayed as GravityObject0. The second planet will have number 1, the third one number 2, and so on. Once a planet gets removed, the numbers will shift to fill in the gap, so if you remove planet number 0, the planet that was previously number 1 will now be number 0. To remove a planet with a number, enter del number in the console.
    The game also has a settings file in which you can change a few options about how the game is displayed.

    Installation instructions:
    Download the game here: http://bit.ly/Yay8b7
    Extract the archive anyhere, and launch the executable. It should work as-is.
    If it doesn't, you may need to install the latest version of the XNA Framework redistributable, which you can download from http://www.microsoft...s.aspx?id=20914.
    Also make sure you have the .NET framework installed, though that should not be a problem since it comes with Windows by default. Unfortunately the game does not run on Mac or Linux.

    Some technical details about the game, for those of you interested in these things:
    The game is written in C#, using the XNA library to handle the graphics. I call it a simulation, even though it actually isn't, as it doesn't simulate gravity as it works in our universe. I tweaked the formula a bit, so that the force of gravity reduces more strongly as the distance between two objects decreases. This way it's possible for two objects not to influence each other when they're on either sides of the screen, while still being able to influence each other strongly when they're close to each other. This effect is present in the real universe, though to a lesser extent (in reality, the force gets divided by the distance squared. In the simulation, the force gets divided by the distance cubed).
    As you may notice, console input is very limited. A lot of keys simply don't work. This is because XNA doesn't come with a library for text input, so I had to listen for key press events and perform a huge switch on the pressed keys to determine which characters to add to the input string. Later I found out about a better way to get keyboard input, so that method is present in my later games.

    I am currently not updating the game anymore, but if people are actually interested in this and they come with some suggestions, I might add some new features. I recently wrote a simple client-server networking library that I could implement into this game relatively easily, to add a multiplayer feature to it, so that might be something to consider. I can't make any promises though.
    Posted in: Hardware & Software Support
  • 2

    posted a message on The human eye fps rate
    Quote from Redstone PrO

    Let me start of with this:
    I have a 120hz monitor. The difference between 120 and 60 FPS ist just as big as 60 and 30.

    1s/120FPS = 8.33ms
    1s/60FPS = 16.66ms
    1s/30FPS = 33.33ms.
    The difference between 60 and 30 FPS is twice as big as the difference between 60 and 120FPS.
    Quote from Redstone PrO

    Movies are almost always shot at 24FPS, but in movies, because you have a moving camera in the real world, you get the amazing benefit of motionblur, which can make all framerates above 24 look smooth. But in video games, you do not have natural motion blur, like cameras or your eyes do, so you have 2 options:
    Post-effect motion blur, it does the job at making lower framrats look more fluid, but they still feel just as laggy.

    This is because this introduces an input lag of one frame. Add to this the fact that games already always lag one frame behind because pretty much all games use double buffering, so your input lag becomes at least 33ms. In reality, it's much more, because the mouse and keyboard don't send continuous streams of data; they are polled. This means when you click a mouse button, the click will not be registered until the mouse is polled for recent events. Additionally, your monitor also takes a small amount of time to construct a new image. All in all, you get quite a bit of input lag which is definitely noticeable in fast-paced games such as shooters.

    Quote from Redstone PrO

    The second option would be to just not use motionblur at all. For this, just do an experiment for yourself; go to this website and apply these settings:
    Now you are seeing 2 baseballs moving, both without motionblur, like in most games, one at 60 and one at 30 FPS. The 60FPS one looks smoother, i think we can all agree on that. Now add motionblur to both, a realistic ammount, on the website 1.0.
    Now the 30FPS ball looks smoother, but it also looks much blurrier, which is why I am not a fan of motionblur in games, you can not see any detail on the stuff around you when you are moving quickly, while the 60FPS ball with the same ammount of motion blur is still a LOT clearer and the stitches are much more defined, but not as defined as without any motionblur.
    So, motionblur can make things look better when they are moving quickly and you are limited to low FPS.
    But as you can see, the 60FPS, even without motionblur look very smooth right? Well yeah, but 120FPS on a 120hz monitor looks smoother, obviously.

    This whole website is pretty unreliable though. It uses Javascript to make the canvas move around, and to render the objects on that canvas, so the smoothness of the image is largely affected by the performance of the renderer in your web browser. Note how even at 60 or 120FPS, the animations are far from smooth. It's not very reliable.

    Quote from Redstone PrO

    So, 120hz monitors attack this problem, by just giving your 2x the information. They also are limited, at 120 screen refreshes per second, so if your video card can output more than 60FPS, you might want to consider a 120hz monitor.
    So, motion looks smoother in games because of the higher framerate that your display can actually show.

    It is smoother, yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean it looks smoother. Quite an important difference.
    Quote from Redstone PrO

    And you can feel this! "Keep in mind, your PC also has a little bit of lag to it: USB bus, ram timings, etc but most of those are negledgable)
    In test where you ahve to press a button once you see the screen turn on, some people are getting reaction times of below 0.015 seconds, so your brain is not uncapable of feeling the difference in input lag, once you have played on a 120hz screen for a while(20-30min) and then set the exact same screen to 60hz and continue playing, you will feel that the movement is not nearly as smooth and the game feels less responsive than it did on the 120hz setting.

    This is because your brain adapts. Motion blur is by far not the only reason movies look smooth. It's also because your brain adapts to the framerate. Yes, when you switch from 120FPS to 60FPS, you will feel a difference. However, if you keep playing at 60FPS, your brain will adapt to the new framerate and you won't notice the fact that you're running a game at 60FPS anymore.
    In fact, there are plenty of games which have the framerate capped at 60FPS, and some bad console ports didn't even remove the 30FPS cap. As BC_Programming already explained, a consistent framerate is far more important than a high framerate. This is why it feels like a game grinds to a halt if you drop from 60 to 30 FPS, but why a game plays quite fine if it's been locked at 30FPS.

    Quote from Redstone PrO

    Yes, you can feel the difference.

    I won't disagree here. You can definitely feel the difference. However, as long as your framerate is consistent it does not matter.
    In fact there are even some compelling arguments to stick with a 60Hz monitor. For instance, if you have a 120Hz monitor, your GPU needs to work twice as hard to generate 120 frames per second. This means you either need a very powerful GPU, you need to lower some graphical settings, or you'll have to deal with drops of up to 60 frames per second (provided the game did run at a smooth 60FPS before you got a 120Hz monitor). And that is, as you just explained, definitely noticeable. Even if you do in fact see the difference between 60 and 120 frames per second, all that means is that you're going to be annoyed whenever you can't use your 120Hz monitor. I don't know about you, but to me, that sounds like a rather big disadvantage.
    Posted in: Computer Science and Technology
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.