Comments for Limegarden.net http://limegarden.net Personal site of Wouter Lindenhof Tue, 22 Jun 2010 14:48:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 Comment on Wavefront Obj Mesh Loader by Wouter Lindenhof http://limegarden.net/2010/03/02/wavefront-obj-mesh-loader/comment-page-1/#comment-459 Wouter Lindenhof Tue, 22 Jun 2010 14:48:49 +0000 http://limegarden.net/2010/03/02/wavefront-obj-mesh-loader/#comment-459 Yes, it should (and it was). Thanks for pointing it out. Yes, it should (and it was). Thanks for pointing it out.

]]> Comment on Wavefront Obj Mesh Loader by Onno http://limegarden.net/2010/03/02/wavefront-obj-mesh-loader/comment-page-1/#comment-458 Onno Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:14:42 +0000 http://limegarden.net/2010/03/02/wavefront-obj-mesh-loader/#comment-458 small question on line 85: should "&&" not be "&&"? small question on line 85:

should “&&” not be “&&”?

]]> Comment on Reverse updates by Wouter Lindenhof http://limegarden.net/2010/06/09/reverse-updates/comment-page-1/#comment-455 Wouter Lindenhof Thu, 10 Jun 2010 06:54:22 +0000 http://limegarden.net/?p=314#comment-455 real time updates wouldn't be a problem if all interactions where one on one, properly distributed over time and containing limited information. If on a party (or Marketplace) something big happens then the amount of updates would be enormous, poorly distributed and most likely contain many (Redundant) information. Let me say that if the player is <u>there</u> at the <u>moment in time</u> no matter what kind of update you use, be it forward (real time) or reversed updates, you will have a performance hit. But what if the player is nowhere near that place (another city)? Real time updates would cause a performance hit that the user will not be able to explain. The idea behind reversed updates basically say: "We deliver only on demand and if there is no demand we won't update and when we update we will have relevant information first available and less relevant information later". I will try and write out a scenario later which handles all cases (real time forward updates, delayed forward updates, reversed updates) including an estimation how much it would cost in terms of performance. real time updates wouldn’t be a problem if all interactions where one on one, properly distributed over time and containing limited information. If on a party (or Marketplace) something big happens then the amount of updates would be enormous, poorly distributed and most likely contain many (Redundant) information. Let me say that if the player is there at the moment in time no matter what kind of update you use, be it forward (real time) or reversed updates, you will have a performance hit.
But what if the player is nowhere near that place (another city)? Real time updates would cause a performance hit that the user will not be able to explain.

The idea behind reversed updates basically say: “We deliver only on demand and if there is no demand we won’t update and when we update we will have relevant information first available and less relevant information later”.

I will try and write out a scenario later which handles all cases (real time forward updates, delayed forward updates, reversed updates) including an estimation how much it would cost in terms of performance.

]]> Comment on Reverse updates by Thijs http://limegarden.net/2010/06/09/reverse-updates/comment-page-1/#comment-454 Thijs Thu, 10 Jun 2010 05:56:37 +0000 http://limegarden.net/?p=314#comment-454 I thing you are over-complicating things again. In the above example, you state that for each action you would need to update a lot relations for each action taken by any character (be it the hero of an NPC). However, in a realtime simulation (or even turnbased, based on your timespan), you would only need to update the relations as they take place. If the hero buys the sword, it would take time for the shopkeeper to go buy his food. After that it would take time for the next action to happen, because the NPC’s will actually have to take that action. If you let them perform these actions, the relations will be updated on a one on one bases each time, as one character interacts with the next. Even if the miller goes out of business each person in the town will only be affected when they go buy bread (or if an other person tells them.) This would make the system a lot more manageable and far less complex. Even if you have a lot of relations between character, the effect of any action would slowly spread as the character would interact with each other. I thing you are over-complicating things again. In the above example, you state that for each action you would need to update a lot relations for each action taken by any character (be it the hero of an NPC).
However, in a realtime simulation (or even turnbased, based on your timespan), you would only need to update the relations as they take place. If the hero buys the sword, it would take time for the shopkeeper to go buy his food. After that it would take time for the next action to happen, because the NPC’s will actually have to take that action.
If you let them perform these actions, the relations will be updated on a one on one bases each time, as one character interacts with the next. Even if the miller goes out of business each person in the town will only be affected when they go buy bread (or if an other person tells them.)
This would make the system a lot more manageable and far less complex. Even if you have a lot of relations between character, the effect of any action would slowly spread as the character would interact with each other.

]]> Comment on EULA of Visual Studio 2010 from dreamspark by Wouter Lindenhof http://limegarden.net/2010/04/13/eula-of-visual-studio-2010-from-dreamspark/comment-page-1/#comment-216 Wouter Lindenhof Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:13:00 +0000 http://limegarden.net/?p=305#comment-216 The point I was trying to make in my post was that I never agreed to the DreamSpark license. An EULA is only valid when the user can see it before and after and if he has agreed to it (not agreeing means the provider (Microsoft) can refuse the software). Just to be sure I have gone through the entire procedure again (including creating an account) and here is an overview 1. During the login on DreamSpark I was not presented any EULA 2. During the verification (the yes-I-am-a-student part) I was not presented an EULA 3. When I downloaded the ISO there was no EULA for Visual Studio 2010. 4. When installing VS2010 there was an EULA but this was the standard EULA of VS2010 with no mention of DreamSpark. That means I never agreed to the DreamSpark license. The only legal part that can be debated is the fact that I could expected that the DreamSpark license applies on all product. To give a real example (just to make it clear): If you are shopping for a TV and you find one for 5 euro while all other TV's are at least 100 euro you could have expected that there was an error and that this TV also costs at least 100 euro. <strong>However</strong> the DreamSpark license contains a list of products (just a enumartion of software titles, but no special mention or anything) and you find the EULA back on the downloading pages of those products, however you also find it back on some of the download pages of software that was not mentioned in the EULA. And the express versions also don't mention the DreamSpark EULA (they are free). But a few other software also don't have the license (which means that VS2010 is not the only one who is unclear.) Which means that is unclear for me as user to detemine (and thus expect) on what products the EULA does or does not apply. In all honesty I think that microsoft might have made an oversight here, but if that was the case it is there problem. The point I was trying to make in my post was that I never agreed to the DreamSpark license. An EULA is only valid when the user can see it before and after and if he has agreed to it (not agreeing means the provider (Microsoft) can refuse the software).

Just to be sure I have gone through the entire procedure again (including creating an account) and here is an overview
1. During the login on DreamSpark I was not presented any EULA
2. During the verification (the yes-I-am-a-student part) I was not presented an EULA
3. When I downloaded the ISO there was no EULA for Visual Studio 2010.
4. When installing VS2010 there was an EULA but this was the standard EULA of VS2010 with no mention of DreamSpark.

That means I never agreed to the DreamSpark license.

The only legal part that can be debated is the fact that I could expected that the DreamSpark license applies on all product. To give a real example (just to make it clear): If you are shopping for a TV and you find one for 5 euro while all other TV’s are at least 100 euro you could have expected that there was an error and that this TV also costs at least 100 euro. However the DreamSpark license contains a list of products (just a enumartion of software titles, but no special mention or anything) and you find the EULA back on the downloading pages of those products, however you also find it back on some of the download pages of software that was not mentioned in the EULA. And the express versions also don’t mention the DreamSpark EULA (they are free). But a few other software also don’t have the license (which means that VS2010 is not the only one who is unclear.)
Which means that is unclear for me as user to detemine (and thus expect) on what products the EULA does or does not apply.

In all honesty I think that microsoft might have made an oversight here, but if that was the case it is there problem.

]]> Comment on EULA of Visual Studio 2010 from dreamspark by bestofluck http://limegarden.net/2010/04/13/eula-of-visual-studio-2010-from-dreamspark/comment-page-1/#comment-214 bestofluck Sun, 18 Apr 2010 23:56:18 +0000 http://limegarden.net/?p=305#comment-214 Its not they forgot something its they do not have to edit the EULA with the software it self... 1. NOTICE: STUDENT PROGRAM SOFTWARE. The terms of this license apply to all Software provided to You under the Student Program, and shall supersede and control over any conflicting license terms You may encounter in the Software, even if installation of the Software requires You to “accept” a separate end user license agreement. http://www.churchmedia.net/forums/copyright-issues/36792-dreamspark-rocks-eula-might-not.html So if DreamSpark came with this EULA it would over right part of any other EULA. In MSDN case all software on disk comes with retail EULA but there a EULA you get with MSDN it self that changes the rules of use for all software. DreamSpark sounds like it came with a EULA to do this. But could be wrong as do not have DreamSpark... BTW your link to Full Microsoft DreamSpark License dos not work or without DreamSpark anyways.. Its not they forgot something its they do not have to edit the EULA with the software it self…

1. NOTICE: STUDENT PROGRAM SOFTWARE. The terms of this license apply to all Software provided to You under the Student Program, and shall supersede and control over any conflicting license terms You may encounter in the Software, even if installation of the Software requires You to “accept” a separate end user license agreement.
http://www.churchmedia.net/forums/copyright-issues/36792-dreamspark-rocks-eula-might-not.html

So if DreamSpark came with this EULA it would over right part of any other EULA. In MSDN case all software on disk comes with retail EULA but there a EULA you get with MSDN it self that changes the rules of use for all software. DreamSpark sounds like it came with a EULA to do this. But could be wrong as do not have DreamSpark…

BTW your link to Full Microsoft DreamSpark License dos not work or without DreamSpark anyways..

]]> Comment on EULA of Visual Studio 2010 from dreamspark by Wouter Lindenhof http://limegarden.net/2010/04/13/eula-of-visual-studio-2010-from-dreamspark/comment-page-1/#comment-211 Wouter Lindenhof Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:12:42 +0000 http://limegarden.net/?p=305#comment-211 Yes you are correct, but when I downloaded it I didn't have to agree to it (The dreamspark EULA was not on the page or was redirected to). An EULA can also not be applied "in retrospective", meaning because they forgot something they can't force people who have already have the object accept the new license. Although I'm a programmer I know quite a bit about laws and agreements (two people in the family deal with it so I can't help picking things up ;) ) Yes you are correct, but when I downloaded it I didn’t have to agree to it (The dreamspark EULA was not on the page or was redirected to). An EULA can also not be applied “in retrospective”, meaning because they forgot something they can’t force people who have already have the object accept the new license.

Although I’m a programmer I know quite a bit about laws and agreements (two people in the family deal with it so I can’t help picking things up ;) )

]]> Comment on EULA of Visual Studio 2010 from dreamspark by bestofluck http://limegarden.net/2010/04/13/eula-of-visual-studio-2010-from-dreamspark/comment-page-1/#comment-210 bestofluck Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:48:49 +0000 http://limegarden.net/?p=305#comment-210 There seem to be a EULA for DreamSpark it self that supersede and control over any conflicting license terms and has... .... b. Restrictions. You may not use the Software: • for commercial purposes (except as permitted under Section 3(d); or • to develop or maintain Your own administrative or IT systems, or those of Your educational institution. ... So you may want check for any EULA for DreamSpark it self MSDN has some thing like this too... http://www.churchmedia.net/forums/copyright-issues/36792-dreamspark-rocks-eula-might-not.html There seem to be a EULA for DreamSpark it self that supersede and control over any conflicting license terms and has…
….
b. Restrictions. You may not use the Software:
• for commercial purposes (except as permitted under Section 3(d); or
• to develop or maintain Your own administrative or IT systems, or those of Your educational institution.
…

So you may want check for any EULA for DreamSpark it self MSDN has some thing like this too…

http://www.churchmedia.net/forums/copyright-issues/36792-dreamspark-rocks-eula-might-not.html

]]> Comment on EULA of Visual Studio 2010 from dreamspark by Star Trek Online Forums - The Immature People of Gaming | STMMO.info http://limegarden.net/2010/04/13/eula-of-visual-studio-2010-from-dreamspark/comment-page-1/#comment-188 Star Trek Online Forums - The Immature People of Gaming | STMMO.info Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:20:14 +0000 http://limegarden.net/?p=305#comment-188 [...] EULA of Visual Studio 2010 from dreamspark « Limegarden.net [...] [...] EULA of Visual Studio 2010 from dreamspark « Limegarden.net [...]

]]> Comment on Solved undesired template specification by Wouter Lindenhof http://limegarden.net/2010/04/07/solved-undesired-template-specification/comment-page-1/#comment-111 Wouter Lindenhof Thu, 08 Apr 2010 07:24:27 +0000 http://limegarden.net/?p=304#comment-111 <blockquote cite="#commentbody-107"> <strong><a href="#comment-107" rel="nofollow">Arseny Kapoulkine</a> :</strong> <P>Uh, blog software ate all my braces. Trying again:</P> <P>Q: Why don’t you define a Vector4 ctor? like that:</P> <DIV class="codecolorer-container text geshi" style="overflow:auto;white-space:nowrap;"><TABLE cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><TBODY><TR><TD class="line-numbers"><DIV>1<BR>2<BR>3<BR>4<BR></DIV></TD><TD><DIV class="text codecolorer" style="white-space:nowrap">template <typename T> struct Vector4<BR> {<BR>     template <typename U> explicit Vector4(const Vector3<U>& v, float w = 1) { ... } /* or without default value if you like */<BR> };</DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV> </blockquote> I tried that but I prefer the above for multiple reasons: 1. It means that I need to create a constructor that does Vector3 and Vector2, which means that Vector3 and Vector4 need to be defined (but not declared) at that point. 2. Not all data that is delivered is my custom Vector class, sometimes (when using an external library for physics for example) you have a different type. 3. In general it's less work ;) Of course, the last reason was the most important reason. The results are virtually the same, although yours look nicer, but those can always be added at a later stage.

Arseny Kapoulkine :

Uh, blog software ate all my braces. Trying again:

Q: Why don’t you define a Vector4 ctor? like that:

1
2
3
4
template <typename T> struct Vector4
{
    template <typename U> explicit Vector4(const Vector3<U>& v, float w = 1) { … } /* or without default value if you like */
};

I tried that but I prefer the above for multiple reasons:
1. It means that I need to create a constructor that does Vector3 and Vector2, which means that Vector3 and Vector4 need to be defined (but not declared) at that point.
2. Not all data that is delivered is my custom Vector class, sometimes (when using an external library for physics for example) you have a different type.
3. In general it’s less work ;)

Of course, the last reason was the most important reason. The results are virtually the same, although yours look nicer, but those can always be added at a later stage.

]]>