Comments
This part is almost straight from my programming style document.
This might sound stupid, but try to comment every other line (unless you have a lot of repeating or similar tasks). By doing so you get two advantages:
- Someone unskilled in programming or unfamiliar with what you are doing is able to read your code.
- You know what you are doing
The first advantage is important unless you are working alone and never expect to see your code again. In that case you should really ask yourself if you should even be writing that code.
The second one is important even if you have no trouble reading code. Let's take a look at the following example.
for(int index_person = 0; index_person < persons.size(); ++index_person)
{
for(int index_kids = 0; index_kids < person[index_person].kids.size(); ++index_kids)
{
/* ... */
}
}
And then take a look at this example:
/* Iterating through the persons in the lists */
for(int index_person = 0; index_person < persons.size(); ++index_person)
{
/* Iterating through the kids of the persons in the list */
for(int index_kids = 0; index_kids < person[index_person].kids.size(); ++index_kids)
{
/* checking if any of the persons in the list have a kid who is dead */
/* ... */
}
}
In the last example I only have to track back to the first comment prior to my line of code to know what I'm doing here. It's a pain to write so many comments but it makes code a whole lot easier to read.
Events in C++
This week I have decided to do some little work on Nova as I would like to use it for a game. But I’m currently missing a GUI. Since writing a GUI is often a pain while a nice GUI is its weight worth in gold it was worth to invest some time in it.
One of the very first things I have decided on is that I want a good and proper event management system. I like how it is done in C#
myButton.Click += new EventHandler(this.myButton_Click);
However something equally nice doesn't exist in plain C++, so I have decided to write one.
struct GuiEvent
{
bool cancel;
GuiEvent() : cancel(false) {}
};
class Button
{
public:
Event<GuiEvent> OnDown;
Event<GuiEvent> OnUp;
void FireClickEvent()
{
size_t cycle = 0; GuiEvent e;
while(OnDown.Fire(cycle, e)) {
if(e.cancel == true) return;
}
e = GuiEvent(); cycle = 0;
while(OnUp.Fire(cycle, e));
}
};
class Application : public BaseEvent::Receiver<Application>
{
Button m_StartButton;
public:
Application()
{
RegisterEvent<GuiEvent>(m_StartButton.OnDown, &Application::StartDown);
RegisterEvent<GuiEvent>(m_StartButton.OnUp, &Application::StartUp);
m_StartButton.FireClickEvent();
}
void StartUp(GuiEvent& eventParam)
{
std::cout << "The start button was released" << "\n";
}
void StartDown(GuiEvent& eventParam)
{
// If you set event param to true the release will never be called
//eventParam.cancel = true;
std::cout << "The start button is pressed down" << "\n";
}
};
int main(int argc, const char* argv[])
{
Application myApp;
return 0;
}
The above is rather primitive as I have written it quickly, but it looks nice and is code that is easy to understand. For the full source click here (C++ example of events)
Large scene rendering
There is one thing I don't like about floating point and integers and that is that they consist out of only certain amount of bits. An integer is at least 32 bits (on 32 systems at least). A float is also 32 bits. A double is 64 bits.
Since I'm currently thinking about a space game, I was wondering how to create a huge battle field (a whole solar system) in real time while having all the precision I need.
Doubles are not fast and take a lot of space and although I don't worry about space, speed is a bigger issue. If I want a huge battle and here I'm going to throw some numbers: One side can have as maximum 85 huge ships, 3010 fighters, makes 3960 weapon slots, which makes 19800 bullets flying around. And that is only one side. Since I need two sides for a war, I need to double the values (190 ships, 6020 fighters, 7920 hardpoints, 39600 bullets). Lets say that everything is represented by one location (which a 3D vector) it would mean 53730 locations. 53730 locations times 3 would be 161190 and that times sizeof(double) would be 161190 * 8 bytes = 1289520 bytes (about 1MB) which is a lot to start with even if you ignore the fact that the problem is more that I have a lot than the doubles are bigger.
As I was considering the problem I realized something else. When I'm rendering, I will need to use floats. DirectX 9 requires floats and although I could send doubles it would half my data bandwidth. So what ever I choose, in the end I will need to use floats unless I want to have some penalty.
Using doubles for vertices are is a bad idea for the sake of precision alone.
But then I started thinking...
I don't need to render using doubles, I can simply render everything with floats and to ensure that precision is maintained. If something is not within the safe area of floating point rendering (let's say floats can have a maximum of 1024, and yes I now it can be a lot more) but the object in question is 2048 units away, I still want to render it. You can't simply let a sun disappear because it is beyond the range of your numbers, that would be weird.
Instead everything that is more than 1024 units away will be rendered first (farthest away first) and the distance also scales it down. Than I clear the Z buffer and render everything in the 1024 range.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Sun has a size of 100 Sun is 2048 units away Sun needs to be rendered. To render it but maintain the correct look: Scale sun down so that at 1024 it would have the same size on screen as if it was rendered at 2048. |
It was so simple that I thought it was silly I never thought about it. How you scale it however depends on the view and projection matrix.
I'm still not certain if I want to use doubles, but for my second problem I have a solution. Now I need to find one for my first.
Solved undesired template specification
A while ago (why do I always start with that) I wrote an blog entry about undesired template specification, what to encounter and how to work around it.
Anyway here is a quick definition of two structures I will be using in the article:
/**
* I will be using the following structures throughout the article
*/
template <typename T> struct Vector3<T> {
union {
struct { T x, y, z; }
T array[3];
};
Vector3<T>() : x(0), y(0), z(0) {}
Vector3<T>(T nx, T ny, T nz) : x(nx), y(ny), z(nz) {}
};
template <typename T> struct Vector4<T> {
union {
struct { T x, y, z, w; }
T array[4];
};
Vector4<T>() : x(0), y(0), z(0), w(0) {}
Vector3<T>(T nx, T ny, T nz, T nw) : x(nx), y(ny), z(nz), w(nw) {}
};
typedef Vector3<unsigned int> Vector3u;
typedef Vector3<float> Vector3f;
typedef Vector4<unsigned int> Vector4u;
typedef Vector4<float> Vector4f;
struct SVertex
{
Vector4f pos;
Vector3f normal;
Vector2f texcoord;
};
Because of Brick (3D random dungeon generator that takes design into account) I have noticed that there is one thing I do failry often:
Vector3f position; SVertex vertex; /* Need to draw it, so I store position in vertex */ vertex.pos = position; // ERROR! Trying to assign Vector3f to Vector4f!!
And finally I used defines to do the conversion for me:
#define VEC3TOVEC4(v) Vector4f((v).x, (v).y, (v).z, 0) #define VEC4TOVEC3(v) Vector3f((v).x, (v).y, (v).z) /* New code becomes */ vertex.pos = VEC3TOVEC4(position); // Works
Of course the above code is not nice to look at and I find it even plain ugly, but it works. However I don't want to do that in future projects (it feels like a hack), I would need to define something like that for every type (float, double, unsigned int et cetera) and on top of that it generates warnings:
Vector3<double> position; // Notice it is unsigned! SVertex vertex; /* Need to draw it, so I store position in vertex */ vertex.pos = VEC3TOVEC4(position); // Works, but generates warning about losing information
But I wouldn't be writing this post unless I tackled that little issue, and for once I can add that the solution is quite nice as well.
Vector3<double> position; // Notice it is unsigned! SVertex vertex; /* Need to draw it, so I store position in vertex */ vertex.pos.Set(position.array, 3); // Works, no errors and no warnings vertex.pos = Vector4f(position.array, 3); // Works fine as well
So what did I change?
Well, I used mutliple template (one for the class and for the function/constructor). This looks something like this:
template <typename T> struct Vector4
{
/* ... */
template <typename R>
explicit inline Vector4<T>(const R* values, const unsigned int elements/*=4*/);
template <typename R>
inline Vector4<T>& Set(const R* values, const unsigned int elements/*=4*/);
/* ... */
};
// Implementation
template <typename T> template <typename R>
Vector4<T>::Vector4(const R* values, unsigned int elements)
: x(elements > 0 ? (T)values[0] : 0), y(elements > 1 ? (T)values[1] : 0)
, z(elements > 2 ? (T)values[2] : 0), w(elements > 3 ? (T)values[3] : 0)
{
}
template <typename T> template <typename R>
Vector4<T>& Vector4<T>::Set(const R* values, const unsigned int elements)
{
x = (elements > 0 ? (T)values[0] : 0);
y = (elements > 1 ? (T)values[1] : 0);
z = (elements > 2 ? (T)values[2] : 0);
w = (elements > 3 ? (T)values[3] : 0);
return *this;
}
If you take a look at the code I think it is quite clear except that you might have some questions.
-
Q: Why do you use
explicitwith the constructor?A: Because that prevents the implicit use of constructors. If I would allow it aVector4ucould be implicit assigned toVector3f, although it would be missing an argument. However I think that when you are converting, you should be somewhat aware of it, especially when it can be expensive. -
Q: Why have you commented out the default value for
elements?A: Because you don't know how many elements there are invaluesmight be (there is a method to find out). -
Q: So why don't you find out automatically and what is with those conditionals in the constructor?A: Those two are related. By telling it explicitly there is a real good chance that the compiler removes the conditionals, so the
( check ? true-value : false-value)check will be removed.
Combo hit!! in code
I have always wondered how hard it would be to write a combo system. Not that hard I guess. And after a bit of morning programming I already got it working.
The only reason it took longer than anticipated was because of muscle memory. One of the features I wanted to test was the delay. For example you want to do the "asdf" combo, but you are for some reason not fast enough, than the combo should not start. Simulating this is easy, just begin the combo and stop somewhere for a second and then complete the combo. So "asd", pause and then "f".
However when I tried that for some reason the combo was sometimes completed. Only after adding the debug messages I noticed that I often automatically did complete the combo. The problem was muscle memory.
Anyway below is the code and if anyone wants to extend it (wrong next key, combo breakers, roman cancel, and follow-up combos) feel free to do so and let me know.
/*******************************************************************************
* The MIT License
*
* Licensed under the MIT license:
* http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
*
* Copyright (c) 2010 Wouter Lindenhof (http://limegarden.net)
*
* Demonstration of a simple ComboHit system
*******************************************************************************/
#include <Windows.h>
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#pragma comment(lib, "Winmm.lib")
#define DEBUGLOG 1 // Set to 0 to turn debug messages off
class KeyHit
{
public:
UINT m_Key;
UINT m_Delay;
UINT m_Waiting;
public:
KeyHit(UINT key, UINT delay) : m_Key(key), m_Delay(delay), m_Waiting(0) { }
};
class HitCombo
{
UINT m_SequenceIndex;
std::vector<KeyHit> m_Keys;
public:
HitCombo() : m_SequenceIndex(0) { }
void Cancel();
void Update(DWORD ms);
operator bool();
HitCombo& operator << (const KeyHit& hit);
};
int main(int argc, const char* argv[])
{
std::cout << "-----------------------------------------------" << std::endl;
std::cout << "This is a combo key tester: " << std::endl;
std::cout << "Press \"ASDF\" quickly to do a combo hit" << std::endl;
std::cout << "Press \"Wouter\" quickly to write my name" << std::endl;
std::cout << "Press SHIFT and then escape to quit" << std::endl;
std::cout << "-----------------------------------------------" << std::endl;
HitCombo QuitApplication, ComboHit, WouterCombo;
QuitApplication << KeyHit(VK_SHIFT, 250) << KeyHit(VK_ESCAPE, 250);
ComboHit << KeyHit('A', 250) << KeyHit('S', 250) << KeyHit('D', 250)
<< KeyHit('F', 250);
WouterCombo << KeyHit('W', 250) << KeyHit('O', 250) << KeyHit('U', 250)
<< KeyHit('T', 250) << KeyHit('E', 250) << KeyHit('R', 250);
DWORD lastTime = timeGetTime();
DWORD curTime = lastTime;
DWORD difference = 0;
while(true)
{
curTime = timeGetTime();
difference = curTime - lastTime;
lastTime = curTime;
if(ComboHit)
{
std::cout << "You did a combo hit!!" << std::endl;
WouterCombo.Cancel();
QuitApplication.Cancel();
}
if(WouterCombo)
{
std::cout << "You wrote 'Wouter', good for you!" << std::endl;
ComboHit.Cancel();
QuitApplication.Cancel();
}
if(QuitApplication)
{
std::cout << "You quit the application!" << std::endl;
ComboHit.Cancel();
WouterCombo.Cancel();
break;
}
ComboHit.Update(difference);
QuitApplication.Update(difference);
WouterCombo.Update(difference);
}
return 0;
}
void HitCombo::Cancel() {
m_SequenceIndex = 0;
}
// Implementation
HitCombo& HitCombo::operator <<(const KeyHit &hit) {
m_Keys.push_back(hit);
return *this;
}
HitCombo::operator bool() {
return m_SequenceIndex == m_Keys.size();
}
void HitCombo::Update(DWORD ms)
{
if(m_SequenceIndex < m_Keys.size())
{
KeyHit& hit = m_Keys[m_SequenceIndex];
hit.m_Waiting += ms;
if(GetAsyncKeyState(hit.m_Key) != 0)
{
if(hit.m_Waiting < hit.m_Delay)
{
hit.m_Waiting = 0;
m_SequenceIndex++;
#if DEBUGLOG = 1
std::cout << "you pressed key " << (char)hit.m_Key << std::endl;
#endif
}else
{
#if DEBUGLOG = 1
std::cout << "Delay too long" << std::endl;
#endif
hit.m_Waiting = 0;
m_SequenceIndex = 0;
}
if(m_SequenceIndex == 0)
{
hit.m_Waiting = 0;
}
}else if(m_SequenceIndex==0)
{
hit.m_Waiting = 0;
}else
{
if(hit.m_Waiting > hit.m_Delay)
{
m_SequenceIndex = 0;
hit.m_Waiting = 0;
#if DEBUGLOG
std::cout << "Delay too long" << std::endl;
#endif
}
}
}else
{
m_SequenceIndex = 0;
KeyHit& hit = m_Keys[m_SequenceIndex];
hit.m_Waiting = 0;
}
}
Nova’s Achilles heel
Nova’s Achilles heel is the math and a lot needs to be improved there. Instead of attempting to improve I thought I would use a high quality math library instead (in this case vmmlib). Using SVN external I added it so that it would automatically fetch the latest version from their SVN and be done with it. Problem is that I’m using DirectX which uses row major matrices and vmmlib was written to be used with OpenGL which uses column major matrices. So after a huge rewrite and removing the old math headers I tried to run Brick and see if it worked, I had hoped that by setting the effect files to use column major matrices I would let it use one system. Seeing the result, it either didn’t work or something else had gone wrong.
I don’t know what exactly went wrong (besides the obvious) but I guess that instead of using another library I just have to finish and improve my own math library. It’s a good thing SVN allows me to revert.
A good math library is essential for a game developer. It has to be easy to use and clear but I also want answers on the following questions when I’m using it:
- When I define a quaternion is it written as W-X-Y-Z or as X-Y-Z-W?
- Does a multiplication operator between two matrices do a matrix multiplication or an unit multiplication?
- Also how safe are the functions?
- How do I prevent hidden cost?
- And how easy is it to cast from one to another? Vector3<float> to Vector3<int> might seems obvious but it requires code to support it. And I could also cast Vector3 to Vector2.
Then there are the bigger question about optimization, like do we use SIMD or not.
The biggest problem is of course to ensure that all math is correct. Most of the time I use it by instinct, but in this case I actually have to relearn all the math again, double check, ensure that I’m using the right version, triple check. Obviously I experience it as a pain, but it as they say:
No pain, no gain!
Brick4 in week 10
Well, the major glitches in the building creation system are finished. The graphics also look nice now. Anyway a picture says more than a thousand words in this case.

“Ordered Programming” Technique
When it comes to programming there many, many techniques. One of the techniques I tried is ordered programming. The idea behind it is that quality is assured and nothing can be forgotten. While I was rewriting Brick I decided to use this technique. What it basically does is that you write a “TODO” in the code, for example: “Load configuration file”. And when you run the application in debug mode, it will break when it arrives at that point.
As you can see this has one huge disadvantage and that is that in order to run the entire program all the “TODO” have to be resolved. There is also one huge advantage which is that after you have done something, you will change “TODO” in to “DONE”. The next time you go trough your application, you will notice that the code has now been documented. This is a huge advantage when you write large pieces of code, which you will rarely though in the near future.
However the disadvantage, having to program in the order that the program runs might be too big in some cases. For example some features will be added later as they are not needed now. For example you have written a OBJ loader that handles triangles, but not quads, in this case you might not want to write the quad loading code just yet as you have to focus on the rendering part. For that reason I have decided to add levels, the lower the level the higher the priority. You can think of it in terms as first todo, second todo, etc. If you reach a stage in your development, where you have done all first todo’s, you just increase the number and see where it breaks then.
Here is an example of how it looks when you are writing todo’s.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | #include "OrderProgramming.hpp" int main(int argc, const char** argv) { ORDER_PROG_TODO("Setup Memory Checkpoint", 0); ORDER_PROG_TODO("Initialize graphics engine", 0); ORDER_PROG_TODO("Run the game", 0); ORDER_PROG_TODO("Shutdown the graphics engine", 0); ORDER_PROG_TODO("Check if there are memory leaks", 0); } |
And here how it looks at a later stage
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 | #include <crtdbg.h> #include "OrderProgramming.hpp" class IGraphics; IGraphics* InitGraphicsEngine(); void GameFunction(IGraphics* graphics); int main(int argc, const char** argv) { _CrtMemState memstate; _CrtMemCheckpoint(&memstate); ORDER_PROG_DONE("Setup Memory Checkpoint", 0); IGraphics* myGraphics = InitGraphicsEngine(); ORDER_PROG_DONE("Initialize graphics engine", 0); GameFunction(myGraphics); ORDER_PROG_DONE("Run the game", 0); if(myGraphics) delete myGraphics; ORDER_PROG_DONE("Shutdown the graphics engine", 0); _CrtMemDumpAllObjectsSince(&memstate); ORDER_PROG_DONE("Check if there are memory leaks", 0); } |
And here is the header you will need to include:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 | // OrderProgramming.hpp // Generic functions can be defined before inclusion // - ORDER_PROG_DEBUGBREAK: Breaks the process if possible // - ORDER_PROG_ASSERT: Tries to assert a function // - ORDER_PROG_OUTPUT: Debug output function #ifndef __ORDER_PROGRAMMING_HPP__ #define __ORDER_PROGRAMMING_HPP__ #define ORDER_PROG_STRINGIFY(x) #x #define ORDER_PROG_TOSTRING(x) ORDER_PROG_STRINGIFY(x) #define ORDER_PROG_FILE __FILE__ #define ORDER_PROG_LINE ORDER_PROG_TOSTRING(__LINE__) #define ORDER_PROG_HERE ORDER_PROG_FILE"("ORDER_PROG_LINE") : " #ifndef ORDER_PROG_DUMMY # define ORDER_PROG_DUMMY() {(void)0;} #endif // Lower than this level will cause the order to be taken in account #ifndef ORDER_PROG_LEVEL # define ORDER_PROG_LEVEL 1 #endif #ifndef ORDER_PROG_DEBUGBREAK # if defined(_WIN32) # include <intrin.h> # define ORDER_PROG_DEBUGBREAK __debugbreak(); // # elif (???) # else # define ORDER_PROG_DEBUGBREAK {__asm{int 3};} # endif #endif // Platform independent (most of the time) #ifndef ORDER_PROG_ASSERT # include <cassert> # define ORDER_PROG_ASSERT(expression) assert(expression); #endif // Platform dependent #ifndef ORDER_PROG_OUTPUT # if defined(_WIN32) # include <windows.h> # define ORDER_PROG_OUTPUT(output) OutputDebugStringA((output)); //# elif (???) //# define ORDER_PROG_OUTPUT(output) ::std::clog << (output); # else # define ORDER_PROG_OUTPUT(output) ORDER_PROG_DUMMY() # endif #endif #ifdef ORDER_PROG_NOBLOCK # define ORDER_PROG_BLOCK(reason) ORDER_PROG_DUMMY(); #else # define ORDER_PROG_BLOCK(reason) ORDER_PROG_ASSERT(0 && (reason)) #endif #define ORDER_PROG_TODO(reason, level) { if((level) < ORDER_PROG_LEVEL){ ORDER_PROG_DEBUGBREAK; ORDER_PROG_BLOCK(reason) } } #define ORDER_PROG_TODO0(reason) ORDER_PROG_TODO(reason, 0); #define ORDER_PROG_DONE(reason, level) { if( (level) < ORDER_PROG_LEVEL) { static bool _once=true; if(_once) { ORDER_PROG_OUTPUT(ORDER_PROG_HERE); ORDER_PROG_OUTPUT(reason); ORDER_PROG_OUTPUT("\n"); _once = false; } } } #define ORDER_PROG_DONE0(reason) ORDER_PROG_DONE(reason, 0) #endif // __ORDER_PROGRAMMING_HPP__ |
Learning Java
Recently I had a small discussion with a friend about what language he should choose for a personal project of him. He was doubting between Visual Basic and C#. I believe he decided to go with C# as that would be compatible with Mono (a cross platform variant of C#) and well, an other reason was that is another language the he normally used.
Personally I don’t like working in VB as it has some, not quirks, but behavior issues that don’t match my style of programming (Comments are done different for one).
I do like C# a lot as it looks like C++ (call me shallow if you want), but I have worked in that language for quite some time at my previous job and I found that the Graphical User Interface used by Windows (.NET components) to be a little bit lacking. Now I could buy a professional components (like Devexpress) but I’m not that rich and frankly my experience with it has not yet been enjoyable, most likely because I’m still getting used working with (at my job).
Recently my interest in Linux has been rekindled thanks to Linux Mint and I decided that if I’m going to write software I don’t wish to be limited to one platform. By the way, I only share this view as a software developer and not as a game developer.
After some thinking I decided to try out Java. The criticism that I had about Java 6 years ago have all been gone, so I decided to check it out again.
I have been playing around with it that past three days (1~2 hours each day) and I’m enjoying. Eclipse is an awesome IDE and the only thing I really find lacking is the fact that I can’t drag and drop components as it is done in VS2008. Not that I mind because creating a form (a shell in Java) is quite easily done. I still have a lot of thinking to do about the application I want to write (it’s one of those applications you try to write from time to time) and see if I can actually get it to work.
The programmer IDE
Everyone in the game industry knows the console wars (also because it is a recurring war
) but not many know about the editor war. The editor war was a war that played between two major editors (mostly available on Linux) which were vi and Emacs.
When I look at how code is written I always find myself a bit annoyed as the IDE (Integrated development environment) is basically nothing more than notepad with some extra features. Nothing wrong with notepad or the many IDE’s out there.
But I have always thought that code has one major weakness: Code is always written in a linear fashion. This is not inherent to only code, but a facet of how language works. In the majority of the languages we write from left to right and then from top to bottom. Some languages write in a different order, but always in one direction and then in the other.
I have always wondered why this has to be. Ok, I admit the fact that code is often a language (Like for example C++) but most languages have features like branching (if-else for example), and sub functions.
Recently I came across “Code Bubbles” and honestly I love it, it’s because I’m not a Java programmer pure sang (I did Java a long time ago), but this wants to me to make Java my primary language. Anyway here is a screenshot which demonstrates and I think any developer would applaud this.