Search Results

Search found 30829 results on 1234 pages for 'turn based strategy'.

Page 3/1234 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Implementing Database Settings Using Policy Based Management

    - by Ashish Kumar Mehta
    Introduction Database Administrators have always had a tough time to ensuring that all the SQL Servers administered by them are configured according to the policies and standards of organization. Using SQL Server’s  Policy Based Management feature DBAs can now manage one or more instances of SQL Server 2008 and check for policy compliance issues. In this article we will utilize Policy Based Management (aka Declarative Management Framework or DMF) feature of SQL Server to implement and verify database settings on all production databases. It is best practice to enforce the below settings on each Production database. However, it can be tedious to go through each database and then check whether the below database settings are implemented across databases. In this article I will explain it to you how to utilize the Policy Based Management Feature of SQL Server 2008 to create a policy to verify these settings on all databases and in cases of non-complaince how to bring them back into complaince. Database setting to enforce on each user database : Auto Close and Auto Shrink Properties of database set to False Auto Create Statistics and Auto Update Statistics set to True Compatibility Level of all the user database set as 100 Page Verify set as CHECKSUM Recovery Model of all user database set to Full Restrict Access set as MULTI_USER Configure a Policy to Verify Database Settings 1. Connect to SQL Server 2008 Instance using SQL Server Management Studio 2. In the Object Explorer, Click on Management > Policy Management and you will be able to see Policies, Conditions & Facets as child nodes 3. Right click Policies and then select New Policy…. from the drop down list as shown in the snippet below to open the  Create New Policy Popup window. 4. In the Create New Policy popup window you need to provide the name of the policy as “Implementing and Verify Database Settings for Production Databases” and then click the drop down list under Check Condition. As highlighted in the snippet below click on the New Condition… option to open up the Create New Condition window. 5. In the Create New Condition popup window you need to provide the name of the condition as “Verify and Change Database Settings”. In the Facet drop down list you need to choose the Facet as Database Options as shown in the snippet below. Under Expression you need to select Field value as @AutoClose and then choose Operator value as ‘ = ‘ and finally choose Value as False. Now that you have successfully added the first field you can now go ahead and add rest of the fields as shown in the snippet below. Once you have successfully added all the above shown fields of Database Options Facet, click OK to save the changes and to return to the parent Create New Policy – Implementing and Verify Database Settings for Production Database windows where you will see that the newly created condition “Verify and Change Database Settings” is selected by default. Continues…

    Read the article

  • ODI 12c's Mapping Designer - Combining Flow Based and Expression Based Mapping

    - by Madhu Nair
    post by David Allan ODI is renowned for its declarative designer and minimal expression based paradigm. The new ODI 12c release has extended this even further to provide an extended declarative mapping designer. The ODI 12c mapper is a fusion of ODI's new declarative designer with the familiar flow based designer while retaining ODI’s key differentiators of: Minimal expression based definition, The ability to incrementally design an interface and to extract/load data from any combination of sources, and most importantly Backed by ODI’s extensible knowledge module framework. The declarative nature of the product has been extended to include an extensible library of common components that can be used to easily build simple to complex data integration solutions. Big usability improvements through consistent interactions of components and concepts all constructed around the familiar knowledge module framework provide the utmost flexibility. Here is a little taster: So what is a mapping? A mapping comprises of a logical design and at least one physical design, it may have many. A mapping can have many targets, of any technology and can be arbitrarily complex. You can build reusable mappings and use them in other mappings or other reusable mappings. In the example below all of the information from an Oracle bonus table and a bonus file are joined with an Oracle employees table before being written to a target. Some things that are cool include the one-click expression cross referencing so you can easily see what's used where within the design. The logical design in a mapping describes what you want to accomplish  (see the animated GIF here illustrating how the above mapping was designed) . The physical design lets you configure how it is to be accomplished. So you could have one logical design that is realized as an initial load in one physical design and as an incremental load in another. In the physical design below we can customize how the mapping is accomplished by picking Knowledge Modules, in ODI 12c you can pick multiple nodes (on logical or physical) and see common properties. This is useful as we can quickly compare property values across objects - below we can see knowledge modules settings on the access points between execution units side by side, in the example one table is retrieved via database links and the other is an external table. In the logical design I had selected an append mode for the integration type, so by default the IKM on the target will choose the most suitable/default IKM - which in this case is an in-built Oracle Insert IKM (see image below). This supports insert and select hints for the Oracle database (the ANSI SQL Insert IKM does not support these), so by default you will get direct path inserts with Oracle on this statement. In ODI 12c, the mapper is just that, a mapper. Design your mapping, write to multiple targets, the targets can be in the same data server, in different data servers or in totally different technologies - it does not matter. ODI 12c will derive and generate a plan that you can use or customize with knowledge modules. Some of the use cases which are greatly simplified include multiple heterogeneous targets, multi target inserts for Oracle and writing of XML. Let's switch it up now and look at a slightly different example to illustrate expression reuse. In ODI you can define reusable expressions using user functions. These can be reused across mappings and the implementations specialized per technology. So you can have common expressions across Oracle, SQL Server, Hive etc. shielding the design from the physical aspects of the generated language. Another way to reuse is within a mapping itself. In ODI 12c expressions can be defined and reused within a mapping. Rather than replicating the expression text in larger expressions you can decompose into smaller snippets, below you can see UNIT_TAX AMOUNT has been defined and is used in two downstream target columns - its used in the TOTAL_TAX_AMOUNT plus its used in the UNIT_TAX_AMOUNT (a recording of the calculation).  You can see the columns that the expressions depend on (upstream) and the columns the expression is used in (downstream) highlighted within the mapper. Also multi selecting attributes is a convenient way to see what's being used where, below I have selected the TOTAL_TAX_AMOUNT in the target datastore and the UNIT_TAX_AMOUNT in UNIT_CALC. You can now see many expressions at once now and understand much more at the once time without needlessly clicking around and memorizing information. Our mantra during development was to keep it simple and make the tool more powerful and do even more for the user. The development team was a fusion of many teams from Oracle Warehouse Builder, Sunopsis and BEA Aqualogic, debating and perfecting the mapper in ODI 12c. This was quite a project from supporting the capabilities of ODI in 11g to building the flow based mapping tool to support the future. I hope this was a useful insight, there is so much more to come on this topic, this is just a preview of much more that you will see of the mapper in ODI 12c.

    Read the article

  • CIC 2010 - Ghost Stories and Model Based Design

    - by warren.baird
    I was lucky enough to attend the collaboration and interoperability congress recently. The location was very beautiful and interesting, it was held in the mountains about two hours outside Denver, at the Stanley hotel, famous both for inspiring Steven King's novel "The Shining" and for attracting a lot of attention from the "Ghost Hunters" TV show. My visit was prosaic - I didn't get to experience the ghosts the locals promised - but interesting, with some very informative sessions. I noticed one main theme - a lot of people were talking about Model Based Design (MBD), which is moving design and manufacturing away from 2d drawings and towards 3d models. 2d has some pretty deep roots in industrial manufacturing and there have been a lot of challenges encountered in making the leap to 3d. One of the challenges discussed in several sessions was how to get model information out to the non-engineers in the company, which is a topic near and dear to my heart. In the 2D space, people without access to CAD software (for example, people assembling a product on the shop floor) can be given printouts of the design - it's not particularly efficient, and it definitely isn't very green, but it tends to work. There's no direct equivalent in the 3D space. One of the ways that AutoVue is used in industrial manufacturing is to provide non-CAD users with an easy to use, interactive 3D view of their products - in some cases it's directly used by people on the shop floor, but in cases where paper is really ingrained in the process, AutoVue can be used by a technical publications person to create illustrative 2D views that can be printed that show all of the details necessary to complete the work. Are you making the move to model based design? Is AutoVue helping you with your challenges? Let us know in the comments below.

    Read the article

  • Doing powerups in a component-based system

    - by deft_code
    I'm just starting really getting my head around component based design. I don't know what the "right" way to do this is. Here's the scenario. The player can equip a shield. The the shield is drawn as bubble around the player, it has a separate collision shape, and reduces the damage the player receives from area effects. How is such a shield architected in a component based game? Where I get confused is that the shield obviously has three components associated with it. Damage reduction / filtering A sprite A collider. To make it worse different shield variations could have even more behaviors, all of which could be components: boost player maximum health health regen projectile deflection etc Am I overthinking this? Should the shield just be a super component? I really think this is wrong answer. So if you think this is the way to go please explain. Should the shield be its own entity that tracks the location of the player? That might make it hard to implement the damage filtering. It also kinda blurs the lines between attached components and entities. Should the shield be a component that houses other components? I've never seen or heard of anything like this, but maybe it's common and I'm just not deep enough yet. Should the shield just be a set of components that get added to the player? Possibly with an extra component to manage the others, e.g. so they can all be removed as a group. (accidentally leave behind the damage reduction component, now that would be fun). Something else that's obvious to someone with more component experience?

    Read the article

  • Doing powerups in a component-based system

    - by deft_code
    I'm just starting really getting my head around component based design. I don't know what the "right" way to do this is. Here's the scenario. The player can equip a shield. The the shield is drawn as bubble around the player, it has a separate collision shape, and reduces the damage the player receives from area effects. How is such a shield architected in a component based game? Where I get confused is that the shield obviously has three components associated with it. Damage reduction / filtering A sprite A collider. To make it worse different shield variations could have even more behaviors, all of which could be components: boost player maximum health health regen projectile deflection etc Am I overthinking this? Should the shield just be a super component? I really think this is wrong answer. So if you think this is the way to go please explain. Should the shield be its own entity that tracks the location of the player? That might make it hard to implement the damage filtering. It also kinda blurs the lines between attached components and entities. Should the shield be a component that houses other components? I've never seen or heard of anything like this, but maybe it's common and I'm just not deep enough yet. Should the shield just be a set of components that get added to the player? Possibly with an extra component to manage the others, e.g. so they can all be removed as a group. (accidentally leave behind the damage reduction component, now that would be fun). Something else that's obvious to someone with more component experience?

    Read the article

  • How to update entity states and animations in a component-based game

    - by mivic
    I'm trying to design a component-based entity system for learning purposes (and later use on some games) and I'm having some troubles when it comes to updating entity states. I don't want to have an update() method inside the Component to prevent dependencies between Components. What I currently have in mind is that components hold data and systems update components. So, if I have a simple 2D game with some entities (e.g. player, enemy1, enemy 2) that have Transform, Movement, State, Animation and Rendering components I think I should have: A MovementSystem that moves all the Movement components and updates the State components And a RenderSystem that updates the Animation components (the animation component should have one animation (i.e. a set of frames/textures) for each state and updating it means selecting the animation corresponding to the current state (e.g. jumping, moving_left, etc), and updating the frame index). Then, the RenderSystem updates the Render components with the texture corresponding to the current frame of each entity's Animation and renders everything on screen. I've seen some implementations like Artemis framework, but I don't know how to solve this situation: Let's say that my game has the following entities. Each entity have a set of states and one animation for each state: player: "idle", "moving_right", "jumping" enemy1: "moving_up", "moving_down" enemy2: "moving_left", "moving_right" What are the most accepted approaches in order to update the current state of each entity? The only thing that I can think of is having separate systems for each group of entities and separate State and Animation components so I would have PlayerState, PlayerAnimation, Enemy1State, Enemy1Animation... PlayerMovementSystem, PlayerRenderingSystem... but I think this is a bad solution and breaks the purpose of having a component-based system. As you can see, I'm quite lost here, so I'd very much appreciate any help.

    Read the article

  • State Changes in a Component Based Architecture [closed]

    - by Maxem
    I'm currently working on a game and using the naive component based architecture thingie (Entities are a bag of components, entity.Update() calls Update on each updateable component), while the addition of new features is really simple, it makes a few things really difficult: a) multithreading / currency b) networking c) unit testing. Multithreading / Concurrency is difficult because I basically have to do poor mans concurrency (running the entity updates in separate threads while locking only stuff that crashes (like lists) and ignoring the staleness of read state (some states are already updated, others aren't)) Networking: There are no explicit state changes that I could efficiently push over the net. Unit testing: All updates may or may not conflict, so automated testing is at least awkward. I was thinking about these issues a bit and would like your input on these changes / idea: Switch from the naive cba to a cba with sub systems that work on lists of components Make all state changes explicit Combine 1 and 2 :p Example world update: statePostProcessing.Wait() // ensure that post processing has finished Apply(postProcessedState) state = new StateBag() Concurrently( () => LifeCycleSubSystem.Update(state), // populates the state bag () => MovementSubSystem.Update(state), // populates the state bag .... }) statePostProcessing = Future(() => PostProcess(state)) statePostProcessing.Start() // Tick is finished, the post processing happens in the background So basically the changes are (consistently) based on the data for the last tick; the post processing can a) generate network packages and b) fix conflicts / remove useless changes (example: entity has been destroyed - ignore movement etc.). EDIT: To clarify the granularity of the state changes: If I save these post processed state bags and apply them to an empty world, I see exactly what has happened in the game these state bags originated from - "Free" replay capability. EDIT2: I guess I should have used the term Event instead of State Change and point out that I kind of want to use the Event Sourcing pattern

    Read the article

  • Any multiplayer webgame engine based on Flex

    - by Hongyu Ouyang
    My team is developing a multiplayer webgame (like a virtual world) in a short time(several months using after-school time), and I wonder if there are any webgame engine based on Flex. When I googled it I got many results related to HTML5, but I doubted if it is suitable for quick development. Do anyone have the experience of developing a webgame using A good engine? Are there any engine recommended? I prefer actionscript and flex to a javascript or HTML5 solution.

    Read the article

  • Component-based Rendering

    - by Kikaimaru
    I have component Renderer, that Draws Texture2D (or sprite) According to component-based architecture i should have only method OnUpdate, and there should be my rendering code, something like spriteBatch.Draw(Texture, Vector2.Zero, Color.White) But first I need to do spriteBatch.Begin();. Where should i call it? And how can I make sure it's called before any Renderer components OnUpdate method? (i need to do more stuff then just Begin() i also need to set right rendertarget for camera etc.)

    Read the article

  • Kill a tree, save your website? Content strategy in action, part III

    - by Roger Hart
    A lot has been written about how driving content strategy from within an organisation is hard. And that's true. Red Gate is pretty receptive to new ideas, so although I've not had a total walk in the park, it's been a hike with charming scenery. But I'm one of the lucky ones. Lots of people are involved in content, and depending on your organisation some of those people might be the kind who'll gleefully call themselves "stakeholders". People holding a stake generally want to stick it through something's heart and bury it at a crossroads. Winning them over is not always easy. (Richard Ingram has made a nice visual summary of how this can feel - Content strategy Snakes & ladders - pdf ) So yes, a lot of content strategy advocates are having a hard time. And sure, we've got a nice opportunity to get together and have a hug and a cry, but in the interim we could use a hand. What to do? My preferred approach is, I'll confess, brutal. I'd like nothing so much as to take a scorched earth approach to our website. Burn it, salt the ground, and build the new one right: focusing on clearly delineated business and user content goals, and instrumented so we can tell if we're doing it right. I'm never getting buy-in for that, but a boy can dream. So how about just getting buy-in for some small, tenable improvements? Easier, but still non-trivial. I sat down for a chat with our marketing and design guys. It seemed like a good place to start, even if they weren't up for my "Ctrl-A + Delete"  solution. We talked through some of this stuff, and we pretty much agreed that our content is a bit more broken than we'd ideally like. But to get everybody on board, the problems needed visibility. Doing a visual content inventory Print out the internet. Make a Wall Of Content. Seriously. If you've already done a content inventory, you know your architecture, and you know the scale of the problem. But it's quite likely that very few other people do. So make it big and visual. I'm going to carbon hell, but it seems to be working. This morning, I printed out a tiny, tiny part of our website: the non-support content pertaining to SQL Compare I made big, visual, A3 blowups of each page, and covered a wall with them. A page per web page, spread over something like 6M x 2M, with metrics, right in front of people. Even if nobody reads it (and they are doing) the sheer scale is shocking. 53 pages, all told. Some are redundant, some outdated, some trivial, a few fantastic, and frighteningly many that are great ideas delivered not-quite-right. You have to stand quite far away to get it all in your field of vision. For a lot of today, a whole bunch of folks have been gawping in amazement, talking each other through it, peering at the details, and generally getting excited about content. Developers, sales guys, our CEO, the marketing folks - they're engaged. Will it last? I make no promises. But this sort of wave of interest is vital to getting a content strategy project kicked off. While the content strategist is a saucer-eyed orphan in the cupboard under the stairs, they're not getting a whole lot done. Of course, just printing the site won't necessarily cut it. You have to know your content, and be able to talk about it. Ideally, you'll also have page view and time-on-page metrics. One of the most powerful things you can do is, when people are staring at your wall of content, ask them what they think half of it is for. Pretty soon, you've made a case for content strategy. We're also going to get folks to mark it up - cover it with notes and post-its, let us know how they feel about our content. I'll be blogging about how that goes, but it's exciting. Different business functions have different needs from content, so the more exposure the content gets, and the more feedback, the more you know about those needs. Fingers crossed for awesome.

    Read the article

  • What platform to use for browser based turn based strategy game

    - by sunwukung
    I want to write a browser based strategy game that can be played by two players in separate locations. The game itself is predominantly turn based. To that end, I want to determine the correct platform on which to build this game. To prevent gamers "gaming" the system, the business logic needs to reside in the server. I could arguably use AJAX for a large part of the games functionality, but at two key points in the game loop, the opposing player can "counter" the current players move. In addition, when it's time for the players to swap, AJAX polling is likely to fall short, so it's starting to look like WebSockets is going to be a requirement to pull this off smoothly. So, the remaining question is regarding the back end. I'd kinda like to build this in Python/Flask - but this is primarily out of wanting to tackle a project with that language, not neccessarily because it's the appropriate tool for the job. The next most likely candidate has got to be NodeJS given it's (apparently) tighter integration with the WebSockets protocol. My question, then, is regarding the best platform on which to pursue this objective.

    Read the article

  • component Initialization in component-based game architectures

    - by liortal
    I'm develping a 2d game (in XNA) and i've gone slightly towards a component-based approach, where i have a main game object (container) that holds different components. When implementing the needed functionality as components, i'm now faced with an issue -- who should initialize components? Are components usually passed in initialized into an entity, or some other entity initialized them? In my current design, i have an issue where the component, when created, requires knowledge regarding an attached entity, however these 2 events may not happen at the same time (component construction, attaching to a game entity). I am looking for a standard approach or examples of implementations that work, that overcome this issue or present a clear way to resolve it

    Read the article

  • Using heavyweight ORM implementation for light based games

    - by Holland
    I'm just about to engulf myself in an MVC-based/Component architecture in C#, using MySQL's connector/Net for the data storage, and probably some NHibernate/FluentNHibernate Object-relational-mapping to map out the data structure. The goal is to build a scalable 2D RPG. Then I think about it...and I can't help but think this seems a little "heavy weight" for a 2D RPG, especially one which, while I plan to incorporate a lot of functionality and entertaining gameplay, may be ported to something like Windows Phone or Android in the future. Yet, on the other hand even a 2-Dimensional RPG can become very complicated, and therefore must incorporate a lot of functionality. While this can be accomplished with text/XML/JSON for data storage, is there a better way? Is something such as Object-Relational-Mapping useful in such an application? So, what do you think? Would you say that there is a place for such technologies? I don't know what to think...

    Read the article

  • Appropriate level of granularity for component-based architecture

    - by Jon Purdy
    I'm working on a game with a component-based architecture. An Entity owns a set of Component instances, each of which has a set of Slot instances with which to store, send, and receive values. Factory functions such as Player produce entities with the required components and slot connections. I'm trying to determine the best level of granularity for components. For example, right now Position, Velocity, and Acceleration are all separate components, connected in series. Velocity and Acceleration could easily be rewritten into a uniform Delta component, or Position, Velocity, and Acceleration could be combined alongside such components as Friction and Gravity into a monolithic Physics component. Should a component have the smallest responsibility possible (at the cost of lots of interconnectivity) or should related components be combined into monolithic ones (at the cost of flexibility)? I'm leaning toward the former, but I could use a second opinion.

    Read the article

  • Are there existing FOSS component-based frameworks?

    - by Tesserex
    The component based game programming paradigm is becoming much more popular. I was wondering, are there any projects out there that offer a reusable component framework? In any language, I guess I don't care about that. It's not for my own project, I'm just curious. Specifically I mean are there projects that include a base Entity class, a base Component class, and maybe some standard components? It would then be much easier starting a game if you didn't want to reinvent the wheel, or maybe you want a GraphicsComponent that does sprites with Direct3D, but you figure it's already been done a dozen times. A quick Googling turns up Rusher. Has anyone heard of this / does anyone use it? If there are no popular ones, then why not? Is it too difficult to make something like this reusable, and they need heavy customization? In my own implementation I found a lot of boilerplate that could be shoved into a framework.

    Read the article

  • Are there existing FOSS component-based frameworks?

    - by Tesserex
    The component based game programming paradigm is becoming much more popular. I was wondering, are there any projects out there that offer a reusable component framework? In any language, I guess I don't care about that. It's not for my own project, I'm just curious. Specifically I mean are there projects that include a base Entity class, a base Component class, and maybe some standard components? It would then be much easier starting a game if you didn't want to reinvent the wheel, or maybe you want a GraphicsComponent that does sprites with Direct3D, but you figure it's already been done a dozen times. A quick Googling turns up Rusher. Has anyone heard of this / does anyone use it? If there are no popular ones, then why not? Is it too difficult to make something like this reusable, and they need heavy customization? In my own implementation I found a lot of boilerplate that could be shoved into a framework.

    Read the article

  • Component based design, but components rely on eatchother

    - by MintyAnt
    I've begun stabbing at a "Component Based" game system. Basically, each entity holds a list of components to update (and render) I inherit the "Component" class and break each game system into it. Examples: RenderComponent - Draws the entity MovementComponent - Moves the entity, deals with velocity and speed checks DamageComponent - Deals with how/if the entity gets damaged... So. My system has this: MovementComponent InputComponent Now maybe my design is off, but the InputComponent should say things like if (w key is down) add y speed to movement if (x key is down) Trigger primary attack This means that the InputComponent sort of relies on these other components. I have to do something alone the lines of: if (w key is down) { MovementComponent* entityMovement = mEntity->GetMovement(); if (entityMovement != NULL) add y speed to movement } which seems kinda crappy every update. Other options? Better design? Is this the best way? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Managing Strategy objects with Hibernate & Spring

    - by Francois
    This is a design question better explained with a Stack Overflow analogy: Users can earn Badges. Users, Badges and Earned Badges are stored in the database. A Badge’s logic is run by a Badge Condition Strategy. I would prefer not to have to store Badge Condition Strategies in the database, because they are complex tree structure objects. How do I associate a Badge stored in the database with its Badge Condition Strategy? I can only think of workaround solutions. For example: create 1 class per badge and use a SINGLE_TABLE inheritance strategy. Or get the badge from the database, and then programmatically lookup and inject the correct Badge Condition Strategy. Thanks for suggesting a better design.

    Read the article

  • Alternatives to Component Based Architecture?

    - by Ben Lakey
    Usually when I develop a game I will use an architecture like what you see below. What other architectures are popular for simple game development? I'm concerned about having a narrow view of what exists out there for architectures beyond this. Is this an example of component-based architecture? Or is this something else? What would that look like? What alternatives exist? public abstract class ComponentBase { protected final Collection<ComponentBase> subComponents = new LinkedList<ComponentBase>(); private boolean enableInput; private boolean isVisible; protected ComponentBase(boolean enableInput, boolean isVisible) { this.enableInput = enableInput; this.isVisible = isVisible; } public void render(Graphics2D graphics) { for(ComponentBase gameComponent : this.subComponents) { if(gameComponent.isVisible()) { gameComponent.render(graphics); } } } public void input(InputData input) { for(ComponentBase gameComponent : this.subComponents) { if(gameComponent.inputIsEnabled()) { gameComponent.input(input); } } } ... getters/setters ... public void update(long elapsedTimeMillis) { for(ComponentBase gameComponent : this.subComponents) { gameComponent.update(elapsedTimeMillis); } } }

    Read the article

  • Software design of a browser-based strategic MMO game

    - by Mehran
    I wonder if there are any known tested software designs for Travian-like browser-based strategic MMO games? I mean how would they implement the server of such games or what is stored in database and what is stored in RAM? Is the state of the world stored in one piece or is it distributed among a number of storage? Does anyone know a resource to study the problems and solutions of creating such games? [UPDATE] Suggested in comments, I'm going to give an example how would I design such a project. Even though I'm not sure if I'm proposing the right one. Having stored the world state in a MongoDB, I would implement an event collection in which all the changes to the world will register. Changes that are meant to happen in the future will come with an action date set to the future and those that are to be carried out immediately will be set to now. Having this datastore as the central point of the system, players will issue their actions as events inserted in datastore. At the other end of the system, I'll have a constant-running software taking out events out of the datastore which are due to be carried out and not done yet. Executing an event means apply some update on the world's state and thus the datastore. As scalable as this design sounds, I'm not sure if it will be worth implementing. For one, it is pointless to cache the datastore as most of updates happen once without any follow ups. For instance if you have the growth of resources in your game, you'll be updating the whole world state periodically in which case, having incorporated a cache, you are keeping the whole world in RAM (which most likely is impossible). So can someone come up with a better design?

    Read the article

  • How to implment the database for event conditions and item bonuses for a browser based game

    - by Saifis
    I am currently creating a browser based game, and was wondering what was the standard approach in making diverse conditions and status bonuses database wise. Currently considering two cases. Event Conditions Needs min 1000 gold Needs min Lv 10 Needs certain item. Needs fulfillment of another event Status Bonus Reduces damage by 20% +100 attack points Deflects certain type of attack I wish to be able to continually change these parameters during the process of production and operation, so having them hard-coded isn't the best way. All I could come up with are the following two methods. Method 1 Create a table that contains each conditions with needed attributes Have a model named conditions with all the attributes it would need to set them conditions condition_type (level, money_min, money_max item, event_aquired) condition_amount prerequisite_condition_id prerequisite_item_id Method 2 write it in a DSL form that could be interpreted later in the code Perhaps something like yaml, have a text area in the setting form and have the code interpret it. condition_foo: condition_type :level min_level: 10 condition_type :item item_id: 2 At current Method 2 looks to be more practical and flexible for future changes, trade off being that all the flex must be done on the code side. Not to sure how this is supposed to be done, is it supposed to be hard coded? separate config file? Any help would be appreciated. Added For additional info, it will be implemented with Ruby on Rails

    Read the article

  • What to choose API based server or Socket based server for data driven application

    - by Imdad
    I am working on a project which has a Desktop Application for MAC/COCOA, a native application for iPhone another native application in iPad. All the application do almost same thing. The applications are data driven applications. Every communication to server is made via a restful API developed in PHP. When a user logs in a lot of data is fetched from server. And to remain in sync with server pooling is done. As there are lot of data to pool it makes application slower and un-reliable. A possible solution that comes into my mind is to use Socket based server. My question is that will it reasonably improve the performance? And which technology (of sockets) will be good as a server side solution for data driven application? I have heard a lot about Node.js. Please give your suggestions.

    Read the article

  • How to structure game states in an entity/component-based system

    - by Eva
    I'm making a game designed with the entity-component paradigm that uses systems to communicate between components as explained here. I've reached the point in my development that I need to add game states (such as paused, playing, level start, round start, game over, etc.), but I'm not sure how to do it with my framework. I've looked at this code example on game states which everyone seems to reference, but I don't think it fits with my framework. It seems to have each state handling its own drawing and updating. My framework has a SystemManager that handles all the updating using systems. For example, here's my RenderingSystem class: public class RenderingSystem extends GameSystem { private GameView gameView_; /** * Constructor * Creates a new RenderingSystem. * @param gameManager The game manager. Used to get the game components. */ public RenderingSystem(GameManager gameManager) { super(gameManager); } /** * Method: registerGameView * Registers gameView into the RenderingSystem. * @param gameView The game view registered. */ public void registerGameView(GameView gameView) { gameView_ = gameView; } /** * Method: triggerRender * Adds a repaint call to the event queue for the dirty rectangle. */ public void triggerRender() { Rectangle dirtyRect = new Rectangle(); for (GameObject object : getRenderableObjects()) { GraphicsComponent graphicsComponent = object.getComponent(GraphicsComponent.class); dirtyRect.add(graphicsComponent.getDirtyRect()); } gameView_.repaint(dirtyRect); } /** * Method: renderGameView * Renders the game objects onto the game view. * @param g The graphics object that draws the game objects. */ public void renderGameView(Graphics g) { for (GameObject object : getRenderableObjects()) { GraphicsComponent graphicsComponent = object.getComponent(GraphicsComponent.class); if (!graphicsComponent.isVisible()) continue; GraphicsComponent.Shape shape = graphicsComponent.getShape(); BoundsComponent boundsComponent = object.getComponent(BoundsComponent.class); Rectangle bounds = boundsComponent.getBounds(); g.setColor(graphicsComponent.getColor()); if (shape == GraphicsComponent.Shape.RECTANGULAR) { g.fill3DRect(bounds.x, bounds.y, bounds.width, bounds.height, true); } else if (shape == GraphicsComponent.Shape.CIRCULAR) { g.fillOval(bounds.x, bounds.y, bounds.width, bounds.height); } } } /** * Method: getRenderableObjects * @return The renderable game objects. */ private HashSet<GameObject> getRenderableObjects() { return gameManager.getGameObjectManager().getRelevantObjects( getClass()); } } Also all the updating in my game is event-driven. I don't have a loop like theirs that simply updates everything at the same time. I like my framework because it makes it easy to add new GameObjects, but doesn't have the problems some component-based designs encounter when communicating between components. I would hate to chuck it just to get pause to work. Is there a way I can add game states to my game without removing the entity-component design? Does the game state example actually fit my framework, and I'm just missing something? EDIT: I might not have explained my framework well enough. My components are just data. If I was coding in C++, they'd probably be structs. Here's an example of one: public class BoundsComponent implements GameComponent { /** * The position of the game object. */ private Point pos_; /** * The size of the game object. */ private Dimension size_; /** * Constructor * Creates a new BoundsComponent for a game object with initial position * initialPos and initial size initialSize. The position and size combine * to make up the bounds. * @param initialPos The initial position of the game object. * @param initialSize The initial size of the game object. */ public BoundsComponent(Point initialPos, Dimension initialSize) { pos_ = initialPos; size_ = initialSize; } /** * Method: getBounds * @return The bounds of the game object. */ public Rectangle getBounds() { return new Rectangle(pos_, size_); } /** * Method: setPos * Sets the position of the game object to newPos. * @param newPos The value to which the position of the game object is * set. */ public void setPos(Point newPos) { pos_ = newPos; } } My components do not communicate with each other. Systems handle inter-component communication. My systems also do not communicate with each other. They have separate functionality and can easily be kept separate. The MovementSystem doesn't need to know what the RenderingSystem is rendering to move the game objects correctly; it just need to set the right values on the components, so that when the RenderingSystem renders the game objects, it has accurate data. The game state could not be a system, because it needs to interact with the systems rather than the components. It's not setting data; it's determining which functions need to be called. A GameStateComponent wouldn't make sense because all the game objects share one game state. Components are what make up objects and each one is different for each different object. For example, the game objects cannot have the same bounds. They can have overlapping bounds, but if they share a BoundsComponent, they're really the same object. Hopefully, this explanation makes my framework less confusing.

    Read the article

  • AI for a mixed Turn Based + Real Time battle system - Something "Gambit like" the right approach?

    - by Jason L.
    This is maybe a question that's been asked 100 times 1,000 different ways. I apologize for that :) I'm in the process of building the AI for a game I'm working on. The game is a turn based one, in the vein of Final Fantasy but also has a set of things that happen in real time (reactions). I've experimented with FSM, HFSMs, and Behavior Trees. None of them felt "right" to me and all felt either too limiting or too generic / big. The idea I'm toying with now is something like a "Rules engine" that could be likened to the Gambit system from Final Fantasy 12. I would have a set of predefined personalities. Each of these personalities would have a set of conditions it would check on each event (Turn start, time to react, etc). These conditions would be priority ordered, and the first one that returns true would be the action I take. These conditions can also point to a "choice" action, which is just an action that will make a choice based on some Utility function. Sort of a mix of FSM/HFSM and a Utility Function approach. So, a "gambit" with the personality of "Healer" may look something like this: (ON) Ally HP = 0% - Choose "Relife" spell (ON) Ally HP < 50% - Choose Heal spell (ON) Self HP < 65% - Choose Heal spell (ON) Ally Debuff - Choose Debuff Removal spell (ON) Ally Lost Buff - Choose Buff spell Likewise, a "gambit" with the personality of "Agressor" may look like this: (ON) Foe HP < 10% - Choose Attack skill (ON) Foe any - Choose target - Choose Attack skill (ON) Self Lost Buff - Choose Buff spell (ON) Foe HP = 0% - Taunt the player What I like about this approach is it makes sense in my head. It also would be extremely easy to build an "AI Editor" with an approach like this. What I'm worried about is.. would it be too limiting? Would it maybe get too complicated? Does anyone have any experience with AIs in Turn Based games that could maybe provide me some insight into this approach.. or suggest a different approach? Many thanks in advance!!!

    Read the article

  • Organising levels / rooms in a MUD-style text based world

    - by Polynomial
    I'm thinking of writing a small text-based adventure game, but I'm not particularly sure how I should design the world from a technical standpoint. My first thought is to do it in XML, designed something like the following. Apologies for the huge pile of XML, but I felt it important to fully explain what I'm doing. <level> <start> <!-- start in kitchen with empty inventory --> <room>Kitchen</room> <inventory></inventory> </start> <rooms> <room> <name>Kitchen</name> <description>A small kitchen that looks like it hasn't been used in a while. It has a table in the middle, and there are some cupboards. There is a door to the north, which leads to the garden.</description> <!-- IDs of the objects the room contains --> <objects> <object>Cupboards</object> <object>Knife</object> <object>Batteries</object> </objects> </room> <room> <name>Garden</name> <description>The garden is wild and full of prickly bushes. To the north there is a path, which leads into the trees. To the south there is a house.</description> <objects> </objects> </room> <room> <name>Woods</name> <description>The woods are quite dark, with little light bleeding in from the garden. It is eerily quiet.</description> <objects> <object>Trees01</object> </objects> </room> </rooms> <doors> <!-- a door isn't necessarily a door. each door has a type, i.e. "There is a <type> leading to..." from and to are references the rooms that this door joins. direction specifies the direction (N,S,E,W,Up,Down) from <from> to <to> --> <door> <type>door</type> <direction>N</direction> <from>Kitchen</from> <to>Garden</to> </door> <door> <type>path</type> <direction>N</direction> <from>Garden</type> <to>Woods</type> </door> </doors> <variables> <!-- variables set by actions --> <variable name="cupboard_open">0</variable> </variables> <objects> <!-- definitions for objects --> <object> <name>Trees01</name> <displayName>Trees</displayName> <actions> <!-- any actions not defined will show the default failure message --> <action> <command>EXAMINE</command> <message>The trees are tall and thick. There aren't any low branches, so it'd be difficult to climb them.</message> </action> </actions> </object> <object> <name>Cupboards</name> <displayName>Cupboards</displayName> <actions> <action> <!-- requirements make the command only work when they are met --> <requirements> <!-- equivilent of "if(cupboard_open == 1)" --> <require operation="equal" value="1">cupboard_open</require> </requirements> <command>EXAMINE</command> <!-- fail message is the message displayed when the requirements aren't met --> <failMessage>The cupboard is closed.</failMessage> <message>The cupboard contains some batteires.</message> </action> <action> <requirements> <require operation="equal" value="0">cupboard_open</require> </requirements> <command>OPEN</command> <failMessage>The cupboard is already open.</failMessage> <message>You open the cupboard. It contains some batteries.</message> <!-- assigns is a list of operations performed on variables when the action succeeds --> <assigns> <assign operation="set" value="1">cupboard_open</assign> </assigns> </action> <action> <requirements> <require operation="equal" value="1">cupboard_open</require> </requirements> <command>CLOSE</command> <failMessage>The cupboard is already closed.</failMessage> <message>You closed the cupboard./message> <assigns> <assign operation="set" value="0">cupboard_open</assign> </assigns> </action> </actions> </object> <object> <name>Batteries</name> <displayName>Batteries</displayName> <!-- by setting inventory to non-zero, we can put it in our bag --> <inventory>1</inventory> <actions> <action> <requirements> <require operation="equal" value="1">cupboard_open</require> </requirements> <command>GET</command> <!-- failMessage isn't required here, it'll just show the usual "You can't see any <blank>." message --> <message>You picked up the batteries.</message> </action> </actions> </object> </objects> </level> Obviously there'd need to be more to it than this. Interaction with people and enemies as well as death and completion are necessary additions. Since the XML is quite difficult to work with, I'd probably create some sort of world editor. I'd like to know if this method has any downfalls, and if there's a "better" or more standard way of doing it.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >