Re: 2D game engine written in D is in progress
https://github.com/ZILtoid1991/VDP-engine 0.9.0 version due to the difference in usability. Needs a lot of debugging and testing, but now it can render hundreds of sprites without an issue.
Re: 2D game engine written in D is in progress
Also do somebody know how should I speed up the sprite part of the code? In my opinion, it's pretty slow alrought it was the easiest way I could come up with. Hi, you have wrong approach to this problem. From design OOP view it is perfectly ok and this is how you universities teach it in their SQL classes... But you probably don't aim for clean OOP design but for speed. You work with every single sprite as entity. But you should aim to process sprites in batch. Your sprite should be probably struct, then feed array of them into separate function instead of calling on every sprite. Difference: foreach(sprite) sprite-doSth(); vs: doSth(sprite[]); this is good read: http://gameprogrammingpatterns.com/flyweight.html
Re: 2D game engine written in D is in progress
On Tuesday, 3 February 2015 at 17:15:29 UTC, Zoadian wrote: On Tuesday, 3 February 2015 at 16:30:27 UTC, solidstate1991 wrote: https://github.com/ZILtoid1991/VDP-engine Alpha release. Very basic functionality at the moment, will be expanded later. had a quick look: public class Color This is probably going to be slow. you want to read about 'cache friendliness'. And for a game/graphics engine also google 'data oriented design'. Thanks for the suggestion. Also do somebody know how should I speed up the sprite part of the code? In my opinion, it's pretty slow alrought it was the easiest way I could come up with.
Re: 2D game engine written in D is in progress
https://github.com/ZILtoid1991/VDP-engine Alpha release. Very basic functionality at the moment, will be expanded later.
Re: 2D game engine written in D is in progress
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 17:15:28 +, Zoadian via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: had a quick look: public class Color This is probably going to be slow. you want to read about 'cache friendliness'. And for a game/graphics engine also google 'data oriented design'. http://gameprogrammingpatterns.com/data-locality.html --Ben
Re: 2D game engine written in D is in progress
On Tuesday, 3 February 2015 at 16:30:27 UTC, solidstate1991 wrote: https://github.com/ZILtoid1991/VDP-engine Alpha release. Very basic functionality at the moment, will be expanded later. had a quick look: public class Color This is probably going to be slow. you want to read about 'cache friendliness'. And for a game/graphics engine also google 'data oriented design'.
Re: 2D game engine written in D is in progress
On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 at 19:06:24 UTC, solidstate1991 wrote: I started to work on an engine, which emulates the features and limitations of older graphics systems, mainly for retro-styled indie games. Features: -Support for parallax scrolling, and multiple sprite and tile layers -Support for sprite scaling and rotation -Max. 65536 colors on screen from a palette -Variable sprite sizes for easier development, tile layers can work with any size of tiles as long as all of the tiles are the same size on one layer -Collision detection -Support for modding -Sprite editor, tile map editor It's not a dethroner for the Unreal Engine 4, but I try my best to get it into work. It's current name is VDP engine, but if you can come up with a better name I might change it. I still haven't decided to make it open or closed source (if it'll be ever used by any game that makes profit, I'd like to get some share from it). I'm halfway throught the development. Now the engine is in a debuggable state. The display of sprites works well, the collision detection is simple (pixel based collision detection is not yet implemented), no effects, no input event handling.
Re: 2D game engine written in D is in progress
On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 07:54:53 + Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 18:49:06 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 17:12:46 + Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: Why would we collect stats: what difference does it make if an OSS project is 10% commercially developed or 20%? 'cause i want to know what much more means. 1? 10? 100? 1000? 1? sure, 1 is much more than zero, as 1 is not nothing. but how much? There are patches being sent upstream that would not be sent otherwise, that's all that matters. nope. when i see much more, i want to know how much is that much. That still doesn't answer the question of why anyone would spend time collecting stats when it's pointless to quantify anyway. If it's 20%, is it all of a sudden worth it for you? 10%? 30%? i believe that when someone says much more, he didn't take the numbers from /dev/urandom, and he already has very impressive stats. why else he would do comparisons? he must base his opinion on some numbers. or... or i just can say that with my contributions Linux got many more patches, so prise me -- and everyone will believe? i bet not, i will be asked for at least numerical proofs. so i won't buy bs about many more patches with android without numbers at least. and then i will ask to show *what* parts was changed, just to make sure that this is not a useless android-specific crap. see, m$ recently commits alot of patches, yet it's still very hard to say that microsoft help develops Linux. what those patches do is compatibility with their proprietary hyperv. useless crap. yet numbers still looks impressive. You may not care about any of these patches for your own use, because you don't use ARM or whatever, but you certainly seem to care about FOSS doing well. i still can't understand what doing well means. what i see is that with corporations comes a rise of permissive licenses, and i can't see that as good thing. I've explained in detail what doing well means: these hobbyist OSS projects, whether the linux kernel or gcc or whatever you prefer, would be unusable for any real work without significant commercial involvement over the years. Not sure what's difficult to understand about that. you didn't give any proofs. moreover, you simply lying, as gcc, for example, was perfectly usable long before commercial vendors starts sending patches. and i can assure you that Linux and GCC are not the only [F]OSS projects which are very usable for real work (i don't know what real work and unreal work is, but hell with it). It's not just corporations using permissive licenses. Many more individuals choose a permissive license for their personal projects these days, as opposed to emulating linux and choosing the GPL by default like they did in the past. ah, so you saying that they specifically don't want to emulate Linux success? i knew that! from my POV the only sane reason why author can choose permissive license is to steal my code. so he can take my contribution, use it in proprietary closed-source version and make money from it. i see nothing bad from making money from the product... until that product uses my code in the way that i can't get free access to product sources AND i can't pass those sources around freely. oh, i mean the code i wrote without payment. and i prefer GPLv3 over GPLv2 as GPLv3 closes tivoisation hole. Well, the only reason FOSS suits your needs and has any usage today is precisely because commercial vendors contributed greatly to its development i don't think so. OpenBSD suits too. it just happens that i didn't have an access to *BSD at the time, so i took Linux. yet i'm seriously thinking about dropping Linux, as with all those commercial support is suits me lesser and lesser. You think OpenBSD did not also benefit from commercial help? if you'll go this way you'll found that nobody using hand-made computers for running FOSS software, so... i want numbers. again. and proofs that without such help the project will be in unusable state now. i don't know how you can make such proofs, but that's not me who claims that without commercial proof FOSS is not ready for real work, so it's not me who must give proofs. i'm telling you that... let's take emacs and GCC: emacs, GCC and GDB was perfectly usable before corporations started to take FOSS movement seriously. you know what... the whole UNIX story started as guerilla OS. only when UNIX becames successfull, AT/T begins to invest money in it. and, btw, did that completely wrong, effectively killed UNIX. The viral GPL may have helped linux initially, when it was mostly consulting/support companies like IBM and Red Hat using open source, so the viral aspect of forcing them to release source pushed linux ahead of
Re: 2D game engine written in D is in progress
On Sunday, 21 December 2014 at 15:44:05 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 07:54:53 + Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: That still doesn't answer the question of why anyone would spend time collecting stats when it's pointless to quantify anyway. If it's 20%, is it all of a sudden worth it for you? 10%? 30%? i believe that when someone says much more, he didn't take the numbers from /dev/urandom, and he already has very impressive stats. why else he would do comparisons? he must base his opinion on some numbers. or... or i just can say that with my contributions Linux got many more patches, so prise me -- and everyone will believe? i bet not, i will be asked for at least numerical proofs. so i won't buy bs about many more patches with android without numbers at least. and then i will ask to show *what* parts was changed, just to make sure that this is not a useless android-specific crap. But nobody cares to prove it to you. I made an assertion that patches were upstreamed, all the raw data is out there to show that. If you're unwilling to go look for it, doesn't bother me. see, m$ recently commits alot of patches, yet it's still very hard to say that microsoft help develops Linux. what those patches do is compatibility with their proprietary hyperv. useless crap. yet numbers still looks impressive. Except that Android obviously has nothing so narrow as Hyper-V to which it's isolated to. I've explained in detail what doing well means: these hobbyist OSS projects, whether the linux kernel or gcc or whatever you prefer, would be unusable for any real work without significant commercial involvement over the years. Not sure what's difficult to understand about that. you didn't give any proofs. moreover, you simply lying, as gcc, for example, was perfectly usable long before commercial vendors starts sending patches. and i can assure you that Linux and GCC are not the only [F]OSS projects which are very usable for real work (i don't know what real work and unreal work is, but hell with it). What would be proofs of being made much more viable by commercial involvement? As for linux and gcc not being the only mature projects, every other one you can think of very likely also benefited greatly from commercial investment. It's not just corporations using permissive licenses. Many more individuals choose a permissive license for their personal projects these days, as opposed to emulating linux and choosing the GPL by default like they did in the past. ah, so you saying that they specifically don't want to emulate Linux success? i knew that! Yep, they'd rather be _much_ more successful, like Android or llvm. :D from my POV the only sane reason why author can choose permissive license is to steal my code. so he can take my contribution, use it in proprietary closed-source version and make money from it. If he's the author, how is he stealing your code? Google runs a patched linux kernel on a million servers and mostly doesn't release their patches, did they steal code from all linux kernel contributors? i see nothing bad from making money from the product... until that product uses my code in the way that i can't get free access to product sources AND i can't pass those sources around freely. oh, i mean the code i wrote without payment. You always have access to your code, just not necessarily to code others wrote on top of your code. and i prefer GPLv3 over GPLv2 as GPLv3 closes tivoisation hole. Yes, you mentioned that before. You think OpenBSD did not also benefit from commercial help? if you'll go this way you'll found that nobody using hand-made computers for running FOSS software, so... i want numbers. again. and proofs that without such help the project will be in unusable state now. i don't know how you can make such proofs, but that's not me who claims that without commercial proof FOSS is not ready for real work, so it's not me who must give proofs. i'm telling you that... let's take emacs and GCC: emacs, GCC and GDB was perfectly usable before corporations started to take FOSS movement seriously. I see, you want proofs, but don't know how you can make such proofs. Awfully convenient to demand proof and not define what you'll accept as proof. As I said before, all the data is out there, you're free to prove it to yourself. you know what... the whole UNIX story started as guerilla OS. only when UNIX becames successfull, AT/T begins to invest money in it. and, btw, did that completely wrong, effectively killed UNIX. This is commonly the case, doesn't matter if it's OSS or not. The viral GPL may have helped linux initially, when it was mostly consulting/support companies like IBM and Red Hat using open source, so the viral aspect of forcing them to release source pushed linux ahead of BSD. But now that companies are more
Re: 2D game engine written in D is in progress
On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 18:24:12 + Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: But nobody cares to prove it to you. I made an assertion that patches were upstreamed, all the raw data is out there to show that. If you're unwilling to go look for it, doesn't bother me. do you see how discussion without proofs has no sense at all? It's not just corporations using permissive licenses. Many more individuals choose a permissive license for their personal projects these days, as opposed to emulating linux and choosing the GPL by default like they did in the past. ah, so you saying that they specifically don't want to emulate Linux success? i knew that! Yep, they'd rather be _much_ more successful, like Android or llvm. :D individial projects. android. llvm. you just divided by zero. from my POV the only sane reason why author can choose permissive license is to steal my code. so he can take my contribution, use it in proprietary closed-source version and make money from it. If he's the author, how is he stealing your code? i obviously meant he accepted my patches, and then... Google runs a patched linux kernel on a million servers and mostly doesn't release their patches, did they steal code from all linux kernel contributors? does google selling that servers with patched kernel? i was talking about selling the software product (as a standalone product or with accompanying hardware). using the product in-house to built some system whose output then sold is ok. i see nothing bad from making money from the product... until that product uses my code in the way that i can't get free access to product sources AND i can't pass those sources around freely. oh, i mean the code i wrote without payment. You always have access to your code, just not necessarily to code others wrote on top of your code. and that is wrong. either not use my code at all, or give me all the code that is using my code, with rights to redistribute. I see, you want proofs, but don't know how you can make such proofs. Awfully convenient to demand proof and not define what you'll accept as proof. that wasn't me who created such situation. As I said before, all the data is out there, you're free to prove it to yourself. so you have no proofs. q.e.d. you know what... the whole UNIX story started as guerilla OS. only when UNIX becames successfull, AT/T begins to invest money in it. and, btw, did that completely wrong, effectively killed UNIX. This is commonly the case, doesn't matter if it's OSS or not. and that kills the whole your argument about OSS software can't be grown to use in 'real work' without corporate support. why do you think that i should care how much money corporations will get? i know that most people don't give a shit about their freedom and would sell it for a dime. I already explained why: because that means they put more money into permissively-licensed projects like AOSP, clang/llvm, etc. the projects for which i see no use. i just can't care less. Stallman accidentally got some things right no, that wasn't accidentally. he is *always* right. and each time RL goes by Stallman, people keep telling me that this was an accident and pure luck(unluck). won't buy it. That's why the GPL is dying off. but it isn't. corporate players trying to establish their rules and subvert FOSS definition, this is true. but what they actually doing is just preparing another rise of FOSS and GPL. people need some time to grok that permissive licenses are used to took away people's freedom, and then everything will start all over again. I don't see how they're doing anything to you this is the root of the whole problem. Anyway, you seem ideologically committed to the GPL, no matter how flawed it is, so I'll leave it here. not to GPL itself, but to freedom. for now the best tool we have to protect our freedom in software industry is GPL. but i really don't care about tools much, i care for the purpose for which those tools were designed. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: 2D game engine written in D is in progress
Sigh, I did ask you some questions, which you've answered with a couple more questions, so I'll give you one last response. On Sunday, 21 December 2014 at 18:52:00 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 18:24:12 + Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: But nobody cares to prove it to you. I made an assertion that patches were upstreamed, all the raw data is out there to show that. If you're unwilling to go look for it, doesn't bother me. do you see how discussion without proofs has no sense at all? No, I see that you asking me to quantify something and then dodging the question of why it should be quantified, ie when I asked you what your magical threshold of relevance is, makes no sense at all. :) In any case, whatever you think that would prove, I have not offered to prove it to you. The raw data is out there: if you want certain statistics extracted from that data that only matter to you, it's up to you to collect them. ah, so you saying that they specifically don't want to emulate Linux success? i knew that! Yep, they'd rather be _much_ more successful, like Android or llvm. :D individial projects. android. llvm. you just divided by zero. Whatever that means. Both have become much more successful in recent years by using mostly permissive licenses. from my POV the only sane reason why author can choose permissive license is to steal my code. so he can take my contribution, use it in proprietary closed-source version and make money from it. If he's the author, how is he stealing your code? i obviously meant he accepted my patches, and then... If you sent him patches, he's not stealing your code. No wonder you left that part out, but your whole story made no sense without it. Google runs a patched linux kernel on a million servers and mostly doesn't release their patches, did they steal code from all linux kernel contributors? does google selling that servers with patched kernel? i was talking about selling the software product (as a standalone product or with accompanying hardware). using the product in-house to built some system whose output then sold is ok. I see, so it's okay if google takes outside patches for their kernel, creates a search engine on top of it, and then sells access to the advertising on that search engine without releasing any kernel source, but not okay if they sell those same servers with that patched kernel and search engine bundled without including any kernel source. This is the classic idiocy of GPL zealots, where they imagine they are purists for freedom then twist themselves in knots when it's pointed out the GPL actually doesn't accomplish that in any meaningful way, since most GPL code actually runs on the server. Of course, some then go use the AGPL, but that's a small minority. i see nothing bad from making money from the product... until that product uses my code in the way that i can't get free access to product sources AND i can't pass those sources around freely. oh, i mean the code i wrote without payment. You always have access to your code, just not necessarily to code others wrote on top of your code. and that is wrong. either not use my code at all, or give me all the code that is using my code, with rights to redistribute. Funny how you don't make the same demands of google or some other cloud vendor who runs your code. I guess distribution must be magical somehow, ie it's okay if they run your code on the server, just not on the desktop. I see, you want proofs, but don't know how you can make such proofs. Awfully convenient to demand proof and not define what you'll accept as proof. that wasn't me who created such situation. As I said before, all the data is out there, you're free to prove it to yourself. so you have no proofs. q.e.d. Lol, _you_ created the impossible situation of demanding proof you couldn't define, nobody is going to prove it to you. you know what... the whole UNIX story started as guerilla OS. only when UNIX becames successfull, AT/T begins to invest money in it. and, btw, did that completely wrong, effectively killed UNIX. This is commonly the case, doesn't matter if it's OSS or not. and that kills the whole your argument about OSS software can't be grown to use in 'real work' without corporate support. I was only agreeing that anything successful usually starts as guerilla and that when a large company starts investing a lot in it, they often make mistakes. No idea how you draw the conclusion from that that OSS can't be made more viable through corporate support, especially given that that has been shown invariably to be the case. why do you think that i should care how much money corporations will get? i know that most people don't give a shit about their freedom and would sell it for a dime. I already explained why: because that
Re: 2D game engine written in D is in progress
On Friday, 19 December 2014 at 17:21:43 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: it is still unusable. i don't care what problems samsung or other oem have, as i still got the closed proprietary system. Not exactly, as the flourishing Android ROM scene shows. While many people also jailbreak their Apple iDevices, it's not quite so easy to install your own ROM on them. That comes from much of the source being open for Android, though certainly not all of it. what google really has with their open-sourceness is a bunch of people that works as additional coders and testers for free. and alot of hype like hey, android is open! it's cool! use android! bullshit. What's wrong with reusing open-source work that has already been done in other contexts, through all the open source projects that are integrated into Android? Those who worked for free did so because they wanted to, either because they got paid to do so at Red Hat or IBM and released their work for free or because they enjoyed doing it. Nothing wrong with Android building on existing OSS. As for the hype, the source google releases, AOSP, is completely open. You're right that it's then closed up by all the hardware vendors, but I doubt you'll find one who hypes that it's open source. So you seem to be conflating the two. On Friday, 19 December 2014 at 18:50:14 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 18:23:59 + Kagamin via Digitalmars-d-announce Well, those people want to do that, so why not? i have nothing against that, everyone is free to do what he want. what i'm against is declaring android open project. it's proprietary project with partially opened source. I'd say open source project with proprietary additions. :) But AOSP is not particularly open in how it's developed, as google pretty much works on it on their own and then puts out OSS code dumps a couple times a year. That's not a true open source process, where you do everything in the open and continuously take outside patches, as D does, but they do pull in patches from the several outside OSS projects they build on. In any case, AOSP releases all their source under OSS licenses, not sure what more you want.
Re: 2D game engine written in D is in progress
On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 10:58:58 + Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: Nothing wrong with Android building on existing OSS. i never said that this is something wrong. unethical from my POV, but not wrong. As for the hype, the source google releases, AOSP, is completely open. You're right that it's then closed up by all the hardware vendors, but I doubt you'll find one who hypes that it's open source. So you seem to be conflating the two. i see such people almost every day. i bought android-based smartphone 'cause android is open source! i still can't understand how buying closed proprietary crap supports FOSS. and android is still proprietary system with opened source, not FOSS. Linux, by the way, is not a real FOSS for me. not until it will adopt GPLv3, which will never happen. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: 2D game engine written in D is in progress
On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 11:57:49 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: i still can't understand how buying closed proprietary crap supports FOSS. and android is still proprietary system with opened source, not FOSS. I'll tell you how. First off, all the external OSS projects that AOSP builds on, whether the linux kernel or gpsd or gcc, get much more usage and patches because they're being commercially used. Android has had their linux kernel patches merged back upstream into the mainline linux kernel. Once companies saw Android taking off, they started a non-profit called Linaro to develop the linux/ARM OSS stack, mostly for Android but also for regular desktop distros, and share resources with each other, employing several dozen paid developers who only put out OSS work, which benefits everyone, ie both OSS projects and commercial vendors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linaro If they hadn't had success with Android commercially, there's no way they do that. I keep making this point to you, that pure OSS has never and will never do well, that it can only succeed in a mixed fashion. Linux, by the way, is not a real FOSS for me. not until it will adopt GPLv3, which will never happen. What will never happen is the GPLv3 ever taking off.
Re: 2D game engine written in D is in progress
On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 15:02:59 UTC, Joakim wrote: Linux, by the way, is not a real FOSS for me. not until it will adopt GPLv3, which will never happen. What will never happen is the GPLv3 ever taking off. GPLv3 is single worst thing that ever happened to OSS
Re: 2D game engine written in D is in progress
On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 15:02:57 + Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: I'll tell you how. First off, all the external OSS projects that AOSP builds on, whether the linux kernel or gpsd or gcc, get much more usage and patches because they're being commercially used. can i see some statistics? i hear that argument (it got more patches) almost every time, but nobody can give any proofs. i can't see how x86 code generator got better due to android, for example. ah, didn't i told you that i don't care about arm at all? somehow people telling me about how android boosts something are sure that i do or should care about that something. so i feel that i can do the same and argue that i don't care. Android has had their linux kernel patches merged back upstream into the mainline linux kernel. that patches are of no use for me. why should i be excited? Once companies saw Android taking off, they started a non-profit called Linaro to develop the linux/ARM OSS stack, mostly for Android but also for regular desktop distros, and share resources with each other, employing several dozen paid developers who only put out OSS work, which benefits everyone, ie both OSS projects and commercial vendors: you did understand what i want to say, did you? ;-) I keep making this point to you, that pure OSS has never and will never do well, that it can only succeed in a mixed fashion. why should i care if OSS will do well? i don't even know what that means. it is *already* well for me and suit my needs. making another proprietary crap do well changes nothing. more than that, it makes people forget about F is FOSS. so i'm not interested in success of OSS projects. Linux, by the way, is not a real FOSS for me. not until it will adopt GPLv3, which will never happen. What will never happen is the GPLv3 ever taking off. yes, corporate bussiness will fight for it's right to do tivoisation and to hide the code till the end. that's why i'm not trying hard to help non-GPLv3 projects, only occasional patches here and there if a given issue is annoying me. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: 2D game engine written in D is in progress
On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 15:48:59 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 15:02:57 + Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: I'll tell you how. First off, all the external OSS projects that AOSP builds on, whether the linux kernel or gpsd or gcc, get much more usage and patches because they're being commercially used. can i see some statistics? i hear that argument (it got more patches) almost every time, but nobody can give any proofs. i can't see how x86 code generator got better due to android, for example. Why would we collect stats: what difference does it make if an OSS project is 10% commercially developed or 20%? There are patches being sent upstream that would not be sent otherwise, that's all that matters. As for the x86 code generator, Android has been available on x86 for years now: it's possible there were some patches sent back for that. ah, didn't i told you that i don't care about arm at all? somehow people telling me about how android boosts something are sure that i do or should care about that something. so i feel that i can do the same and argue that i don't care. Android has had their linux kernel patches merged back upstream into the mainline linux kernel. that patches are of no use for me. why should i be excited? Once companies saw Android taking off, they started a non-profit called Linaro to develop the linux/ARM OSS stack, mostly for Android but also for regular desktop distros, and share resources with each other, employing several dozen paid developers who only put out OSS work, which benefits everyone, ie both OSS projects and commercial vendors: you did understand what i want to say, did you? ;-) I keep making this point to you, that pure OSS has never and will never do well, that it can only succeed in a mixed fashion. why should i care if OSS will do well? i don't even know what that means. it is *already* well for me and suit my needs. making another proprietary crap do well changes nothing. more than that, it makes people forget about F is FOSS. so i'm not interested in success of OSS projects. You may not care about any of these patches for your own use, because you don't use ARM or whatever, but you certainly seem to care about FOSS doing well. Well, the only reason FOSS suits your needs and has any usage today is precisely because commercial vendors contributed greatly to its development, whether IBM and Red Hat's contributions stemming from their consulting/support model or the Android vendors' support paid for by their mixed model. You may resent the fact that it means some non-OSS software still exists out there and is doing well, but FOSS would be dead without it. If that were the case, there would be almost no F, just try doing anything with Windows Mobile or Blackberry OS. Your F may be less than a hypothetical pure FOSS world, but that world will never exist. Linux, by the way, is not a real FOSS for me. not until it will adopt GPLv3, which will never happen. What will never happen is the GPLv3 ever taking off. yes, corporate bussiness will fight for it's right to do tivoisation and to hide the code till the end. that's why i'm not trying hard to help non-GPLv3 projects, only occasional patches here and there if a given issue is annoying me. What you should worry about more is that not only has the GPLv3 not taken off, but the GPLv2 is also in retreat, with more and more projects choosing permissive licenses these days. The viral licensing approach of the GPLv2/v3 is increasingly dying off.
Re: 2D game engine written in D is in progress
On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 17:12:46 + Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 15:48:59 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 15:02:57 + Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: I'll tell you how. First off, all the external OSS projects that AOSP builds on, whether the linux kernel or gpsd or gcc, get much more usage and patches because they're being commercially used. can i see some statistics? i hear that argument (it got more patches) almost every time, but nobody can give any proofs. i can't see how x86 code generator got better due to android, for example. Why would we collect stats: what difference does it make if an OSS project is 10% commercially developed or 20%? 'cause i want to know what much more means. 1? 10? 100? 1000? 1? sure, 1 is much more than zero, as 1 is not nothing. but how much? There are patches being sent upstream that would not be sent otherwise, that's all that matters. nope. when i see much more, i want to know how much is that much. As for the x86 code generator, Android has been available on x86 for years now: it's possible there were some patches sent back for that. and it's possible that i sent even more patches. so what? why nobody prise me for that? ah, i'm not a That Big Company that throws off their leavings. You may not care about any of these patches for your own use, because you don't use ARM or whatever, but you certainly seem to care about FOSS doing well. i still can't understand what doing well means. what i see is that with corporations comes a rise of permissive licenses, and i can't see that as good thing. Well, the only reason FOSS suits your needs and has any usage today is precisely because commercial vendors contributed greatly to its development i don't think so. OpenBSD suits too. it just happens that i didn't have an access to *BSD at the time, so i took Linux. yet i'm seriously thinking about dropping Linux, as with all those commercial support is suits me lesser and lesser. You may resent the fact that it means some non-OSS software still exists out there and is doing well, but FOSS would be dead without it. If that were the case, there would be almost no F, just try doing anything with Windows Mobile or Blackberry OS. Your F may be less than a hypothetical pure FOSS world, but that world will never exist. this world is still not exist. and dropping F will not help it. What you should worry about more is that not only has the GPLv3 not taken off, but the GPLv2 is also in retreat, with more and more projects choosing permissive licenses these days. The viral licensing approach of the GPLv2/v3 is increasingly dying off. that's why i'm against OSS bs. the success of Linux is tied with it's viral license. just look at FreeBSD: it started earlier, it has alot more to offer when Linux was just a child, yet it's permissive license leads to companies took FreeBSD and doing closed forks (juniper, for example). signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: 2D game engine written in D is in progress
On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 18:49:06 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 17:12:46 + Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: Why would we collect stats: what difference does it make if an OSS project is 10% commercially developed or 20%? 'cause i want to know what much more means. 1? 10? 100? 1000? 1? sure, 1 is much more than zero, as 1 is not nothing. but how much? There are patches being sent upstream that would not be sent otherwise, that's all that matters. nope. when i see much more, i want to know how much is that much. That still doesn't answer the question of why anyone would spend time collecting stats when it's pointless to quantify anyway. If it's 20%, is it all of a sudden worth it for you? 10%? 30%? You may not care about any of these patches for your own use, because you don't use ARM or whatever, but you certainly seem to care about FOSS doing well. i still can't understand what doing well means. what i see is that with corporations comes a rise of permissive licenses, and i can't see that as good thing. I've explained in detail what doing well means: these hobbyist OSS projects, whether the linux kernel or gcc or whatever you prefer, would be unusable for any real work without significant commercial involvement over the years. Not sure what's difficult to understand about that. It's not just corporations using permissive licenses. Many more individuals choose a permissive license for their personal projects these days, as opposed to emulating linux and choosing the GPL by default like they did in the past. Well, the only reason FOSS suits your needs and has any usage today is precisely because commercial vendors contributed greatly to its development i don't think so. OpenBSD suits too. it just happens that i didn't have an access to *BSD at the time, so i took Linux. yet i'm seriously thinking about dropping Linux, as with all those commercial support is suits me lesser and lesser. You think OpenBSD did not also benefit from commercial help? What you should worry about more is that not only has the GPLv3 not taken off, but the GPLv2 is also in retreat, with more and more projects choosing permissive licenses these days. The viral licensing approach of the GPLv2/v3 is increasingly dying off. that's why i'm against OSS bs. the success of Linux is tied with it's viral license. just look at FreeBSD: it started earlier, it has alot more to offer when Linux was just a child, yet it's permissive license leads to companies took FreeBSD and doing closed forks (juniper, for example). The viral GPL may have helped linux initially, when it was mostly consulting/support companies like IBM and Red Hat using open source, so the viral aspect of forcing them to release source pushed linux ahead of BSD. But now that companies are more used to open source and actually releasing products based on open source, like Android or Juniper's OS or llvm, they're releasing source for permissive licenses also and products make a lot more money than consulting/support, ie Samsung and Apple make a ton more money off Android/iOS than Red Hat makes off OS support contracts. So the writing is on the wall: by hitching themselves to a better commercial model, permissive licenses and mixed models are slowly killing off the GPL. I wrote about some of this and suggested a new mixed model almost five years ago: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=sprewell_licensing What I predicted has basically come true with Android's enormous success using their mixed model, though I think my time-limited mixed model is ultimately the endgame.
Re: 2D game engine written in D is in progress
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:22:13 + Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: This is the model used by Android, the most successful open source project ever i can assure you that stupid policy with separating features has nothing to do with android popularity. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: 2D game engine written in D is in progress
On Friday, 19 December 2014 at 11:35:54 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:22:13 + Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: This is the model used by Android, the most successful open source project ever i can assure you that stupid policy with separating features has nothing to do with android popularity. I can assure you that it's _the_ reason it took off so much. If the Android project had insisted on pure open source, the hardware and smartphone vendors would have laughed at them and used Windows Mobile or LiMo or one of the myriad other alternatives at the time. It's why Samsung has their own proprietary multi-window implementation for Android and Amazon and Xiaomi forked Android and released their own proprietary versions. Commercial vendors want to differentiate with their own proprietary features, but AOSP provides a common OSS platform on which they can work together. This model has been extraordinarily successful for AOSP, as it has led to a billion smartphones running some version of Android and capable of running most common apps, albeit with some fragmentation too.
Re: 2D game engine written in D is in progress
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:46:33 + Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: On Friday, 19 December 2014 at 11:35:54 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:22:13 + Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: This is the model used by Android, the most successful open source project ever i can assure you that stupid policy with separating features has nothing to do with android popularity. I can assure you that it's _the_ reason it took off so much. If the Android project had insisted on pure open source, the hardware and smartphone vendors would have laughed at them and used Windows Mobile or LiMo or one of the myriad other alternatives at the time. It's why Samsung has their own proprietary multi-window implementation for Android and Amazon and Xiaomi forked Android and released their own proprietary versions. Commercial vendors want to differentiate with their own proprietary features, but AOSP provides a common OSS platform on which they can work together. This model has been extraordinarily successful for AOSP, as it has led to a billion smartphones running some version of Android and capable of running most common apps, albeit with some fragmentation too. what you described here is a matter of licensing (BSDL vs GPL), not having some closed-source patches. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: 2D game engine written in D is in progress
On Friday, 19 December 2014 at 15:05:05 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:46:33 + Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: On Friday, 19 December 2014 at 11:35:54 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:22:13 + Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: This is the model used by Android, the most successful open source project ever i can assure you that stupid policy with separating features has nothing to do with android popularity. I can assure you that it's _the_ reason it took off so much. If the Android project had insisted on pure open source, the hardware and smartphone vendors would have laughed at them and used Windows Mobile or LiMo or one of the myriad other alternatives at the time. It's why Samsung has their own proprietary multi-window implementation for Android and Amazon and Xiaomi forked Android and released their own proprietary versions. Commercial vendors want to differentiate with their own proprietary features, but AOSP provides a common OSS platform on which they can work together. This model has been extraordinarily successful for AOSP, as it has led to a billion smartphones running some version of Android and capable of running most common apps, albeit with some fragmentation too. what you described here is a matter of licensing (BSDL vs GPL), not having some closed-source patches. Which of those OSS licenses are the proprietary features and blobs I listed offered under? None, and the choice of license is critical because you cannot offer closed-source patches under the viral GPL, ie it is the BSDL/Apache permissive licenses that make this winning mixed model possible. If your point is that AOSP is released as pure open source, no Android phone is sold running pure AOSP, including Nexus devices because of binary blob drivers. Without the proprietary add-ons, AOSP would be unusable.
Re: 2D game engine written in D is in progress
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 17:04:22 + Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: If your point is that AOSP is released as pure open source, no Android phone is sold running pure AOSP, including Nexus devices because of binary blob drivers. Without the proprietary add-ons, AOSP would be unusable. it is still unusable. i don't care what problems samsung or other oem have, as i still got the closed proprietary system. what google really has with their open-sourceness is a bunch of people that works as additional coders and testers for free. and alot of hype like hey, android is open! it's cool! use android! bullshit. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: 2D game engine written in D is in progress
On Friday, 19 December 2014 at 17:21:43 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: have, as i still got the closed proprietary system. what google really has with their open-sourceness is a bunch of people that works as additional coders and testers for free. Well, those people want to do that, so why not?
Re: 2D game engine written in D is in progress
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 18:23:59 + Kagamin via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: On Friday, 19 December 2014 at 17:21:43 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: have, as i still got the closed proprietary system. what google really has with their open-sourceness is a bunch of people that works as additional coders and testers for free. Well, those people want to do that, so why not? i have nothing against that, everyone is free to do what he want. what i'm against is declaring android open project. it's proprietary project with partially opened source. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: 2D game engine written in D is in progress
On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 at 19:06:24 UTC, solidstate1991 wrote: I started to work on an engine, which emulates the features and limitations of older graphics systems, mainly for retro-styled indie games. Features: -Support for parallax scrolling, and multiple sprite and tile layers -Support for sprite scaling and rotation -Max. 65536 colors on screen from a palette -Variable sprite sizes for easier development, tile layers can work with any size of tiles as long as all of the tiles are the same size on one layer -Collision detection -Support for modding -Sprite editor, tile map editor It's not a dethroner for the Unreal Engine 4, but I try my best to get it into work. It's current name is VDP engine, but if you can come up with a better name I might change it. I still haven't decided to make it open or closed source (if it'll be ever used by any game that makes profit, I'd like to get some share from it). Noticed there's a question at Reddit (a bot submits all announce threads to Reddit): https://www.reddit.com/r/d_language/comments/2pm2ba/2d_game_engine_written_in_d_is_in_progress/
Re: 2D game engine written in D is in progress
On Friday, 19 December 2014 at 01:00:30 UTC, Kiith-Sa wrote: It's not a dethroner for the Unreal Engine 4, but I try my best to get it into work. It's current name is VDP engine, but if you can come up with a better name I might change it. I still haven't decided to make it open or closed source (if it'll be ever used by any game that makes profit, I'd like to get some share from it). Noticed there's a question at Reddit (a bot submits all announce threads to Reddit): https://www.reddit.com/r/d_language/comments/2pm2ba/2d_game_engine_written_in_d_is_in_progress/ Since others are mentioning commercial open-source models and that guy asked about using a more liberal license, let me mention another newer model. Develop most of the codebase in the open under a permissive license like MIT/BSD/Apache but keep some of the features or patches closed, particularly those that would most interest potential commercial licensees. This is the model used by Android, the most successful open source project ever, where AOSP is released as OSS then the hardware and smartphone vendors add their proprietary blobs and patches before selling the entire software bundle. It's probably the best model if you want to be open source, get wide usage, and still have good commercial possibilities.
2D game engine written in D is in progress
I started to work on an engine, which emulates the features and limitations of older graphics systems, mainly for retro-styled indie games. Features: -Support for parallax scrolling, and multiple sprite and tile layers -Support for sprite scaling and rotation -Max. 65536 colors on screen from a palette -Variable sprite sizes for easier development, tile layers can work with any size of tiles as long as all of the tiles are the same size on one layer -Collision detection -Support for modding -Sprite editor, tile map editor It's not a dethroner for the Unreal Engine 4, but I try my best to get it into work. It's current name is VDP engine, but if you can come up with a better name I might change it. I still haven't decided to make it open or closed source (if it'll be ever used by any game that makes profit, I'd like to get some share from it).
Re: 2D game engine written in D is in progress
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 19:06:21 +, solidstate1991 via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: I still haven't decided to make it open or closed source (if it'll be ever used by any game that makes profit, I'd like to get some share from it). One way to do this is to make the engine FOSS then keep the artwork under a less permissive license (e.g., this is what Froggato does). --Ben
Re: 2D game engine written in D is in progress
On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 at 19:52:14 UTC, Ben Boeckel via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 19:06:21 +, solidstate1991 via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: I still haven't decided to make it open or closed source (if it'll be ever used by any game that makes profit, I'd like to get some share from it). One way to do this is to make the engine FOSS then keep the artwork under a less permissive license (e.g., this is what Froggato does). --Ben Or you could license it under GPL and have a commercial alternative license. At least then you get some payback from any closed-source commercial use.
