 |
| |
|
|
Jason Kozak
|
|
Ontario, Canada
May 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
Just a few comments:
First, I'll admit to not having all that much knowledge of Java. I've dabbled with it before, but wasn't all that amazed. Even so, I do know the general capabilities of the language and I'd place my bet on Java not being anything revolutionary. I can safely say this because Java doesn't incorperate anything revolutionary, language wise. If you hit the web and do some reading on languages and methods of advancing them, you'll see what it takes to become the next mass-language.
Java is an evolutionary language with language features that encourage saftey and ease of use. C++ is a language that tries to throw in the kitchen sink and lets the programmer sort it out. Each is best for different situations. Java is certainly powerful enough for a large project, and it contains many useful libraries that will certainly speed development times.
On the other hand, C++ has speed and some very useful features (does Java support templates?). Of course, the primary argument is that speed is only useful for 3D graphics, which isn't true. Extra speed allows you to do more with less, and as someone mentioned earlier, most people don't have the newest and fastest machines, yet the bar is constantly raised (I wish I could say I'm totally un-biased).
I personally prefer C++, as I've found it's a much more powerful language than most people think. It's also got many available libraries (such as SDL) that allow it to be quite cross-platform.
It all depends on the risk you wish to take, and what's best for the project, both merger and language choice considered. Most internet game projects don't last long, with death being slow, but well able to take out a large team just as well as a small one. Different perspectives don't always mesh as well as hoped. Clash is still going and OC3 is just starting. Is it worth the risk?
If it is, is dumping Java really the right way to go in terms of survival? Or should you chance it by switching to C++ and try to make something that pushes the boundries in terms of an internet project? The latter is certainly possible (check out http://www.parsec.org for an example).
Just something to think about. While I think it'd be best to keep the projects separate, I'm sure you guys are more sure of your individual goals and compatibility, so are in a better position to make the right decision.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
RonHiler
|
|
California, USA
May 2000
time: 21:14
|
|
quote:
extensively thought out ideas, and mostly usable code...though I'd change the map to LGJ's idea of a spherical map for the max-zoom-out and a square that is centered so wherever you turn the globe you get no distortion of squares/hexes, whatever, and the map won't look as crappy as Manifest Destiny's very distorted globe, even though they are doing a revolutionary thing--which I respect, the distortion still looks crappy.
|
Ack! Gasp, Bleck, Cough! Ack!
Sorry, this paragraph was just recently pointed out to me, and I feel compelled to set the record straight!
Toubabo, it must have been quite a while since you've seen MD. The distortions you speak of were eliminated from the map a long time ago. We now have a very nice working spherical map with no distortions. I worked very hard on those routines, and I won't have them disparaged! 
Please take a look at our new screenshots at http://www.rjcyberware.com/md/screens.html , especially the third one down, for an updated view of what they look like now. I hope you'll agree they are not ugly anymore!
Ron
|
|
| |
|
|
|
RonHiler
|
|
California, USA
May 2000
time: 21:14
|
|
Thanks, Amjayee!
Yeah, the blurryness of the main map is being worked on. It's the final thing to do before we call the terrain drawing routines complete (except for rivers, which are almost in).
The blurryness comes from the fact that the higher resolution we go to, the bigger the play files get. Since these files are designed to be transmitted across e-mail, there's a definite upper limit to their size, and we've about hit it (in fact, we've surpassed it  ).
On the good side, though, I'm working on changing how the map is stored in the play files, and it will make the map resolution independent of the file size, so we can make them as detailed as we want without worrying about the play files bloating out of control. It will also drop the current file sizes by quite a lot.
Ron
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-08-2000 11:13
|
|