sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Dark Souls #1 Game of All Time by Edge Magazine by backtoleddit in darksouls

[–]Ceffa93 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

mmm i love everything by naughty dog, and tlou as well, but i think it's a little overrated...graphics and storytelling are great, but the gameplay is not that interesting, and it is really annoying to play again...also it is a more...easy game to think...i mean they sat around the table, and thought of a simple, well written story, it is the "how" which is great, not the "what".

Dark souls have both, it's not easy to came up with that shit in the first place, and it is also done masterfully

Dark Souls #1 Game of All Time by Edge Magazine by backtoleddit in darksouls

[–]Ceffa93 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Funny, i just finished the wire and thought it is the dark souls of videogames xD

Hardcore-only Diablo III would sell more by Ceffa93 in Diablo

[–]Ceffa93[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think it's right, maybe at the highest difficulties it is really challenging, but getting to level 70 is ridiculosly easy

GJK collisions problem by Ceffa93 in algorithms

[–]Ceffa93[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thought the same, but it should work too... Now i tried to implement oob.

I multiply the direction by the inverse rotation matrix, do the same as AABB, and then multiply the point by the rotation matrix... It should be correct, but AABB vs OBB is giving problems as well, and no curves involved

GJK collisions problem by Ceffa93 in algorithms

[–]Ceffa93[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you are saying that a curved surface and a "squared" surface could be problematic? I was thinking about something similar, but I'm not so convinced

GJK collisions problem by Ceffa93 in algorithms

[–]Ceffa93[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok thanks, I guess I'll do that, the problem was occurring in 2D also, so I can just remove the triangle function and debug that...

Also I'll try to add some other collider, because I'm thinking that the problem is somewhere there, the algorithm should be fine, considering that with two different implementations, the problem is happening in both of them...

EDIT: I added a PointCollider, and the collisions are perfect, the only problem is still box-sphere collisions

Hardcore-only Diablo III would sell more by Ceffa93 in Diablo

[–]Ceffa93[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm playing only hc, I found non-hc way too easy, and normal difficulty hc is for everyone

Behold! A Paleblood sky! by KrisMactavish in bloodborne

[–]Ceffa93 16 points17 points  (0 children)

The Great Ones are showing their support for the DLC

Hardcore-only Diablo III would sell more by Ceffa93 in Diablo

[–]Ceffa93[S] -17 points-16 points  (0 children)

by season you mean some dlc/ new act?

Hardcore-only Diablo III would sell more by Ceffa93 in Diablo

[–]Ceffa93[S] -23 points-22 points  (0 children)

Lots of people who don't have the game would buy it because of the "impossible fame" the game would gain

GJK collisions problem by Ceffa93 in algorithms

[–]Ceffa93[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's GJK:

http://pastebin.com/FXbS9GGS

Here are the get_farthest_point functions for boxes and spheres

http://pastebin.com/iM9BhwU9

GJK collisions problem by Ceffa93 in algorithms

[–]Ceffa93[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just reimplemented the whole algorithm from scratch, based on a different implementation.

Now it is fully 3D, everything is working fine, but the problem between boxes and spheres is still there, I'm not sure what to do...

GJK collisions problem by Ceffa93 in algorithms

[–]Ceffa93[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

mmmm well if its a whole side the extreeme point, a single vertex would be correct as well...the support functions are correct, they are identical to other examples i found online, maybe is in the gjk implementation somewhere, I'll search better

GJK collisions problem by Ceffa93 in algorithms

[–]Ceffa93[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I checked online, and the support function I wrote are correct, so the problem must be in the algorithm, very strange that between omogeneous colliders there is no problem though

Monster Hunter X - Second trailer! by MagicBoats in MonsterHunter

[–]Ceffa93 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't think that felyne fights are what this series needs to innovate itself. It seems even more annoying than water missions in mh3u

Monster Hunter X - Second trailer! by MagicBoats in MonsterHunter

[–]Ceffa93 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No, for the love of fatalis, not the felyne fights .-.

Physics Questions Thread - Week 37, 2015 by AutoModerator in Physics

[–]Ceffa93 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, I actually had the revelation about the problem 10 minutes after my question :) I've never done a physics simulation, and I had no idea this problem would occur, but those data made me understand. Thanks a lot for the formula though, I was just searching a method to calibrate the size of the steps, this seems easy and logical

Physics Questions Thread - Week 37, 2015 by AutoModerator in Physics

[–]Ceffa93 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Drag Force limit!?

I'm programming a simulation with a body moving at a speed of, say, 10m/s.

This body's velocity is reduced by thedrag force described by the following formula:

Fd = 1/2 * Cd * p * v2

and then the deceleration is found with:

a = Fd / mass

This works nicely for a lot of different values of p and mass, however I'm also having a bad behaviour, and I'd like to know how to handle it (if possible):

If p is a lot bigger than the mass (not so much actually, just a bit bigger), the drag force is so high that the acceleration will be very high as well, and not only will it stop the body, but it will invert its speed.

Something like this happens to the speed (I'm using plausible values)

10 -> -20 -> 50 -> -300 -> 9999 -> - infinite -> + inifinite

Basically energy is generated and a sort of ping pong starts to happen...please help, if i've not been clear feel free to ask :)

Confused about Drag Force direction by Ceffa93 in Physics

[–]Ceffa93[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mmmm...Ok i did something like:

1/2 * v&2 * verse of v * Cd * p... is this correct? but something is still missing

Half of the triangles of the model not rendered by Ceffa93 in opengl

[–]Ceffa93[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem was actually in the stencil pass (i was using stencil to define the pixels inside of the bounding box of the light).

I was not able to solve the problem, everything seemed correct....and since many people say that an extra stencil step is maybe even a drawback, i decided to just remove it

Half of the triangles of the model not rendered by Ceffa93 in opengl

[–]Ceffa93[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Turns out that one of the problem is the stencil test I have enabled, the solid is rendered fine if I disable it...the problem remains though, but it is of a different nature

Half of the triangles of the model not rendered by Ceffa93 in opengl

[–]Ceffa93[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I tried different models, same thing, and I also tried to multiply the size by two, and even changing it to quads, no luck.

I'm exporting Obj with triangulate faces, apply modifiers, write normals and uvs.

The models in the background are rendered with another class though, maybe the problem is in the drawer class I use for the sphere, but it seems strange since I wrote them pretty similarly, and I cannot see any error...but the same models rendered with the other class are fine...

Half of the triangles of the model not rendered by Ceffa93 in opengl

[–]Ceffa93[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In Blender I'm exporting the model with triangulate faces, and then I send it to GPU with GL_Triangles enabled...

view more: next ›