Mortal Monkey on 10/12/2005 at 20:24
Well I'm no expert on compiling stuff, but this time my g++ compiler only gives me one type of error: "ISO C++ forbids cast to non-reference type used as lvalue". Occurs on lines 116-118, 150, 315, 319, 322, 325, 328, 329, 335, 338, 347, 352 and 353 in main.cpp (v 0.0.1). Any ideas?
ascottk on 10/12/2005 at 20:29
Quote Posted by Volca
I've got a question: I know there is a converter for in-game objects, so the structure of those must be known. Does someone have a clue where to get this info?
Shadowspawn might know better than anyone else:
(
http://www.angelfire.com/games4/shadowspawn/)
He's been slaving away with t3 object conversions lately but there's several tools for t1&2 mesh/AI conversions.
Volca on 11/12/2005 at 11:33
Thanks!
I'm on the track of the error, and will make a fix in the next version. It is caused by the construction (char *)ptr += in MAP macro, which your compiler doesn't like. Sorry for the messy code, this was written only as a proof-of-concept. I will rewrite the whole thing from the ground when the time comes. You can try switching to non ISO C++ compiling (which seems to be the default for me, as I don't get any errors - gcc 3.3.6 on Gentoo Linux).
It seems Irrlicht knows to make dynamic shadows and enviromental maps, as well as render-to-texture, so water could be made reflective, and lights could cast shadows. Do not know for sure if Irrlicht will be used as a target engine, maybe I will try to use ogre, as it is more komplex and robust.
sparhawk on 11/12/2005 at 12:22
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
Am I going to have to beat you with the cluestick too, and point out that on a single-core system, NOTHING is happening simultaneously? Multithreading is just a convenience provided by the operating system.
Yeah. I know it's hard to back down now, after being proven wrong. :) Multithreading is NOT just a convenience by the operating system. In fact if you plug in a second CPU, a multithreaded application would be able take advantage of the second CPU without any changes to the binary or any other part of the code. If that application is NOT multithreaded it would NOT take advatnage of it. It's as easy as that. Therefore this can be seen indeed as a seperate system in one case but not in the other case. You limiting the discussion to single core systems while still talking about simultanesouly is an arbitrary distinction to avoid that you have to admit your error. :)
Quote:
Please point me to a definitive source which says the word "system" must only refer to a threaded module. I very much doubt you'll be able to find one. In
ENGLISH, "system" is normally used to refer to any chunk of code dedicated to a specific purpose. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with threading.
I have many years of experience in programin on all kind of levels in a computer system. From lowest hardware level to abstract high level programming. I also have talked to a LOT of people in all this time, ranging from noobs to computer science people working also for a long time in the field, but I don't recall anybody using that term in the sense that you do. So sorry for not taking you seriously on that one, but I guess I can trust my experience more then yours. You can make up all kind of terms to sidestep that you don't know that much about computer programming, but that doesn't change the facts. If you call a table a stool just because you also can sit on it, doesn't make it a stool.
sparhawk on 11/12/2005 at 12:23
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Sparhawk, I know there is a language barrier, but you really are being a great big pedantic cock.
I guess ZB doesn't need a bootlicker to to talk for him.
ZylonBane on 11/12/2005 at 13:38
Quote Posted by sparhawk
Multithreading is NOT just a convenience by the operating system. In fact if you plug in a second CPU, a multithreaded application would be able take advantage of the second CPU without any changes to the binary or any other part of the code.
It's almost funny, isn't it folks? He says one thing, then proves himself wrong in the very next sentence.
hopper on 11/12/2005 at 13:45
For fuck's sake, knock it off. If only because Christmas is around the corner.
UndeadGunslingr on 11/12/2005 at 14:13
Pipe down, you. Some of us find this interesting.
hopper on 11/12/2005 at 14:44
The interesting posts in this thread have all been made by other people than ZB. If ZB had cared to explain why he thinks sparhawk is wrong (referring to his last post here), it might have been interesting, too. As it stands, it's just a deliberately provocative cheap shot. But of course, this is ZB's usual habit of contributing to "interesting" discussions.
