Nameless Voice on 11/12/2016 at 23:01
It's the time since the previous frame, no matter how long that frame took. The variable changes each frame to reflect that.
Pyrian on 11/12/2016 at 23:11
Quote Posted by Renzatic
I think the one hanging point for me is what exactly constitutes the last frame.
Think of it as how much time passed between the beginning of the last call to Update and this one. That's close enough for practical purposes, although they seem to smooth it a bit.
Quote Posted by Renzatic
The way I'm currently envisioning it, it assumes the time of the last frame in a cycle (say, a second)...
No, that would be silly. Keep in mind that modern computers can measure time FAR more precisely than is even relevant for these purposes. There's no need to be as much as a full second out of date.
Quote Posted by Renzatic
...it could still issue changing results over a period of time...
Well, of course. You want changing results; you want them to match the frame length as closely as possible.
Quote Posted by Renzatic
How does that last frame work as a basis for normalization?
Very well in most cases. Of course it's not absolutely perfect, because you have to decide positions
before rendering, which can in turn affect the time to render, plus there's frame buffering and lag and other effects. But any such effects are measured, so the smoothness is never more than a couple frames out of date at worst; if you lost some time in one frame, you'll make it up the next.
Renzatic on 11/12/2016 at 23:21
Okay, I understand it now. Sorry for making you repeat yourself. I somehow missed the last paragraph in your previous post, probably because I was too busy making something seem harder than it otherwise was. :P
Renzatic on 11/12/2016 at 23:38
Quote Posted by Pyrian
Very well in most cases. Of course it's not absolutely perfect, because you have to decide positions
before rendering, which can in turn affect the time to render, plus there's frame buffering and lag and other effects. But any such effects are measured, so the smoothness is never more than a couple frames out of date at worst; if you lost some time in one frame, you'll make it up the next.
I think I need to come to terms with the fact that there are so many adjustments being parsed in a single second, anything gained or lost per frame due to averaging won't be noticeable to the naked eye. I'm trying to justify it in my head on a macro scale, when I should be considering it on the micro, where you'll never consider the dozens of small numbers being normalized into the one big one you end up being aware of onscreen. It's an entirely hands-off affair that deals with such small incremental adjustments, and I only really need to be aware of what it does, rather than having minute detail it how it goes about it at all times.
Dunno why it took me so long to figure this out, but here I am!
Nameless Voice on 11/12/2016 at 23:40
Also, the computer is so precise that even if it ends up slightly off - you'll never notice, because it's a smaller amount of time than you can perceive.
Renzatic on 11/12/2016 at 23:50
And now I can move on with my life. Thanks, everyone! :D
...at least until my next dumb question. Though on the plus side, I haven't run into anything yet that's confused me as much as this.
Renzatic on 12/12/2016 at 00:56
Okay, I do have one more stupid question. I'm not exactly sure when or where the "new" command should be used. I've seen it a couple of times already, and I'm having trouble defining it for myself.
Nameless Voice on 12/12/2016 at 02:00
Do you mean the "new" keyword in C#?
Basically, that means "allocate memory for a new object of this type".
You don't use it for primitive types (integers, floats, etc.), but for objects you need to use new.
Renzatic on 12/12/2016 at 02:18
Okay, so what I'm doing in the line:
Vector3 spawnPosition = new Vector3 (Random.Range (-spawnValues.x, spawnValues.x), spawnValues.y, spawnValues.z);
..is I'm first naming a new Vector3 instance, then defining it as a new instance within the class, complete with parameters and behaviors for it, right?
If that's the case, why wouldn't I tag it as a private instance under the class header? It seems it'd be a bit easier and neater to do it that way.
Yakoob on 12/12/2016 at 04:02
Quote Posted by qolelis
The zoom is a little awkward with the newsbits disappearing upwards "off-screen" when I guess it would be better to zoom in towards the center (vertically) of the visible area or maybe keep the lower edge of a newsbit always fixed to the lower edge of the game area, and perhaps also introduce a limit for how much you can zoom (if applicable).
Good point, added to my todo.
Quote:
Bugs aside, I like the concept and could probably get into it. It sort of reminds me of
We Happy Few (at least the intro), but without the exaggerated art style and the "running around opening and closing doors slapstick", and I like your version better (although I honestly haven't played
We Happy Few, only seen it being played), since it focuses more on the news and how the headlines affect the population than anything else.
Huh interesting. Ive watched the videos too and didn't really strike me as much of a similarity? What reminded you of it?
Quote Posted by henke
Only problem is that the pacing was slightly odd. Felt like everything was building up towards the festival, and when the game continued going beyond that I was like "oh man I thought this was about to end. New Year? How long is it going to go on for?" Almost quit the game right there, but decided to give it one more day to see if it really was going to go on for a long time, and then it ended. Maybe try to wrap up the story on the evening of the festival.
I added the day after to really show the effect of your actions and had a little moment to decompress. Postmortem ends right at the climax so I wanted to try a bit more indirect and way of telling what happens after rather than just showing you newspaper articles.
