Hmm... ok thanks gandalf, i will try that out... maybe make a newer version. This is the second version i made, the first one was very basic with little graphics etc. I'd just like some feedback for now
Computer Science Canada Kick @$$ Space Shooter |
| Author: | xHoly-Divinity [ Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Kick @$$ Space Shooter |
ALL BUGS FIXED %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% UPDATED V3.0!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% UPDATED V3.0!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Kick @$$ Space Shooter Supports Player vs. CPU and Player vs. Player. In 1P, health boxes fall from the sky which give u health... 'U' boxes fall which give weapons upgrades. In 2P modes, each player starts off with 3 specials, there are boxes which will give u additional specials (max of 3 though). CONTROLS: P1 Move - Arrow Keys Fire - Space bar Special - CTRL (only in 2P mode) P2 Move - num keypad (2/4/6/8) Shoot - Enter Special - '+' |
|
| Author: | [Gandalf] [ Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't have time to test it out, but to fix the speed being different on other computers, use Time.DelaySinceLast() instead of delay(). |
|
| Author: | xHoly-Divinity [ Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hmm... ok thanks gandalf, i will try that out... maybe make a newer version. This is the second version i made, the first one was very basic with little graphics etc. I'd just like some feedback for now |
|
| Author: | Silent Avenger [ Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
That's a pretty fun game you've got there. Now the only thing that I see wrong is that the easy mode is actually fairly hard and the hard mode is nearly impossible but other than that it worked fine. |
|
| Author: | xHoly-Divinity [ Sat Oct 28, 2006 11:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hehe, it's all beatable, jus need to get the hang of it  |
|
| Author: | razrdude [ Sun Oct 29, 2006 9:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
pretty hard, but fun..good game |
|
| Author: | Silent Avenger [ Sun Oct 29, 2006 10:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
You know what would be cool xHoly-Divinity, if you put in different types of ships where each has unique properties. |
|
| Author: | xHoly-Divinity [ Mon Oct 30, 2006 3:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hmmm.... good idea. So make like diff customized ships each with their own weaps. So one might have good defense but bad atk... nice nice. I'll make that in the next version, plus make lvls. This one only has one boss, so i'll make like a few small ships as enemies for the lvls then the boss will be the big guy. Hehe  |
|
| Author: | Mr. Gruntsworthy [ Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
that was actually pretty ok, for something made in turing.... good game, and it wasnt that hard, i beat easy on my 3rd try |
|
| Author: | xHoly-Divinity [ Thu Nov 23, 2006 4:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well, glad you liked it. I will release V3.0 over the weekend, it's much better than V2.0 |
|
| Author: | Mr. Gruntsworthy [ Thu Nov 23, 2006 5:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
i barely know much about programming right now, but im aiming to change that. Ill program until it comes out my ears so that i can make games like that |
|
| Author: | xHoly-Divinity [ Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% UPDATED V3.0!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% UPDATED V3.0!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% V3.0 is now out. In 1p mode there are 3 lvls, 3 bosses, pretty simple... kind of  . In 2p and is 1p, there is now ship selection. Each ship has special attributes (speed/dmg/health). Enjoy! Feedback appreciated |
|
| Author: | Mr. Gruntsworthy [ Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
cool... anyways, what happened to my display pic? it wont load anymore |
|
| Author: | xHoly-Divinity [ Mon Nov 27, 2006 4:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Mr. Gruntsworthy wrote: cool... anyways, what happened to my display pic? it wont load anymore
Dude, that has absolutely nothing to do with turing or applications or anything for that matter. Don't post in other ppls posts if it is something useless and completely irrelevent. P.s. i see ur dp |
|
| Author: | uberwalla [ Mon Nov 27, 2006 7:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
ok overall i think its a great game, and has some good concepts. the way u added ship sollection is nice. there is one completely huge problem with it though. GOD MODE!!! i dont know if it is just my computer, even though i tried on others too but u cannot die. when u get power ups i like how u gain better weapons but when u get hit u lose them til u back to regular weapon. once ur down to regular weapon u can take hits w/o disadvantage. anyways i like the game, good work and keep up the good work |
|
| Author: | xHoly-Divinity [ Mon Nov 27, 2006 8:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
ohhhh, lmao. When I tested my game, I kept dieing, so i put it in 'god mode' and i forgot to take it off, i'll fix it later and add another post |
|
| Author: | Mr. Gruntsworthy [ Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I haven't gotten around to downloading the new version, but let me know when you get the debugged version |
|
| Author: | xHoly-Divinity [ Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
ALL BUGS FIXED.... god mode is fixed, and collisions are a bit more accurate
P.s. thanks for feedback |
|
| Author: | uberwalla [ Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
ok now this is better
w/o god mode it still runs smoothly and looks pretty good. i suggestion to add: even though it would be adding a bunch of code add that u only have a certain amount of ammunition 
and have amunition boxes drop from the sky or just have it reset each round, and as it gets harder give more. and if u dont put ammo boxes just make it so once u got none ur done. 
lol anyways good job i love it  |
|
| Author: | Mr. Gruntsworthy [ Wed Nov 29, 2006 2:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I know that this revelation ive come upon doesnt fit with this topic, but it's related because it made me realize. The reason codes like C++ are good for writing games isn't just because it gets down and dirty with the hardware, but because it's modular and works in functions, with some modules calling on others.... whereas in turing, the code is executed line by line, and only continues on after the previous line has been executed.... |
|
| Author: | uberwalla [ Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
 u got the main point dude |
|
| Author: | Mr. Gruntsworthy [ Wed Nov 29, 2006 7:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
hooray for learning... I think im getting this at a quick pace considering ive only started a few weeks ago |
|
| Author: | rdrake [ Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Mr. Gruntsworthy wrote: whereas in turing, the code is executed line by line, and only continues on after the previous line has been executed.... I'm hard pressed to find a language that does not execute code line-by-line. Turing also includes procedures, which is basically what you are describing. The only languages that don't really flow are ones with the goto statement, which makes me shudder and feel cold inside when I think about it. |
|
| Author: | Mr. Gruntsworthy [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
yeah, but i thought C++ executes in modules, each one running ready to be called on? |
|
| Author: | Raugrist [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
mr. gruntsworthy can u exlpain what that means even ? im not sure i get it still.. |
|
| Author: | Mr. Gruntsworthy [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
erm, lets see if i can supply an explanation... You see, Turing executes line by line, down the program, where as you have modules, or functions as they're called, that as long as they aren't part of another function (ie. the main() function) they execute in parallell with other stand alone functions. or, at least, thats how i think it works.... im still a noob at programming, so... |
|
| Author: | Raugrist [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
not quite in both languages, the code is executed line by line (actaully, in all languages lol) the only way u can make them execute in parallel is if ur using processes or threads. i don think turing supports threads tho, and proceses aren't always a good idea. that's what my teacher tells me ne ways  |
|
| Author: | rdrake [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 1:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Mr. Gruntsworthy wrote: erm, lets see if i can supply an explanation... You see, Turing executes line by line, down the program Correct.Mr. Gruntsworthy wrote: where as you have modules, or functions as they're called Procedures, as I recall. Could be wrong on this one though.Mr. Gruntsworthy wrote: that as long as they aren't part of another function (ie. the main() function) they execute in parallell with other stand alone functions. Wrong. They are called and the calling procedure waits for them to complete before moving on. Though there are various libraries out there that allow for multi-threading which somewhat describes what you are talking about. Pthreads, anyone? |
|
| Author: | xHoly-Divinity [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Then you have something like assembly language.....  I've never seen such a complicated (and yet it is actually the simplist, just confusing to use) language in my life!!! |
|
| Author: | uberwalla [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Raugrist wrote: not quite
in both languages, the code is executed line by line (actaully, in all languages lol) id have to say "not quite" back to you. java goes all at once not line by line. if it went line by line then u wouldnt be able to have procedures at the very end of the program and have them execute at the top. in java they can be anywhere so its not totally line by line, yet at same time it is. its argueable lets leave it at that. |
|
| Author: | Mr. Gruntsworthy [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Okay, i was wrong, much as i suspected... yes, i remember reading somethign in my game design text book about threads. |
|
| Author: | Clayton [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
uberwalla wrote: Raugrist wrote: not quite
in both languages, the code is executed line by line (actaully, in all languages lol) id have to say "not quite" back to you. java goes all at once not line by line. if it went line by line then u wouldnt be able to have procedures at the very end of the program and have them execute at the top. in java they can be anywhere so its not totally line by line, yet at same time it is. its argueable lets leave it at that. sure it is, its just like forwarding a procedure in turing. Just because turing has the limitation of not being able to call a method without said method coming before the other code doesn't mean other languages can overcome that. |
|
| Author: | Raugrist [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
uberwalla wrote: Raugrist wrote: not quite
in both languages, the code is executed line by line (actaully, in all languages lol) id have to say "not quite" back to you. java goes all at once not line by line. if it went line by line then u wouldnt be able to have procedures at the very end of the program and have them execute at the top. um..... what r you basing this on? uberwalla wrote: in java they can be anywhere so its not totally line by line, yet at same time it is.
java is line by line. c++ is line by line. turing is line by line. just because the prog can jump from what the line its executing to another part of the code doesn't mean its happening all at once. ... or did uwant to prove otherwise uberwalla wrote: its argueable lets leave it at that.
yussir good deal   |
|
| Author: | xHoly-Divinity [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It's called 'procedural programming' if I am not mistaken... means that it executes the program 'line by line.' The other type of programming is object oriented... Java has the ability to do both. Personally, I haven't done any object oriented, so I'm not very familiary with it |
|
| Author: | Silent Avenger [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
You should try OOP xHoly-Divinity, it's actually quite easy. In some cases OOP does execute in a procedural manner depending on how you make your program. |
|
| Author: | rdrake [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
xHoly-Divinity wrote: It's called 'procedural programming' if I am not mistaken... means that it executes the program 'line by line.' The other type of programming is object oriented... Java has the ability to do both. Personally, I haven't done any object oriented, so I'm not very familiary with it Ruby is fully object oriented. Does it flow line-by-line? The correct answer is yes.
Even languages with the goto keyword do go line-by-line, they just don't flow very well when that keyword is misused. |
|
| Author: | [Gandalf] [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 7:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
All languages are eventually converted to some kind of machine code, which is linear. |
|
| Author: | uberwalla [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
i believe its binary not machine  |
|
| Author: | [Gandalf] [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
uberwalla wrote: i believe its binary not machine
Machine code is written in binary... Binary is not a programming language by any means, though. |
|
| Author: | uberwalla [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
i know its not but its the correct term for the type of code it reads to run the stuff |
|
| Author: | xHoly-Divinity [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I never understood the difference between OOP and procedural... 
Procedural is strictly line-by-line? and oop u can do both line-by-line and use objects to 'goto'? |
|
| Author: | [Gandalf] [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
uberwalla wrote: i know its not but its the correct term for the type of code it reads to run the stuff
No, the correct term would be machine code. Binary is a number system, machine code is the binary representation of low level instructions. Why don't you stop arguing and spamming and look it up for yourself? xHoly-Divinity wrote: I never understood the difference between OOP and procedural...
Procedural is strictly line-by-line? and oop u can do both line-by-line and use objects to 'goto'? Not exactly... OOP is a huge topic, which wtd gives a general introduction to here. |
|
| Author: | Clayton [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
As well, if you are ambitious and feel up to it, there is a 3 part tutorial on OOP in the Turing Walkthrough written by Cervantes (just to give you an idea on how big the subject is ) |
|
| Author: | Mr. Gruntsworthy [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
i was told that turing is just a teaching language, and that C++ and Java (among others) are a better choice for real life programming. |
|
| Author: | Silent Avenger [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
You are right Mr. Gruntsworthy. Turing is just a teaching language which shows the fundamentals of programming. Of course C++ and Java are better for real life because that is what is primarily used by most actual developers. |
|
| Author: | Mr. Gruntsworthy [ Fri Dec 01, 2006 1:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
C++ is what im learning right now... so i guess ill have a good start on Java as well Though, to tell you the truth, I never did learn much in Turing... i learned a little, but with C++ my learning experience has been infinitely greater. |
|
| Author: | CodeMonkey2000 [ Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
oh that reminds me, does java have graphicss like turing? like can u do sprites and stuff? |
|
| Author: | Silent Avenger [ Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm pretty sure you can use sprites in Java. |
|
| Author: | [Gandalf] [ Sat Dec 02, 2006 12:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Java has built in graphics capabilities, yes. These capabilities are different than Turing's though, and there is no Sprite class though I'm sure you could create one yourself. Also, Java, while syntactically similar to C++ at first glance, is a completely different language once you start doing it. |
|
| Author: | Mr. Gruntsworthy [ Sat Dec 02, 2006 10:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Does C++ have a sprite class? |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Sat Dec 02, 2006 10:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
C++ has no standard graphics libraries whatsoever. There are better places for these questions. |
|