Powder Toy in Java Open Source
-
For complicated reasons that have to do with my computer sucking beyond belief,
I cannot install Visual Studio C++ 2010, because that requires XP SP3.
I cannot install XP SP3 because that requires XP SP2 or XP SP1a.
I cannot install either because after doing so I get a BSOD on reboot.
and I don't have XP SP3 anymore because apparently my computer really really needs
the page file on the hard drive (I've got 1gb ram, so I didn't think it'd matter) because I turned it off
and then I got a BSOD on reboot, the exact same one as when I install SP2 or SP1a.
... anyways, I am really quite desperate to make my own mods for TPT.
I've tried Bloodshed DevC++. (yes, that old thing). It complains about 1/2 the source code.
and it also doesn't have about 1/5 the necessary include files even after I added the "source-required.zip" .h files
so now I'm resorting to implementing TPT in java. I'm running into two problems.
The typical need more time to write all the code and such.
And I have NO IDEA how to implement the airflow. I'm not even sure if I'm doing heatflow correctly...
but I figured out an efficient way to render (most) of the particles.
For all elements that have only one color, I just set the color for the Graphics2D object to that color
and then iterating through all those particles and draw those. So it looks like nothing-graphics mode.
fast(er than iterating through all the particles and reloading the paint context each time)
or if it has more than one color then it just calls a custom paint function per particle.
sooo now you can flame me and call me an idiot and tell me to just be satisfied with 'vanilla' TPT. -
jalfor:
...and I thought my computer sucked
Haha...ha
@meep2000
That annoying computer and I hate my computer for having Windows Vista Starter and I can only have 3 programs at once. -
I'm not saying it would gain much of anything. I'm saying it would be useful because
A: I thought of it =D
B: it would cover ALL platforms supporting Java, which is anything better than a TI-86 just about.
C: Anyone can compile it. Not everyone can get MSVC++. I am one of these.
D: Java would make it possible to add new particles in runtime.
D1: Using that would make the speed cost of new particles negligible because polymorphism is already being used.
D2: I still get 25ish fps on a blank screen anyways so speed doesn't matter that much
E: Meep -
@meep2000 (View Post)
Get Code::Blocks, it's a multiplatform, open source C/++ Compiler that comes with gcc and gdb. Very easy to use and get started with. And with C we can already add new particles at runtime, it would merely require some engine changes(replace particle count with an int, use parallel arrays for elements), and the addition of some particle header data into the save format defining the properties. Of course adding dynamic functionality would be a little hard... but some simple functions could be added. -
meep2000:
C: Anyone can compile it. Not everyone can get MSVC++. I am one of these.
D: Java would make it possible to add new particles in runtime.
D1: Using that would make the speed cost of new particles negligible because polymorphism is already being used.
There are many other compilers than MSVC++.
So would practically any other language (even C).
What? Do you even know how it worksah? What speed cost? How would polymorphism solve it?
