Blade Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Progress continues this month on getting the games loading and drawing functions implemented and hooked up. All the major game objects can now be loaded from a map and drawn and a few more UI element have been implemented, including the sidebar tab which is never used in RA95, but is used to toggle the side bar on and off in C&C DOS, C&C95 and RA DOS. We even implemented loading overlay buildings from the [buildings] section of a map which crashes the original. Also implemented this month is Nyergud's favourite, palette scrolling, so the water effects and glowing ember effects are now drawn as well. Turret positions on Vessels continue to cause some problems, but are being ironed out. The coming month will probably be focused on getting more of the UI hooked up and implemented where there are just black spaces now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen262 Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 A++! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iran Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 Nice. When will unit selection logic be added? Or building logic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiRaLeX Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Respect, bro. But what's the 140724603453440 in that top tab? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plokite_Wolf Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Lookin' awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen262 Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Respect, bro. But what's the 140724603453440 in that top tab? Looks like money money money money money! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiRaLeX Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Looks like money money money money money! Except that it's like 1.4 * 10^14, which doesn't make any sense, whatsoever, as a money value... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyerguds Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Shows what kind of programmer you are. You didn't even convert it to hex. It's exactly 7FFD 0000 0000. I guess it's just a test value for the length, but coincidentally, it's also a value slightly below the maximum value that could be put in a 24-bit 48-bit integer. Not that such a thing is generally used, but still, 7FFD is a good value to put a bunch of zeroes behind to test both Int32 and Int64 maximums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fir3w0rx Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Progress continues... What a mammoth sized task you guys have on your hands. Just one thing to keep in mind when this is complete and you guys start advertising tournaments: make sure to emphasize that it's for REDALERT++ and not Red Alert. Otherwise the RA community will come after you with torches and pitchforks!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Posted June 14, 2016 Author Share Posted June 14, 2016 TBH, it probably won't be us doing the advertising, that will be up to tournament organisers, but its always a good idea to stay clear of and possible trademarks if only to try and avoid the eye of sauron EA. Regarding the large amount of credits in the image, the variable that holds that isn't initialised properly at the moment so it can end up with whatever random values that bit of memory had previously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiRaLeX Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 Shows what kind of programmer you are. You didn't even convert it to hex. It's exactly 7FFD 0000 0000. I guess it's just a test value for the length, but coincidentally, it's also a value slightly below the maximum value that could be put in a 24-bit integer. Not that such a thing is generally used, but still, 7FFD is a good value to put a bunch of zeroes behind to test both Int32 and Int64 maximums Do you ever even read your own posts? I'm not even going to point out how inconceivably stupid this post makes you look like. Congratulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyerguds Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 Incidentally, the value on the second picture is exactly 7FFF 0000 0000 Yes, surely, that's me being stupid, and not you missing basic checking on boundaries just below the point integer-overflow flips values into the negative Though in this case, and given the rarity of 24-bit 48-bit integers, I'm fairly sure they were just looking for a nice round maximum integer value to limit the credits to before they'd start overflowing out of the graphics. And 0x800000000000 is a wonderfully round value for that. 1.4*10^14 indeed. Decimal plebs :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiRaLeX Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 Though in this case, and given the rarity of 24-bit integers, I'm fairly sure they were just looking for a nice round maximum integer value to limit the credits to before they'd start overflowing out of the graphics. And 0x800000000000 is a wonderfully round value for that. A 24-bit signed integer can only hold 8,388,607 and not 140,724,603,453,440 or 140,733,193,388,032. Hence my original comment about the latter values not making any kind of sense as a money value. In other words a 24-bit signed integer can only hold 7FFFFF and not 7FFF00000000, as you claim. BTW, Nyerguds, here's what zzattack says (guy who made the map renderer): [15.06.2016 23:33:14] Frank: wtf kind of programmer doesn't know int32 only covers 4 billion [15.06.2016 23:33:47] Frank: and then goes on to claim a number many times larger than that fits a 24bit [15.06.2016 23:34:20] Frank: meanwhile questioning the ability of another established programmer??!!? [15.06.2016 23:34:39] Frank: please.. Owned. Take that as a lesson learned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyerguds Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 Right, right. So I accidentally took the value between 16 and 32 instead of the one between 32 and 64. Eh. It's pretty clear I meant 48 bit Still better than "1.4*10^14". You never even saw it was a perfectly rounded value :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now