mattstyles

Maybe holding down to go up, rather than furious clicking? Dunno. I realised I didn't leave much positive comment, shame on me as I enjoyed playing it and it was very slick. Loved the art style and I liked the pacing as the game got going.

@grelf I like that diagram, used a very similar one several times in presentations, mostly pinched from Andre Staltz https://cycle.js.org/dialogue.html Great way to illustrate HCI and functional purity by generalising both parts of the system (Computer/Program and Human) as I/O devices.

Nice game, well done @ebuzzgames If I had any criticism it would be that the ship isn't particularly responsive, it feels more like a bubble stuck in treacle than a fast responsive fighter ship.

Krunker.io uses ThreeJS, Three is a rendering library, I'm not sure if someone has used to it to build an FPS framework on-top (similar to how Phaser 2 consumes Pixi as a rendering layer but adds lots of other stuff on top)

Terrific game, I found it mega hard! My high score was 2 for a while, but I quite liked that difficulty, without it I think things would be stale and you kind of get into a groove after a while, where I amassed a mighty 11 (!). I spent $500 for a heart upgrade, but didn't realise it only counts for the next run. Not sure if that is a good thing or not but my expectation (from other games) is that an upgrade is usually forever in these sorts of games. Not necessarily saying it _should_ be a forever upgrade, just that it was unexpected. I'm also not sure how you might solve that without more obvious text, which would kind-of break the immersion you've built up, which I really like in games. Of course, it may very well just be me and no-one else is so easily confused!

This is where benches are really tricky to get correct. For complex graphics I get Phaser 3 nearly twice as fast as Pixi (and Phaser 2 couldn't handle 10k at all). Pixi 5 was also way way slower than Pixi dev.

I'd take benches with a pinch of salt, I tried this on my newer Macbook and got generally worse FPS than the ones mentioned on the page. For me, both box and p2 had similar fps, 40-50 (box slightly higher), planck was 10-20, matter reported 30-60 (yes, a wide range) but looked about the same as planck, both box and p2 looked super smooth. p2 was the only one that regularly 'glitched' 1-2 boxes into the circles. Perf is only part of the overall pie though, and probably not a huge percentage of it. For anyone starting a new project and needing some physics chops, take a look at the api, sample code, community and run a few of your own tests (as close as possible to what you're building) before jumping to conclusions.

The absolute easiest is ensuring that your objects never move fast enough to pass through other objects in one update/tick, either by reducing possible speed or increasing size. The alternate is to perform more in-depth collision detection. One way is that you test for an intersection of two lines, try searching for various algorithms that would let you do that (easiest with two lines, but possible to test intersections between a line of arbitrary length and different primitive—or complex—shapes). One line depicts the movement in the next tick, the other lines relate to the size and shape of the objects you want to test against. This obviously isn't AABB testing.

Reddit is pretty popular for finding communities and audiences r/roguelikedev for example

Nice really smooth presentation, great job. I didn't play long enough to experience any perf issues. Personally, I hated the control style 😂I seem to be the only one! I found it really weird that mouse controls look/aim but WASD is look independent. Maybe one for an eventual settings screen to support W meaning 'always move in direction of facing', S, backward, A/D strafe. It's definitely connected to the mouse look thing (even though its top-down and not 1st person) for me, other games like this without mouse look and I don't have any odd feeling with WADS meaning North/South/West/East rather than Forward/Back/Left/Right. Something else, and this would depend on your target market most I guess, I didn't like the tutorial style, I think you could have expressed the core concept with the exact same level-style reveal, but just progress a story, rather than a series of instructionals. It's like you're saying too much. The brambles, for example, they look spiky, people will probably guess they shouldn't touch them, but, let the player explore, let the player touch them, but give them a way to recover health afterwards, in subsequent levels you expect the player to have learnt and don't give them the health recovery to increase challenge later. Reward them for exploring rather than missing this opportunity and just telling them 'dont touch this'. Nintendo are masters of this and they've made some pretty good games in their time.

We don't differentiate by game type, although there is a Coding and Game Design sub-forum that also has subs for 2d, 3d and audio specific questions. Most games have very similar questions, so the Coding & Game Design forum would be a good place for any design/implementation questions when you aren't using one of the specific framework forums (like Phaser, Babylon etc). I've made quiz-style things a couple of times, I'm sure a few others here will have also, its very similar to conversation-trees in, for example, an RPG game.

Pixi is open source, if you see a better way to enable what you need, I'm sure they would love a pull request!

I used to be in this camp, now I am not. People tend to learn differently, the only universal being that we all (yes, all of us) learn better by doing than by any other means. Using a framework can actually make the 'do' easier i.e. by starting with a framework you might find you actually build something that is playable or has greater output, which will encourage you. I think it depends how much you value output vs theory. You'll need both eventually, but most people tend to swing one way or another at least a little. Do what makes sense to you. The important thing is the 'doing', which is what you're doing. Personally, I like to reinvent the wheel, at least at first, then use what is out there. So, for example, that could be creating a rendering loop using raw canvas methods, then, once that is learnt, use something like Pixi to handle that part. This sounds like maybe it could be you also. Just don't be afraid to jump around, so long as you're coding, doing stuff and making stuff, your learning will soar and soar. Once you have the basics, you'll probably find that looking at the code of others is a great way to learn (before you have the basics it is bewildering, sometimes even when your knowledge is high it is bewildering!). Many frameworks (like Babylon or Phaser) are open-source. Poke through their code (even if you're not using them) and you'll likely learn a great deal that way as well.

No, this defines a key aspect of TCP. UDP doesn't have this restriction, and thus can not ensure message order either, but you can't use it on the web.

Ha ha, that is awesome @Slicks, great work on finding and fixing so quick. 10/10 will race again! (just as well you found it, I couldn't remember at all what I put in as a name!)