Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'theory'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • HTML5 Game Coding
    • News
    • Game Showcase
    • Facebook Instant Games
    • Coding and Game Design
  • Frameworks
    • Phaser 3
    • Phaser 2
    • Pixi.js
    • Babylon.js
    • Panda 2
    • melonJS
    • Haxe JS
    • Kiwi.js
  • General
    • General Talk
  • Business
    • Collaborations (un-paid)
    • Jobs (Hiring and Freelance)
    • Services Offered

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL





Found 2 results

  1. Hey Folks, I have been playing around with phaser for some time making simple stuff. But for my new project I would like to try to make a Fighter game. I would like to make a character that is capable of attacking and has fairly good hit collision with other entities in game. Since this is more of a theory question. I will try to explain my approach. The character is group. Made with 3 parts. Body(sprite), arm(sprite), sword(sprite, for example 20x80, angle: -90). Now I would like to make the sword angle to go down from 90 to 0, aka simulating an attack. I get that I could just change the angle. But I also would like to smoothen the animation with the arm moving and the sword moving( to make it look like slashing ). This is kinda the setup in my mind. Now I would like to know what physic to use( planing to use arcade for simplicity sake ), Should I do this with tween? Or should I update the rotation and play animation? idk. if this is important, but the attack should also be I guess timed, so that you can't just hold the key and keep on slashing, but it deals damage, per attack (animation that would be like 0.3s long) Is there a better solution, approach that I could check out? p.s. I know this might seem like a mess post, i was trying to brainstorm and get some advice/ theory on how to handle such a thing. Would like to think that someone has already made this sort of game. Cheers, Jaru
  2. Pryme8

    That Moment When...

    That moment when... you are working on a clients web application and magically get a Access-Denied warring, so you freak out log into, cpanel to check access rights and realize your client just wrote over the entire database without backing it up... Resulting in time to type an article... Recently I have started to think more about the connection between the perceived physical state of reality and its relation to modern developments in science, math, and technology. Current trends in research have started to allude to some sort of logical structure to everything. The battle between Idealism vs Materialism is quickly coming to an end. Proof of quantum entanglement and the advancements in the Double-Slit experiment have almost blown the doors off of the premise that reality creates the act of observation. In addition to the discovery of logical language structures in DNA and string theory (real citation needed) we have to start taking a closer look at our ability to create "Universes" digitally and how they mirror our own physical one. , I'm not going to get into the whole matrix theory stuff or any of the this proves God discussion. But I would like to touch off on a few points in order to pose an accurately based question. To understand most of this we have to first have a basis in two basic trends in philosophy. Materialism put into simple terms is the physical elements that comprise us and our environment are what gives way to the ability to think, more simply your brain gives you the ability to make thoughts and observe reality. Idealism simplified to the same standards is that our thoughts and the act of observation creates the physical materials out of necessity... basically because we think reality is constructed for us. They are polar opposites, if one is true then the other absolutely can not be. Out of these two, the second of Idealism has started to gain more traction as academia has started to gather more then a justified burden of proof for its validity. If we take a closer look at the implication that observing reality creates reality we can really start to draw some good similarities to a modern method of programing that handles the Procedural Generation of content. When we procedural generate we can use pseudo random methods to create information all at once to a finite amount, or we can set up dictating a set of rules and logic that creates the information we need at a certain "reference point". This process can extend to any number of dimensions, most commonly 2D-3D with an optional reference to time (for most generalized purposes I consider time to be a 4th dimension) . Another similarities to modern programing is the concept of instances. If we look at the basic structure of everything they are indistinguishable of themselves, meaning they are exactly the same; your computer, your car, you, water, rocks, plants, animals, air, energy, EVERYTHING is comprised of the same instances. It is the composition of these instances and how they relate to one another that give everything their individual properties. This gives the old saying "We are one" a new more physical meaning. If there are only so many basic blocks then that means every state of every object in our entire reality is calculable. The structure of which seems to be governed by sets of standard equations like Pi, e, Golden Ratio, other imaginary numbers and constants with a "standard error" deviance. I find it also quite odd that as we look farther and father out from our observation point and disregard scale and do the same looking inwards, we find that the two mirror one another; take a look at this old video from IBM (pretty cool stuff). Anyways you are made up of more empty space then you are solid... and actually you have never really "touched" anything in your life including yourself (but that's a whole other discussion) Given this information it is hard to not start wondering if a system like what we understand as a "computer system" is similarly in charge of our Universe. All that aside how could we use this idea to help better shape our own principles of programing? First thought that came to my mine is replicating an infinite amount of detail in both directions of scale, that are only processed as the "viewer" needs it. A para-type would be when we look at the double slit experiment. There is an set amount of possible locations that a the physical particle can occupy in space and before the act of observation these possible locations manifest themselves in the form of a wave presenting a distortion wave, as opposed to a scatter plot of exact locations. This is a very interesting premise, and I believe can be developed in a simulated environment. What this would achieve though yet eludes me. Given the idea of being able to repeat levels of detail over an infinite range of scale though does get the wheels turning... Lets take for example you have a viewer or a camera, this is your given reference point, from this point we could set a initial scale setting (which from here on out we will call the 4th Dimension) so that our system knows the viewers current observation in 4D since and have an understanding of what sort of content to render. It is from this base setting that you would have a number of rules that extend how every many levels up or down from that initial 4D point. The act of observation through these levels would be limited to a certain number of steps; There is no way we can wrap our minds around the scale of the cosmos or the details of microns but in our point of observation they still are there just not to the level of detail or comprehension that makes them applicable other then aesthetically, yet their residual effects do trickle over at both a macro and micro level. Once these rules are exhausted (you reach your limit up or down) you would simply iterate back over from the opposite side with the scale being directly in relation to the increment of this level. Simply put your smallest iteration gets scaled up to be the next iteration above the largest you have defined or vice versa onward to infinity. The idea of you are just a speck in a giants eye and a giant is just a speck in your eye become true. At this point though the level or Dimension you are in is finite and calculable the extending layers that you could travel through within this 4D structure would go on to infinity. This all might just be some pseudo logic magic bean stalk bs, but I kinda feel the idea has some validity though the application may not fulfill expectations. If set up correctly why could we not spawn entire universes, not even universes but entire dimensions that in essence could be hands off in their evolution. Even a simple model could become something complex and almost intelligent in nature. A good control test for this would be to set up global rules for the system (the physical properties that play effect, gravity mass etc. [if they even do in your system]) the properties of what ever materials are present, the quantities, then your rules for constructing and traversal effects of the 4th Dimension (the scale position) with very limited settings that you could then extend on. So two or three "particle types", one or two physic rules (time, gravity[which then you would need mass and what ever else I have not thought about the trickle down effect of physical rules]), and three scale levels that only extend effect to the ones next to them, set origin point set quantities of your particles (instances of tangible stuff: photons, electrons...) and hit go. I have a sneaking suspicion even a super minimalist model would para-type our known model of our system we occupy known as "Reality". There is so much to discuss on this topic but as it is I need to get back to work repairing the damage my client did to our product. Thanks for your time, and if anyone else has a That Moment When... they would like to share I'm sure others would love it! PS. SORRY FOR ANY TYPOS OR SPELLING THIS WAS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD DURING A BREAK SO YEA... hint hint:@Wingnut