[IGDA LCPP] Re: The TDD

  • From: Dean Butcher <mathematix@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: igda_lcpp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 16:54:21 +0000

Hi Jim

Spot on with my meaning. I did mean graphics functionality, etc.

The reason why I had proposed breaking it down in such a way is
because we had mentioned manipulating textures and lighting effects,
importing models, and mentioned altering the projectile
characteristics of ballistic weapons, and the physics of things like
how the baby moves when used as a weapon, etc. Also I imagine that we
would want to play with the in-game HUD.

We'll organise it using the third method.

Cheers Jim!

Dean.


On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:44:40 -0000, Jim Verhaeghe <jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dean,
> 
> When you say engine type, do you mean engine functionality (i.e.: graphics
> rendering)?  If so, then I would organize it by your third choice.  We only
> need to mention the source file the function is in for reference purposes.
> If not, then please explain further what you mean by engine type.  To me
> there is only one engine we are working with (the Half Life 2 engine), and
> all references to an engine refer to it.  So, if you want to make a
> reference to a specific part of the engine, then we should talk about it in
> a different manner to avoid confusion (i.e.: graphics rendering functions).
> Does this make sense to you guys?
> 
> Jim Verhaeghe
> Contract Game Developer
> jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: igda_lcpp-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:igda_lcpp-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Dean Butcher
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 11:24 PM
> To: igda_lcpp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [IGDA LCPP] The TDD
> 
> Hi all
> 
> I have some proposals for the organisation of the doc, but would like
> to hear your thoughts. Of course, these document will only include
> such information on the material as would be used for the mod:
> 
> 1. Organisation by engine type, source file then function
> 
> This is more programmer orientated only omitting the details fo
> parameters and function definitions.
> 
> 2. Organisation by source file, then function
> 
> This will involve a library of function name that will be an even
> greater nightmare for the non-programmers to follow. I personally do
> not think that this is a wise option, but could hear your thoughts
> none-the-less.
> 
> 3. By engine type, then function, then source file
> 
> This would allow the non-programmer to go directly to the info that
> they require to see if something is possible, at the expense of making
> our search more laborious.
> 
> Any comments on additions or alterations?
> 
> Cheers
> Dean.
> 
>

Other related posts: