Sharplike 0.2.0 released

[EdR]

Currently, no, there's a single size for glyphs (1x1). Later we could probably change that, but there's been no real need to do so yet. If we were to do it we'd probably create a single LargeEntity that was the parent of four smaller ones (or whatever size you needed), and moved them together. I don't think that would be difficult at all, now that I think about it.

As our code is C#, there is zero chance of using HTML5 or the like (not that I would anyway, I find the HTML5 spec catastrophically broken and nowhere near the Flash or Silverlight killer they say it is). Our code is relatively decoupled, though, and a Silverlight plug-in would be pretty easy to build (although possibly slow; there's no hardware acceleration for Silverlight, though there is for XBAP--which isn't cross-platform). There's nothing really stopping us from making networked games, especially with our message-passing framework. It'd be a pretty easy addition to the messaging system and we've been talking about it a little bit.

[getter77]

Great to hear on glyph possibilities AND fair odds on net-multi possibilities!   

Hmm...what about local co-op/playing nicely with some manner of gamepad things?  One of these days somebody is bound to essentially remake the old Gauntlet games and infuse them with modern Roguelike notions methinks....

Or some other tactical/turnbased style variants...

Hexagonal support?  AstralHexRL has seemingly been dormant for quite awhile now and hadn't made it to release yet...

[EdR]

No multi-input, but that might be a feature request that we could do for 1.2 or something (i.e., after we get everything done _we_ want we can start looking into special requests that break API--if you'd like to see it sometime, post a Feature ticket in our system so we remember it when we get that far!).

Hexes...doubt it. Though I have a number of half-finished hex game engines in my files, I might polish one up and release it sometime.

[getter77]

Yep, all makes sense and good stuff---mainly just thinking off the top to my head to try and anticipate audience-broadening potential endeavors since some folk can be shy about mentioning/requesting such things despite wanting to avail themselves of such.

I would also highly recommend some video tutorials/demonstrations/etc to eventually wander up and stay relatively lively on youtube---the days where youtube was locked into too low a resolution to display lots of stuff correctly seem largely a thing of the past.

Hmm...What about transparencies?  As in, let's say, a more seamless fading in effect when going downstairs more akin to going down a tunnel into a ramp?  It would add a bit of panache versus an instant screen change, and should any realtime Roguelikes manifest they would benefit----as would it allow for freaky things like Spiral Staircases and the like.

[EdR]

Transparencies are fully supporting in basically all areas--I don't think there's anything that is expressly not transparency-capable.

I'm not much of one for video tutorials, but maybe we'll see about them. I'm working on a simple, straightforward text tutorial for creating a game right now.

[getter77]

Great!

Hmm...other crazy things...

What...about....

Background/foreground scrolling/movement?  As in "In PitRL, a Sharplike production, you must descend into the Pit of Woe with only stairwells and scattered ledges at your disposal while fighting the hordes in order to reach the Orb of Toz.  But you must be quick in finding sound paths ever downward due to the stairs crumbling on down"  In a practical sense, you'd, I suppose, be able to vaguely "see" X number of levels down in a faux 3D effect/perspective trick---becoming more in focus as distance is descended and eventually the current level.  Seeing vague "tiny" glyphs of paths and mobile/stationary foes swarming about.  Then perhaps at the end you fly/float back towards the surface with the Item having sealed the pit presuming you can survive the ascent---just because!   

Based on what you say about transparencies, I would think such a feat kinda workable at some point depending on how much flexibility there is in terms of background/foreground.  I would reckon NOT to expect Sharplike to ultimately get into any actual 3D features, even though you mention the prior 3D engine works, versus tricks like above...right?   

[EdR]

As far as 3D goes, I was planning on the DF model of "layered" glyphs that you move up and down, one Z-level at a time. We currently don't (but probably should) have overloads for the various glyph display functions to allow for hinting as far as stuff that's a level "below" (in case a tile on Z-level 1 is transparent, the "far below" display for Z-level 0 should be rendered beneath it). For stuff like LoS, I don't see why it can't be made 3D. We haven't started writing that yet. =)

[getter77]

Excellent.  Definitely seem to be a robust and flexible future ahead for Sharplike----just a question of getting there, fixing whatever comes up, and the whole thing being as intuitive as can be wrangled.

Are there any pie in the sky notions any team members have as to aspects that would depend on OpenTK's ongoing evolution with the, as I understand it in a very limited way, OpenGL/CL/etc continuing to improve?   I saw that OpenCL in particular had a rather meaty looking 1.1 release not that long ago.

[EdR]

OpenCL is a part of OpenTK. As a rule we kind of hate "duct tape" code, that exists just to hook together a library with a new namespace. Like, we don't even have a "configuration loader" class/format...because we have System.Xml and we already pack the Nini INI library with out code. If someone wants to use OpenCL, they can.

That said, we may experiment with it for some stuff--like, have a faster noise implementation that works in OpenCL, and a .NET fallback.

And yeah, I agree, there's a pretty robust future for this code. We're not the best programmers ever to walk the earth, but we're pretty good, and we're focusing a lot on making the hard stuff transparent. I mean, after fixing the last embarrassing and stupid bug, I can write the start of a game--like, get an @ walking around--in maybe 20 minutes.

[getter77]

An @ walking around in about 20 min, in this likely still a good ways from polished and all-the-way implemented state---that's pretty fantastic in boding well for what would hope to be an active userbase come .6.0 or maybe even starting somewhere in .5.x upon that feature freeze taking place that has been mentioned.

The pace seems to be well in hand too in terms of the gap of time from .2.0 unto .4.0----at even a somewhat slowed rate there would be some rather substantial growth and improvement by year's end.

Is the team thinking of taking part in ARRP, even if just for kicks in a happy coincidence of the lot of it?   I would think it would also help with visibility to grow the audience.

http://roguebasin.roguelikedevelopment.org/index.php?title=The_annual_roguelike_release_party

[EdR]

Well, when I say "an @ walking around in 20 minutes," you have to realize I mean the following:

-a full tile system, with the ability to have walkable/nonwalkable tiles
-a paging, caching map of arbitrary size
-3D mapping, so you can make multiple pages and move up and down
-(in 0.6) full integrated pathfinding and line-of-sight
-(in 0.6) fluids - so you can just lay in water, lava, etc.

It's just the absolute basics that you see, but the software already supports pretty much everything that you'd want--it's mostly a matter of content generation (building your maps) instead of screwing around with reinventing the wheel. Which is kind of the point.


I expect us to hit 1.0 before September, so I have no idea.

[getter77]

Right, I just meant in terms of the "plug n' play" factor that a fresh user could spend not a terribly gigantic amount of time with to get things hopping overtly and get some real traction on their then spinning wheels.

Heh, throw 1.1.0 up for ARRP then!   

That example reminds me though:

What about Gasses alongside Fluids?  While somewhat similar, they'd also have some key differences going...

[EdR]

Uh. 1.1? I don't know what the other two guys want to do, but I have no real plans to improve the library beyond 1.0, aside from bugfixes. 1.0 literally means "everything that we wanted is there"; anything past that is very much if-and-when. Sharplike is a project primarily for our own personal enjoyment; whether anyone other than us uses the library is not really a big concern for me personally, and I have a feeling that a lot of stuff will be looked at based on how interesting it may be for us to use.

As far as "ARRP," I don't speak for the other guys but I am much more interested in releasing code and games when they're done, not during a specific month. Sorry.

[getter77]

Ah, I see---aiming for a fully realized 1.0 is an interesting aim indeed versus the common conventions of growth on up the whole number scale.  All the better that you lot are already up to .4 then!   

No worries on ARRP, as it was just something mentioned in case of "happy coincidence" of the calendar.  Surely nothing amiss with putting out your hard wrought efforts upon it all being well contented and dripping with satisfaction as per the team's reckoning.

Good stuff good stuff.