Easiest to load with OpenGL blender export format [closed] - file-format

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I'm developing an OpenGL ES 2.0 application with C++.
I want to show my blender's models using OpenGL but I don't know which is the easiest format to load with OpenGL ES 2.0.
I've been trying with Wavefront obj format how to unpacked vertices and how to obtain vertices for glDrawElements' last parameter.
Doy you know an easiest format?
Thanks.

OBJ is a pretty easy format. You can see the spec at http://www.martinreddy.net/gfx/3d/OBJ.spec
You do the loading yourself, of course. You read the .obj file and create the vertices yourself. Faces are like vertex indices.
Be careful, though: OpenGL ES 2.0 cannot render polygons other than triangles, so your obj files must not contain any other polygons or you must convert those yourself.

I just tried a couple of formats.
It looks like the PLY format ( you might have to enable that export format in the user preferences ) exports the model with only one index array. So you don't need multiple index arrays like with the Wavefront OBJ format. Which is very difficult with OpenGL. See rendering-meshes-with-multiple-indices

Related

any tips to make my CMD game look better? [closed]

Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm making a RPG game in batch, and the game looks bad, like the text layouts, does anyone have any design tips so my game looks more aesthetically pleasing?
I gave my students task to create I/O interactive, Terminal Based game, and some of students actually came back with fun results.
Use ASCII art. you can add different characters or scenes using ascii arts. you can find different arts on webpages like here and here. also you can convert your images to ASCII arts, that way you will be able to display any some images on Command Prompt
use ASCII Frames/borders for text and questions displays. you might need to resize frames by adding more characters, so it will fit your text.
use different colors to display different options, or underline good/bad events. I'm not sure about windows CMD but i tried on Unix and it works and looks pretty fun
Use Animations. Animate some lines by deleting line and redrawing/rewriting them. this way you will be able to receive Animation like results. its pretty easy, but you will need to store amount of characters outputted in line, so you will be able to clean exact amount of characters, otherwise you can clean full line
Here is example game that is fully created using ASCII art and it actually is pretty fun.
small examples from one of students i could find:
hope you'll find what you are looking for!

What is better: a single BAO or multiple BAOs [closed]

Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
So I'm currently learning OpenGL, and while working through some of the tutorials, I've noticed that most of them create multiple buffer-array-objects (BAO) for the vertex-positions, normal-vectors and uv-coordinates. But there is also the option to just create a single BAO, where each element includes all the necessary information about a single vector. So what's the "good" or rather "recommended" way of doing things? Create multiple ones or just a single one?
From Buffer Object - OpenGL Wiki (recommended reading):
Buffer Object Usage
Buffer objects are general purpose memory storage blocks allocated by OpenGL. They are intended to be used in a great many ways. To give the implementation great flexibility in exactly what a particular buffer object's data store will be, so as to better optimize performance, the user is required to give usage hints. These provide a general description as to how exactly the user will be using the buffer object.
BO's are shared between the client and the server (in OpenGL terms). How many of them you should use, is entirely up to you. Your instincts seem to be good however. You should never optimize before you just get it working. But after you've had some experience with OpenGL, you'll probably find there are use cases, where a little early optimization can save you a lot of refactoring later on.
I can't help you much with where to draw those lines, but I would say that you should think first, about what and when you intend to render as execution progresses.

Context aware auto-complete [closed]

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
I'm trying to implement an autocomplete algorithm for a programming language. I want it to be context aware, meaning that suggestions must appear relative to the statement the user is currently typing.
What is the best way to go around this? What algorithms should I be looking into?
You do not actually need to parse the language to do this.
Assuming you have a list of valid symbols you need only choose the most likely completions when the user presses the autocomplete key (say, TAB, eg). You can weight the symbols by their frequency in the code. You can also weight by symbol type, giving more weight to variable names than reserved words. For example, if the user types "th[TAB]" and they have a variable named "themes" which appears 50 times, that might be the top completion, with the reserved word "then" perhaps being 2nd.
To generate the frequency weighting you need to count the number of times each symbol appears in the code. This can be done using a standard string search algorithm.
If you do have a parser, you can do more fancy things. For example, if you determine all the methods of a class and the user enters the symbol for an instance of a class followed by a period, you can automatically display a list of the methods, because those are the only valid possibilities.
BTW: To build the symbol list will depend on the language. For example, if it is Java, you can use the built-in introspection methods to identify all the defined symbols.
You need a state machine that recognizes the grammar of your language. Additionally, the state transitions should be weighted according to their probability.
If the state of your engine is at public static, the weight of the state transition class could be higher than that of abstract. This would be necessary to display a practical number of options as suggestions.

Pros/cons of different ways accessing C struct members [closed]

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
Structs interface and Hiding members in a C struct discusses various ways in accessing /modifying members.
What would be pros/cons of using:
Opaque handle to struct and setters/getters
Accessing members directly
foo.value(&foo, value) functions (like C++ class methods)
Separate header files for same struct exposing public members for client and all members internally
In my case, I'm doing OOP in C and all my structs hold a list of properties (id, name, desc, ...). I need to track changes so that changed status could be transmitted over network. The best way, as I see it, would be to transmit the delta (changes between individual members) and not retransmitting the whole struct.
Thank you

How can you be DRY with a programming language that doesn't have Reflection? [closed]

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 12 years ago.
Any programming language that does not have a suitable reflection mechanism I find seriously debilitating for rapidly changing problems.
It seems with certain languages its incredible hard or not possible to do:
Convention over Configuration
Automatic Databinding
AOP / Meta programming
with out reflection.
Some example languages that do not have some sort of programmatic reflection are:
C, C++, Haskell, OCaml. I'm sure there are plenty more.
To show you can example of DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) being violated by most of these languages is when you have to write Unit Tests. You almost always need to register your test cases in these languages outside of where you define the test.
How do programmers of these languages mitigate this problem?
EDIT: Common languages that do have reflection for those that do not know are: C#, Java, Python, Ruby, and my personal favorite F# and Scala.
EDIT: The two common approaches it seems are code instrumentation and code generation. However I have never seen instrumentation for C.
Instead of just voting to close, could some one please comment on why this should be closed and I'll delete the post.
You don't.
But you can keep the repetitions close to each other so when changing something, you see something else has to be changed too.
For example, I wrote a JSON-Parser that outputs objects, a typical call looks like this:
struct SomeStruct
{
int a;
int b;
double c;
typedef int serializable;
template<class SerializerT> void serialize(SerializerT& s)
{
s("a",a)("b",b)("c",c);
}
};
Sure, when you add a field, you have to add another field in the function, but maybe you don't want to serialize that field (something you'd have to handle in languages with reflection, too), and if you delete a field without removing it from the function, the compiler will complain.
I think it's a matter of degree. Reflection is just one very powerful method of avoiding repetition.
Any time you generalize a function from a specific case you are using DRY principle, the more general you make it the more DRY it is. Just because some languages don't get you where you get with reflection doesn't mean there aren't DRY ways of programming with them. They may not be as DRY, but that doesn't mean they don't have their own unique advantages which in total sum may outweigh the advantages of using a language that has reflection. (For example, speed consequences from heavy use of reflection could be a consideration.)
Also, one method of getting something like the DRY benefits of reflection with a language that doesn't support it is by using a good code-generation tool. In that case you modify the code for different cases once, in the code generation template, and the template pushes it out to different instances in code. (I'm not saying whether or not using code generation is a good thing, but with a good "active" generator it is certainly one way of getting something like the DRY benefit of reflection in a language that doesn't have reflection. And the benefits of code generation go beyond this simple benefit. I'm thinking of something like CodeSmith, although there are many others: http://www.codesmithtools.com/ )
Abstractly, do more at runtime, without the benefits of things like compile-time type checking (you have to essentially write your own type-checking routines) and beautiful code. E.g., use a table instead of a class. (But if you did this, why not use a dynamically-typed language instead?) This is often bad. I do not recommend this.
In C++, generic programming techniques allow you to programmatically include members of a class (is that what you want to do?) via inheritance.
One nice example for C++ unit testing is cxxtest:
http://cxxtest.tigris.org/. It uses convention and a python script to generate your C++ test suite by post-processing your C++ with python.
A good way to think about getting around restrictions in languages is Michael Feathers' notion of "seams". A seam is a place where your program can be changed without changing the code. For example, in C the pre-processor and linker provide seams. In C++ polymorphism is another place. In more dynamic languages like where you can change method definitions, or reflect, you get even more flexibility. Without the seams things can be more complicated and sometimes you just don't want to try to hammer a nail with your shoe but rather go with the flow of the tool at hand.

Resources