------------------
HoMaH :P

I played with it as a test, but don't know enough to help. Sorry.

Tim

------------------
Called by God. The passioned plea of a father. The journey awaits at Jarod Journey's.

------------------
HoMaH :P

------------------
...

[This message has been edited by SaintA2J (edited April 17, 2007).]

------------------
Victory Infinitum

This game at http://www.maximum-football.com/ was written fully in vb6
heres a screenshot http://www.geocities.com/homer____simpson/mf.jpg
and http://www.geocities.com/homer____simpson/ss.jpg. My demo so far is
http://www.geocities.com/homer____simpson/objects.jpg with underwater fog and lens flare......vb is more then capable and will cut your dev time by over 70%. i have played bsp demo's written in vb at 250 fps on my p4 1.6ghz with a 64mg geforce 2...i dont see why people hate vb so much its easier then you think and quicker to write commercial titles then c++...
if anyone wants to try my game (not much yet) to see how vb goes then post and i will upload it.

homer

------------------
HoMaH :P

------------------
...

[This message has been edited by SaintA2J (edited April 17, 2007).]

yeah i made a 3dworld using the truevision3d engine with skybox, lens flare, underwater fog and some collision detection in about 1 1/2 hours it also supports bsp maps n things....and for the harder stuff vb does support writing c c++ and asm via ms referances in the vb compiler....
vb isnt "basic" anymore you can do almost anything c++ can in less time :P

HoMeR

------------------
HoMaH :P

------------------
...

[This message has been edited by SaintA2J (edited April 17, 2007).]

Also there are aspects to VB that make it faster to develop with less bugs - i find C++ to be a little burdomsome in the dev speed department.. if i choose a language for games it would be delphi - compiler optimization greater than msvc++ with much better object oriantation and stability.... however C++ is the industry standard and especially if you are goin to port the game, yet most games we make are not to be ported...
so fair enoough you can do games in VB..

however VB doesn't scale very well, its lack of solid object oriantation is a bane to a good programmer, and vb gets really messy in large projects... not to mention slow in that, plus the vb com interfaces for directx are noticibly slower.. but then again directx isn't the most optomised system.... its software renderers are soooo slow.. i can program a software renderer in assembler that runs faster on a 486 than the software renderer of directx does on a p3-800.. plus vb will be realyl slow if you plan to do any pixel by pixel sort of effects in software... today however, most of the games we are likely to make require less than the defacto hardware out there, and allows for sloppy coding, and or inefficent programmign platforms, and that is fine.. but nevertheless an issue..

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

quote:

---

vb isnt "basic" anymore you can do almost anything c++ can in less time :P

---

With all due respect - that is simply garbage.

------------------
HoMaH :P

------------------
HoMaH :P

...

[This message has been edited by SaintA2J (edited April 17, 2007).]

vb in that case doesn't need to be optomised... you are just sending an occassional com call to the 3d engine to tell it what to do in its optomised playground.. probably more than 99% of processor time is spend inside the 3d engine, directx, graphic card drivers etc

i could probably (if with a com intefeface) write the program you write with this engine just as quick and efficently in javascript, or java with com interface...

for quick programs, writing in vb is going to be quicker than C++, and C++ has many areas which tend to meaning more time debugging raather than developing, but for the seasoned C++ program, who doesn't hack out his program, but designs it first and refines the design along the way... its going to go the distance.. while your vb program is going to become spaghetti once you get past, lets say the 50,000 line mark... (also a badly designed c++ program will be more of a nightmare at that place.. but you see VB isn't properly object orientated for a start... plus lets say in this game of yours.. you have a software effect.. on a 512x512 texture... where each frame you are calculating this texsture and uploading it to the 3d card.. and the maths for cdalculating this texture are quick complicated, require memory pointers and all sorts.. vb will create a slow dog.. your 140fps may go down to 5fps...

i remember the days when i'd write 100,000 line programs in asssembler..

Real Programmers use "Copy Con game.exe" -Try it someday.. it can be a cool party trick... make a 50 or so byte com file with a simple effect, memorize those 50 bytes and it makes a good party trick..

Karl

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

quote:

---

no meanmaninoz thats "Your Opinion" You Old C++ Coders Only Bash Vb Because You Know I Can Do exactly What You can Do in 1/4 the Time With Vb And Its Not "Basic" Anymore Its "Built On Basic" Why Dont You Get A Copy Of Vb And See What Its Like Then Form An Opinion......X(

---

While trying to avoid a flame war, here are the facts.

1. I work with both VB and c++ every day.

2. VB is a joke. It would be utterly worthless if it wasn't such an easy way to provide a GUI for COM components ( written in C++ ).

3. VB is cumbersome. No templates, no decent container classes, you name it. The more I use it, the more I hate it. It's perfect for people who are too stupid to program in C++, but it's no faster than C++ to develop and the end code runs slower.

There are about 100 VB coders for each C++ coder in the Windows world ( so I am told ). The ratio of code run on peoples machines, even excluding the OS, is more like 1,000 to 1 in favour of C++. That's partially because most VB programmers are inexperienced and incapable of writing code anyone would want to run, and partially because C++ provides a better environment to write code that is of use to people.

Also if its working for you... then that is great, we don't want to force you to waste your time debugging in C++ when you could have acheived what you wanted to in VB, or javascript or even batch files, vbscript.... hmm i can call com objects from MS-SQL , so maybe i could use that 3d engine from my database stored procedure? not worth the effort for me, though a fun playaround idea.

anyway welcome here, and have fun with VB, sorry that there asren't too many of us here who will be able to help out in your department..

GOd Bless

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

I think MeanMan hit the nail on the head. VB makes it so easy to put something together that most VB "programmers" really aren't, but they put something together and it won't run very well. Having said that, the same could really be said of just about any language, including C++ -- and there are a lot more pitfalls in C++ because you have to properly allocate and free up memory etc... If you write c++ and don't know it well enough to stop memory leaks (for example), well, then you shouldn't be writing c++. There are magazine ads for PC Lint that show lots and lots of what seem to be valid c or c++ code, and even compiles, but causes problems that are not caught, and those are the kind that crash the computer, are vunerable to buffer overflows, memory leaks, etc. C++ gives you more power, but with that comes more responsibility and more room for error if you don't know what you're doing.

The initial question was about making games in vb. VB is extremely valid for a lot of things, and you'd be surprised what a good vb coder can do. 3D in vb? It's going to be slower than c++... but, maybe you don't need 12 kajillion polys on the screen at once... depends on what you're doing and how good your modeller is...

True, if you're doing directx, vb can be significantly slower, because while you're using the same compiled dll's, if you're doing math on the objects, it's a lot slower. For other game choices besides 3d, vb is an extremely valid alternative. What if you're making a platform game? Or a puzzle game? Or an iso that doesn't require a super high framerate? Then vb is probably a good option.

Saying that vb is garbage, you do realize that as of vb6, it compiles into native code, right? Just like c++... Yes, it uses a library of functions and that adds some overhead... well, so does mfc. Heck, technically the win32 api is a set of functions, so you've still got some overhead even if you're writing straight c windows code... if you want to be really optimized, as klumsy said, go for the assembler (and there's actually some very cool windows asm stuff out there besides just the wacky demo scene stuff )

I've done procedural textures and pixel by pixel ops in vb. It was significantly easier to develop, test, change, modify and tweak than it would've been in vc++. When I got what I wanted, then I ported that code to vc++ and then the 3d studio max sdk texture plugin. It worked like a charm. VB was never meant to make quake 4 -- it was meant for rapid app development. And it does that well. And it can do quite a bit more in the right hands.

Several people brought up good points... vb is microsoft and windows only... I write games in Macromedia Director... it works on Mac/Windows and the language is as easy to learn as VB is and it's OO for all the OO fans in the crowd Some other people would rather choose c++ and SDL and make their game run on linux/windows/mac/beos/etc... it's all a matter of preference.

These are hardly facts. They're quite rather opinions:
"VB is a joke"
"VB is cumbersome"
"C++ provides a better environment to write code that is of use to people"

Know the best part of vb is? If there's a slow part (like math functions -- procedural noise is a drain) you can write a dll to speed it up. That's the only time (doing procedural textures) that speed has *ever* been an issue for me with vb. Bear in mind, I never jumped on the directx/vb bandwagon -- I prefer C++ and OpenGL, so I can't really comment on that. I think it's a lot of fun to optimize the code as is, anyway... there's a lot more that you can do than most people realize... running the program and saying "it's slow, next language" is hardly a reflection on the program... it's more a reflection on the programmer, in some cases.

Saying that it gets clumsy with big projects and that templates and container classes are a necessity all reflect opinion and experience. Again, hardly facts.

I don't think most people who slam vb are nearly experienced enough with it to make that judgement... someone who is a die hard c++ fan and doesn't know anything else is hardly going to spend the time to learn vb and do it properly and be able to give a good/unbiased opinion... they would seem more like the rest of the bad vb programmers they complain about I've "used" perl in the past, and I don't like it, but that doesn't invalidate it. It just means *I* use something else for my web projects.

You can't use a jackhammer for every project. Use the right tool for the job, whether it's vb, php, c++, java, director or whatever. If you can get the job done in c++, great! If I can get it done in director, great! It kills me when people spend 6 hours writing something in c that could be done in php in 20 minutes (or whatever).

Having said all that, I'll try to respond to the original post and say "no, I currently don't program games in vb" -- I do work with vb, but my current games are written in Director (which has some very slick hardware accelerated 3D, I might mention)

-Ascent

[This message has been edited by ascent (edited August 18, 2002).]

But seriously, use whatever you know, but also learn new things. And then find out what works best for you. Just don't use Java.

------------------
...

[This message has been edited by SaintA2J (edited April 17, 2007).]

quote:

---

But seriously, use whatever you know, but also learn new things. And then find out what works best for you. Just don't use Java.

---

HEY!

Java has benefits also. First, I should mention it's much faster since the first version.

Second, I can make a portable program much faster than in C++. Portability and OO design are the main focuses of Java.

Many colleges use Java for teaching.

Did I mention I don't have to worry about memory leaks?

Oh yeah, I don't have to pay as much money as I do to buy Microsoft Visual Studio or .NET, or whatever they're using these days.

Java has a purpose. I find it a good language. It works for me. The benefits outweigh the disadvantages as far as I'm concerned.

You're kidding, right?

i started this topic just to see if anyone coded games in vb that i could talk to..not have all this crap....i give up im going to go learn c++ or asm something....and meanmaninoz about your comment "It's perfect for people who are too stupid to program in c++"....i have only been programming for about 6 months the first thing i did was html....then taught myself a little vb with all due "respect" you have no F******** idea

bye

------------------
HoMaH :P

homer: Sorry about all the unrelated comments. To answer the question though, no I don't program in VB. Oh, and don't let MeanMan get to you. He's like that to everybody apparently.

------------------
...

[This message has been edited by SaintA2J (edited April 17, 2007).]

------------------
HoMaH :P

And you don't have to know normal C to program in C++. I didn't. But it can be advantageous to know both. They're both really about the same anyways except for a few things (like "object-oriented programming"). And yes, you can write C in your Visual C++ compiler. In fact you can mix the two in your programs.

Visual C++ can be hard to get used to at first because it's got so many options, and most likely you'll end up only using two of them. If you want a really good set of tutorials on both C and C++, as well as on how to use Visual C++ (and some excellent tutorials on OpenGL, and hopefully DirectX soon), then check out GameTutorials.com. I use their tutorials all the time.

As for Delphi...couldn't tell ya. I've never actually used it, so I'm not sure how you would go about doing 3d with it (not sure if OpenGL or Direct3d would even work with it). However, if you're just trying to make your first 3d game, you might be better off sticking with the engine that you were using just to get a feel for working in 3d without all the C++ mumbo-jumbo. But I would definitely recommend learning C++, if nothing else other than to broaden your horizons.

------------------
...

[This message has been edited by SaintA2J (edited April 17, 2007).]

Assembly is one of my loves , but i wouldn't recommend it for ya.. learn C++ etc, otherwise you might take many years to finish your first game.. actually with modern processors the need for assembler isn't so often, computers are fast, and what is the point of making an optomised Assembler code that is calling some slowdog microsoft windows Api... assembler these days is useful to optomise certian routines, not ussually to write complete programs in windows.. so go the C++ route (or delphi )..
as far as c++, most C++ programmers program more C than C++, they just call it C++ because their compiler is called C++, C++ doesn't enforce you to program with good programming practices, but its a good langauge ,and i love it also, but yes c++ compiler will compile C as well... normally when you learn C++ you'll learn C first anyway, C++ are more extentions, and a different way of dealing with things... thing of it as Object Orientated (to a point) C, while delphi is Object Orientated Pascal..

Sorry that we got to you and caused all sorts of bad emotions and judgements.. You are welcome here.. I know that us programmers treat our languages like doctrines...

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

------------------
HoMaH :P

------------------

Truevision3d @ http://truevision3dsdk.com was written in vb and supports vb & delphi

HoMeR

------------------
HoMaH :P

quote:

---

well what do you think is easiest to learn saint asm or c++?

---

C++. There is no reason to learn assembler in this day and age. It's kind of kewl to know, tho.

quote:

---

i have been looking for c++ tutorials online but they all expect you to know normal C.....

---

Any tutorial that assumes you know C is unlikely to teach good C++, and much more likely to teach a bad hybrid of the two. Buy the 'teach yourself C++ in 24 hours' book from SAMS. It's not perfect, but it's a good start. You can learn proper C++ strings and containers later.

quote:

---

can i write C in my visual c++ compiler?....

---

Yes, but why would you want to ? The lack of OO makes C very ugly and cumbersome.

quote:

---

i have vb vfp delphi 6 and vc++ i find vc++ hard because it makes like 30 files even before i put any code in...and im not sure where to put it...

---

You've been creating Windows projects with the wizard, haven't you ? :P You should create console programs while you're learning C++ and move to Windows dialog or doc/view projects when you know what a class is, what methods are, how to declare them, how to use the std library a little, etc.

quote:

---

do you think deplhi is any good to do 3d? im not trying to make the best 3d game out there im just trying to make my first 3d game

---

C++ is simply the best option if you ever want to write a decent game. If you just want to get something up and running for your own amusement, I'd probably look at Blitz, but don't expect to ever write a game that you could sell with it.

asm is almost never used, unless you're designing your own operating system or working with some really weird hardware. This is as close to the machine as you can get.

VB is good for rapid development, I've used it once. Can't say much more; my experience is limited.

I would suggest learning C++.

Actually, I suggest learning several languages. You never know what you'll end up working with.

For the record, I have written a Christian sci-fi game entirely in Visual Basic. It is called The Key, and you can find it at:

http://www.godcentric.com/thekey/gamelist.htm

The game is not a fluid 3d game; instead, it uses a Myst-type slideshow. I realize it is old-fashioned, but the fact is I happen to like the slideshow and realtime 3d gets on my nerves -- and that brings me to my point.

We are talking about game design, correct? I believe that the industry's current thoughts on game design are totally out of whack, because instead of focusing on the *game*, they are focusing on the *technology*. All sorts of advancements are being made in frame rates and realtime 3d and all sorts of other things, and barely a thought is given to the game itself. As a result, we have lots and lots of games that look beautiful but which are pretty lame.

My favorite computer games have always been text-adventures (or "interactive fiction", as they are now called). Text-adventures are very primitive as far as technology goes, but many of them are highly creative works of art. Text-adventures force you to use your imagination, and in doing that they can draw you into the game in a way that realtime 3d can't. Text-adventures are like interactive books, while realtime 3d games are like movies: they both have their place, but most people usually admit that the book is better.

I believe that what matters is not the technology or the frame rate or the resolution or the programming language but the *game itself*. Does the game have a really good plot? Does the game draw people in? Does the game have something worthwhile to say? Does the game give glory to God? Does the game have replay value? Does the game avoid cliches? Is the game creative? Is it moral? Is it worth playing? The answers to these questions are completely independent of the technology used in making the game. I have seen outstanding games that consisted only of black and white text on a screen, and I have seen terrible games that had more technology in them than you could shake a stick at. It's not the technology that matters; it can help, but it's not what breaks the deal. (If technology was all that counted, then surely books and radio would have vanished when TV and movies came along.)

If the plot is outstanding and the game idea is executed well, I don't think it matters much at all how you implement it. An outstanding game that uses all the latest 3d engines and programming techniques is still an outstanding game if it 'only' incorporated a Myst III type interface or a Riven type interface. I know that C++ can offer cool things to the game designer that VB can't, but I don't think that matters too much: in my opinion, if those cool things that C++ offers are all that games the game worthwhile, then the game is a failure.

If you know VB and want to program games in it, by all means go right ahead. I have found that technicial limitations often force people to be more creative, and the results can be very cool. It may not be the latest thing, but why do you want people to play your game: because it looks cool or because the game idea/plot itself is worthwhile? Do you want people playing for your engine or your idea?

I have just started learning how to write games, and I don't claim to be very good at it yet -- but I know where I want to go and I'm working on getting there. I do, though, program games in Visual Basic, and I have every intention of continuing!

sincerely,
Jonathan K. Cooper

------------------
God bless and keep you!
-Ginger

game concept looks good sofar i have at least 2 other vb.net programmers
a new physics engine and a realy cool graphic artist....i will post the design docs on my site soon and give you all the link

HoMeR

http://www.fizyx.net

------------------
HoMaH :P