|
|
|
shroom_monk
|
Happy Birthday, Jayenkai23rd February 2018 Happy Birthday Jay! |
|
|
|
|
shroom_monk
|
Lurking? Say Hello!19th February 2018 [me]lurks lurkfully in the shadows[/me] |
|
|
|
|
shroom_monk
|
Merry Christmas!25th December 2017 Merry Christmas to you all! :) |
|
|
|
|
shroom_monk
|
Command Prompt Here18th November 2017 Furthermore, the shortcut Alt+D will focus the address bar, so you can open the command prompt from Explorer without ever needing to touch the mouse! ;) |
|
|
|
|
shroom_monk
|
Shader woes13th August 2017 If most of the components of the calculation are identities (i.e. 0 rotation, scale factor 1, no translation) for the example you're running, there may not be any obvious effect. But in the general case, they are certainly quite different calculations.*snip* |
|
|
|
|
shroom_monk
|
Shader woes13th August 2017 Well, non-zero X axis rotation was just one example of how that equation might not give you the results you're expecting, but unless C# multiplies matrices back to front I suspect the whole equation is a broken. You should rotate and scale before trans*snip* |
|
|
|
|
shroom_monk
|
Shader woes13th August 2017 I don't have much experience with C# or HLSL, but have done some rendering stuff with C++ and GLSL before. I'm a little dubious of the way you're calculating your WorldMatrix, specifically: [code]m_World = Matrix.CreateRotationX(m_RotateX) * M*snip* |
|
|
|
|
shroom_monk
|
Router Rebooter13th June 2017 The original V1 Virgin Superhubs (such as what's in the house I currently live in) have a known issue where they don't have enough memory (or there's a memory leak, or something of that ilk), which causes them to gradually slow down over time. *snip* |
|
|
|
|
shroom_monk
|
Design a Theme!!5th June 2017 Ah, the old ShroomCoder theme. The joys of looking back at things you made in your childhood and thinking 'ow, my eyes, what on earth was I thinking when I designed this?' :P :P Does anyone actually use it? :P |
|
|
|
|
shroom_monk
|
Any Feature Requests?30th May 2017 One way to avoid spam (to some degree, at least) would be to bundle up lots of posts happening around the same time into a single email. So rather than sending an email as soon as a post is made, you could every (for example) 15 minutes check if any new po*snip* |
|
|
|
|
shroom_monk
|
CSS-Me-Do - SoCoder212th May 2017 Could you have your PHP generate the content of the different sections in whatever order is convenient to you, store the results in strings, and then just output them at the end, rather than outputting as you go? |
|
|
|
|
shroom_monk
|
CSS-Me-Do - SoCoder26th May 2017 Hmm, I've had a fiddle with it, and can't seem to make anything work. Yay CSS! :P I did notice, however, that the crux of the problem is that the Main Content block's width is 100% of the page width ([edit]which isn't obvious unless you us*snip* |
|
|
|
|
shroom_monk
|
CSS-Me-Do - SoCoder26th May 2017 I think use of 'float' will solve this, so long as you move the Main Content block to be at the end rather than the beginning. (although you had a preference for putting main first, putting it last is still better than in the middle, right? ;) ) [*snip* |
|
|
|
|
shroom_monk
|
Spinal's Code11th April 2017 :cry: |
|
|
|
|
shroom_monk
|
Spinal's Code11th April 2017 It almost certainly shouldn't, so there's probably something else going on. Do you have some example code? |
|
|
|
|
shroom_monk
|
replace two half bytes with one byte?4th April 2017 Here's a simple C++ example that I think does what you want. [edit](although on subsequent readings, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with the second sentence; I think what I've done covers the first)[/edit] It can be made more con*snip* |
|
|
|
|
shroom_monk
|
RIP : Jay's Dad2nd March 2017 My condolences, Jay. It sounds like his distance from the rest of the family makes it complicated to work out how you 'should' feel, but I don't think anyone here would see it as 'heartless' - as rockford says, it doesn't sound like*snip* |
|
|
|
|
shroom_monk
|
Happy Birthday, Jayenkai23rd February 2017 Happy Birthday, Jay! :) *remembers when he was the youngster of the forum* |
|
|
|
|
shroom_monk
|
Happy New Year! (2016-17)31st December 2016 Happy New Year, one and all! :) |
|
|
|
|
shroom_monk
|
Merry Xmas - 201624th December 2016 Merry Christmas to you all! :D |
|
|
|
|
shroom_monk
|
Spinal's Nunchuck GameBoy5th October 2016 I mean, that will technically make it work. :P Though I'd still be inclined to caution that including those CPP files will come back to bite you again later! ;) (renaming them to .hpp would have solved it without the static) |
|
|
|
|
shroom_monk
|
Spinal's Nunchuck GameBoy3rd October 2016 As a general rule, if you're including files in C / C++, you should only include header (.h, .hpp) files. When you compile your program, the compiler will compile every .c / .cpp file separately, then link them all together to create the final executab*snip* |
|
|
|
|
shroom_monk
|
HoloDeck?15th September 2016 [quote]I really don't know how to convey the concept to you in a way that you can accept.[/quote] Right back atcha. [quote]What I'm saying is that only the screen res times two 64-bit Ints (16 bytes) are needed be streamed per atom in view (on th*snip* |
|
|
|
|
shroom_monk
|
HoloDeck?15th September 2016 [quote=''Andy_A'']What if the 'atoms' contain most of the pixel information needed in the data base/structure, surely you wouldn't want to re-load or re-calc that information. Maybe you could try to envision the majority of the needed r*snip* |
|
|
|
|
shroom_monk
|
HoloDeck?14th September 2016 [quote]He's basing most of his assumptions from existing 3D polygon based rendering[/quote] No, they're based off the minimum data you need for lit 3D rendering in any kind of 3D system (e.g. ray-tracing). You need the position and the colour to d*snip* |
| Newer Posts More - Older Posts |
|
| |||
|
| ||||