Right, I just sent the invites. Make sure you report your age as over 18. For some reason, Google doesn't let minors enter right now.

Google+ Invites anyone? I have a few invites left over

Yeah I have had that pre-ordered for about a year now.

At 5/31/11 10:22 AM, UnknownFury wrote: Anamanaguchi

I just learned they have a bunch of singles for free download on their site btw. link

At 5/15/11 11:11 AM, Innermike wrote: PS2:
Ratchet & clank 3
GTA: San Andreas
God of War 2

My ps2 list would probably be:
Ratchet & Clank 3
Jak 2 or Jak 3
Kingdom Hearts II

Obligator birth-year post.
Also, I've been playing a lot of Assassins Creed II recently, I think it is damn good honestly.
I've kinda stopped working in flash and have moved mainly to C++ and OpenGL. I definitely find it way more difficult.

At 3/5/11 09:47 AM, Innermike wrote:

At 3/5/11 08:41 AM, Sam wrote:

At 3/5/11 08:37 AM, Innermike wrote: Anyone else using Mac OSX Lion?

Let me guess, you bought an iPad 2 as well? :|

I think the iPad is useless, not as portable as a phone, not as versatile as my laptop (i.e can't code).

The iPad is a really nice toy, but I have to agree with Mike. I find it relatively useless besides just being a toy.

Unfortunately I'm not yet an official Mac dev so I can't get the preview of Lion

Yeah I also have to use LabView for robotics, and it is ass. Fortunately I'm also doing some electrical and mechanical so I am picking some things up.

Error - Your width of 9,999 is larger than our maximum width of 942.

At 1/22/11 10:10 AM, GustTheASGuy wrote: It has a memory leak. Would crawl as soon as it reaches the RAM capacity.

Gust is right, it just ate up my RAM, as soon as I closed it up my RAM went back to normal.
Considering Macs usually have less RAM, this would explain what causes it to lag.

Dude, that is fucked up. Whats wrong with you?

At 1/19/11 10:13 PM, Starogre wrote:

At 1/19/11 10:47 AM, Sam wrote: Condom discussion has also been created thanks to this dilemma. All is well in the world!

Starogre likes this.

Shameless plug time?

At 1/17/11 12:41 PM, Innermike wrote: if I had plans of an iPhone version

If you're talking about bandit dash, I told you so. Also congratulations.

It was probably just a example of how a floor could be made.

At 1/10/11 06:23 PM, Redshift wrote:

At 1/10/11 11:13 AM, Doomsday-One wrote:

At 1/10/11 05:48 AM, Redshift wrote: static inline function myFloor(f:Float){
return f > 0 ? Std.int(f) : Std.int(f)-1;
}

trace(myFloor(-3)); //returns -4

Doh! Stupid edge cases.. But even if you added an entire check for that, it would still be faster than fastFloor.

I didn't check its speed, I was shocked that something so large could be fast. I know that Math functions are usually extremely slow, the trig functions, Math.abs(), ect. It wouldn't surprise me if it was much faster than Math.floor(), but I did doubt its speed.

It seems like the haXe community has let me down :(

I found this substitute for Math.floor() in the haXe community. I know just setting a Number to an int works faster than Math.floor. This seems really large to be fast.

public function fastFloor(f : Number) {
        
        var accum : Int = 0;
            
            
        if (f>0) {
            while (f>=32768) { accum+=32768; f-=32768; }
            if (f>=16384) { accum+=16384; f-=16384; }
            if (f>=8192) { accum+=8192; f-=8192; }
            if (f>=4096) { accum+=4096; f-=4096; }
            if (f>=2048) { accum+=2048; f-=2048; }
            if (f>=1024) { accum+=1024; f-=1024; }
            if (f>=512) { accum+=512; f-=512; }
            if (f>=256) { accum+=256; f-=256; }
            if (f>=128) { accum+=128; f-=128; }
            if (f>=64) { accum+=64; f-=64; }
            if (f>=32) { accum+=32; f-=32; }
            if (f>=16) { accum+=16; f-=16; }
            if (f>=8) { accum+=8; f-=8; }
            if (f>=4) { accum+=4; f-=4; }
            if (f>=2) { accum+=2; f-=2; }
            if (f>=1) { accum++; f--; }            
            return accum;
        } else {
            while (f<=-32768) { accum-=32768; f+=32768; }
            if (f<=-16384) { accum-=16384; f+=16384; }
            if (f<=-8192) { accum-=8192; f+=8192; }
            if (f<=-4096) { accum-=4096; f+=4096; }
            if (f<=-2048) { accum-=2048; f+=2048; }
            if (f<=-1024) { accum-=1024; f+=1024; }
            if (f<=-512) { accum-=512; f+=512; }
            if (f<=-256) { accum-=256; f+=256; }
            if (f<=-128) { accum-=128; f+=128; }
            if (f<=-64) { accum-=64; f+=64; }
            if (f<=-32) { accum-=32; f+=32; }
            if (f<=-16) { accum-=16; f+=16; }
            if (f<=-8) { accum-=8; f+=8; }
            if (f<=-4) { accum-=4; f+=4; }
            if (f<=-2) { accum-=2; f+=2; }
            if (f<=-1) { accum--; f++; }            
            return accum;            
        }
    }

link

Firefox dominates Antartica.
Ironic because it is icy down there.

Eagles are going to win it.

At 1/2/11 06:20 PM, zrb wrote: At 1 million iterations I got around 3ms difference, but xor was faster. (~13ms for xor).
At 10^8 iterations I got around 200ms difference, xor was faster. (~1300ms for xor0).

Thanks, really appreciate it.

Optimisation question:
I have an integer value, and I'd like to have it switch between to values. Is it faster to use bitwise XOR, or *-1.

Which would be faster?

x ^= 1     //switch between 0 and 1
x *=  -1   //switch between -1 and 1

Just a quick question, didn't think it worthy of its own thread.

I actually liked Tron. I was seeing it with a great group of people which probably helped my experience. I liked how it had the deeper meanings referring to governments.

Also, just noticed flash has do...while loops.

I have no idea how actually drunk you are.
It seems like some might be a joke. I can't tell.

Oh, hey. Page 1984.

I agree.

I don't know why you don't want to use real OOP. Seriously, is FD was for macs, I literally wouldn't have .flas at all. As it is, all .flas do is tell flash where to find my document class.

I used AS2 for my first few months, because somethings that I read here intimidated me.
Never looking back.

I though of the exact same thing, I was just to busy with LD48 to go find a picture.

Anyone here doing the upcoming LD48?

At 12/12/10 08:28 AM, DannyDaNinja wrote: Those idiots over at Kongregate responded to this by saying " LEARN "

Seriously, that is the best advice they could have given you. Once you begin to learn the inner workings of the language everything begins to make sense.
You start thinking "How do I do this?" and you are able to answer yourself "Oh, just put them all in an array and use a timer." You are able to diagnose problems more easily "Why isn't this working?" "Oh, I forgot to make a call to someMethod();"

Learning is what you need to do.

At 12/10/10 12:48 AM, Sam wrote: can I just ask what devices the Android users here have?

I was considering getting the nexus s for christmas, but I doubt it will happen.