Technical Design Document

About the actual programming of the game.

Technical Design Document

Postby adam » Tue Sep 17, 2013 6:50 am

The technical design document which covers implementation of specific aspects of the game can be found here Trillek Design 2.0 TDD. If you feel you can contribute please request membership through the membership request form.
adam
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:58 am

Re: Technical Design Document

Postby mrout » Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:10 am

This is where I'm going to put my foot down and say this:

Design can have all the semi-official design documents they want, but I'm the lead developer and I do not approve this thread.

  • Engine Preference - Not under discussion.
  • Coding Standards - We have a very public and noticeable thread about this.
  • Required or Optional Software needed for development - We have a discussion thread about this.
  • Gameplay Systems in depth - This is all design stuff, not technical or code.

If you think my evaluation of this is wrong, feel free to say so.
mrout
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:49 pm

Re: Technical Design Document

Postby adam » Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:27 pm

You are incorrect on a few points

The coding standards blurb shouldn't have been there more as I removed that section since it is on the forum. That is what I get from a C&P I guess.

Required and Optional software may have a thread, but this gives it a more centralized and cohesive listing.

Systems in depth have reason to be in the "technical" technical design doc as this is the technical implementation aspect. The content in that section has not been reviewed and structured yet and is being used more as a discussionary section. It will contain the more technical aspects such as types of physics calculations used for the various gravity schemes, how the DCPU directly controls the ships components, that sort of technical items.

I saved Engine preference until last. This is just a place to put all of the notes about every option for now. If you feel we need to have a custom engine (which I know you do), then flesh out that section and make use understand why we need one. It doesn't work to have it spread across a dozen forum posts and throughout the IRC logs.
adam
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:58 am

Re: Technical Design Document

Postby SunShiranui » Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:53 pm

Shouldn't we put all that on the wiki?
SunShiranui
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 2:07 pm

Re: Technical Design Document

Postby adam » Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:59 pm

Yes when it becomes available to all. It is easy enough to transfer from a design doc to the wiki. It is harder to find all the information on a forum and compile it into a wiki.
adam
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:58 am

Re: Technical Design Document

Postby Zardoz » Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:38 pm

adam wrote:Yes when it becomes available to all. It is easy enough to transfer from a design doc to the wiki. It is harder to find all the information on a forum and compile it into a wiki.

I must agree that is true.
Yep, I have a blog : http://zardoz.es
Emulator DCPU-16 VM
User avatar
Zardoz
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 8:54 pm
Location: Spain

Re: Technical Design Document

Postby mrout » Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:30 pm

adam: Just a couple of things:

  • Firstly, I don't need to convince you or anyone else that we are using a custom engine. Project Trillek is using a custom engine. That was decided very early on for a wide variety of reasons (including that we're making a very unique game, that the game must be able to be developed on and the game must run on Linux, along with a lots of other factors), and this is not up for discussion. Some decisions need to be made and stuck with, and that is one of them. It's got nothing to do with how I feel, and is quite simply decided on already. That'd be like Linus Torvalds, halfway through writing Linux, going "Hmm actually I think I'll write a microkernel instead." Not gonna happen, even if in the eyes of some it may be superior (though definitely not in the eyes of all). If you don't want to contribute to a project with a custom engine, then I'll be sorry to see you go, but you won't be happy here.
  • Secondly, we don't have a centralised and cohesive listing of the tools we're using because we haven't made them/decided on using them yet. We haven't needed tools yet, so we haven't decided on any.
  • Thirdly, the vast majority game mechanics haven't even been decided on yet. It's useless to start discussing the implementation of things we haven't even decided on implementing yet, if you know what I mean.
mrout
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:49 pm

Re: Technical Design Document

Postby radar37 » Tue Sep 17, 2013 4:36 pm

@mrout: So what's our plan of action? Where do we go from here? What steps should we take to get this project moving forward? If there are design decisions we need to make, then lets dicuss them or, if it's "not up for discussion" tell us your reasons why. Please give us a direction so that we don't have to undermine your authority just to get this project moving.
radar37
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 12:26 am

Re: Technical Design Document

Postby mrout » Tue Sep 17, 2013 8:48 pm

radar37: You know the plan of action.

Prototypes. Milestone 1. We should have been there within days of the start of the project.
mrout
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:49 pm

Re: Technical Design Document

Postby jherico » Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:28 pm

mrout wrote:radar37: You know the plan of action.


Really? I'm here every day and I don't.

mrout wrote:Prototypes. Milestone 1.


Prototypes of what? What is milestone 1 supposed to accomplish? (OK, so milestone 1 consists of exactly one goal that can be done badly in an hour and could be done well in anything from a month to several years. Also why doesn't this forum support strikethrough?). I think you assume that a lot of the vision you have in your head or the shared knowledge gleaned by extensive reading and posting on these boards is more widespread than it is.

Also, are you trying to convey the idea that a bunch of prototypes add up to a milestone? Because they don't. Prototypes should be lightweight and implement just enough to demonstrate a given mechanic. They can be as simple as a pen and paper implementation of a game mechanic to see if it's fun / workable. A milestone, to me, is a functioning piece of software that hits at least a few of the major design goals.

mrout wrote:We should have been there within days of the start of the project.


If you're frustrated by lack of forward movement you need to start subdividing tasks into smaller ones that people are more likely to pick up. You also need some mechanism for people to find well defined tasks and report that they're working on them (see my other thread asking for a backlog and more distillation of tasks on the wiki). Right now there's not even a 'how can I start to contribute?' page. That's actually way more a part of a dev lead's job than writing actual code. This goes back to an earlier point I made about removing roadblocks in the way of developers. You're going to want an army of developers at all levels of skill and levels of interaction, not just 5 guys who spend all their time on the IRC channels and these forums.
jherico
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:35 am

Next

Return to Code

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron