![]() The graphics are quite simple, but they manage to play a cool neon feeling. Operating the tower's menu is easy, and you don't get stuck trying to pick a tower or sell it while thousands of enemies are already jumping over your head (like other TD games). The tower's variety is decent, and so it is the different types of enemies. You can choose the difficult of the game, but even in beginner's skill the last waves become real nightmares. ![]() That's the only bad thing on the game: the extreme level is horribly hard. More than one will say 'This is ridiculous' before shutting down the console. If you like TD games, this game is definitely for you. ![]() Transformation matrices, etc.If you didn't know about this genre, Vector TD is a good game to start with… but be warned: is VERY addictive. As an engineer that is pretty familiar with matrix algebra, If no Point was passed in, then the origin would be used. Point equivalent to moving the Point passed into the function by the vector. PointTo(Optional ByVal Point As Point) As Point Reverse the direction! Also, the Vector could have: I would use the VectorTo method, but then I have to Public Function VectorFrom(Optional ByVal Point Really have to go thru the TG to make any object? (This is a policy question, Small objects (make them faster, better memory usage, etc). I'm guessing the TransientGeometry manager is there to handle Would be very nice to have some operators like += and -= for Vectors and someīinary operators for handling Points and Vectors.Īnother way, but so much typing! And it requires another line of (One could argue that theoreticallyĪ "vector" can be any length, not just restricted to 3 elements in a Cartesian Yes, I realize what they are conceptually (I am an engineer)Īnd how they are implemented in Inventor. "However, they are conceptually quite different As an engineer that is pretty familiar with matrix algebra, transformation matrices, etc., it would be great if using Point, Vector and Matrix objects looked more "algebraic" and required less lines of code. This would return the Point equivalent to moving the Point passed into the function by the vector. Public Function PointTo(Optional ByVal Point As Point) As Point I would use the VectorTo method, but then I have to reverse the direction! Also, the Vector could have: Public Function VectorFrom(Optional ByVal Point As Point) As Vector Or if that is not a "likeable" solution, why not have It would act like a type cast, but really you would get a new object. The method I suggested:Ĭould work thru the TG to create a new Vector object and return it to the user. However, do we really have to go thru the TG to make any object? (This is a policy question, not a current implementation question). I'm guessing the TransientGeometry manager is there to handle small objects (make them faster, better memory usage, etc). Yes, this is another way, but so much typing! And it requires another line of code. "Set oVec = oTG.CreateVector(oPoint.X, oPoint.Y, It is too bad because it would be very nice to have some operators like += and -= for Vectors and some binary operators for handling Points and Vectors. "an Automation interface doesn't support overloading." (One could argue that theoretically a "vector" can be any length, not just restricted to 3 elements in a Cartesian coordinate system, but I digress). Yes, I realize what they are conceptually (I am an engineer) and how they are implemented in Inventor. "However, they are conceptually quite different things"
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |