Stand Alone Demos

Stand Alone Demos

Will there be stand alone demos in the next release?
I was able to easy make out the code from the stand alone demo,
but working with the demo app seems rather confusing...

Thank you

7 Beiträge / 0 neu
Letzter Beitrag
Nähere Informationen zur Compiler-Optimierung finden Sie in unserem Optimierungshinweis.

Hi spooky_paul,

The console example standalone demo should be included in the release. Can you see it in yours? What trouble are you having with the demos? Is it building them or running them that's causing confusion?


Using it's the source code as a learning tool.

Yes I have the standalone console demo, and as I said this was easier tot learn from it.

That's why I asked if the rest of the demos will be released as standalone apps in a future release :)


Hiya Paul,

Sorry, I misunderstood your original question. There aren't any plans to make the rest of the demos standalone, I'm afraid.

Once you manage to figure out what's going on in the demo framework, the rest of the demos aren't that bad though. For general architecture, then maybe standalone is the way to go, but for small snippets (for example, how to make a breakable constraint, how to cast a ray, etc), then having all the demos' functional code separate from the graphics/architectural stuff is the best way to show an example, I think.


Hi Daniel,

Without seeing how the app works a whole, I find it difficult to piece everything together.

I agree with you, but the basic API examples as standalone console apps would still keep the physics separate and still show how everything works together.


Hey Paul,

That's a good point, actually. If we were to set up a demo as a console app, without using Havok Graphics, you wouldn't be able to see what's going on; but if you did that and then connected the VDB you could visualize what's going on in the cool, while maintaining clean and concise code in the standalone demo, as you wouldn't need all the code to tie the physics with the graphics.

I'll have a look at the viability of this and see if it's worth pursuing.

Thanks for the idea!

Personally I think the demos should be completely standalone, not incorporated into a "demo framework". While trying to grasp the difficult concepts of the various pieces of the SDK, I was given an additional task ofuntangling the demo framework. I saw a comment in the help file suggesting how this framework was a good thing for me. I don't see it that way.

Additionally there are a lot of (what I call) dead end functions (functions that are called from only one place) that have to be navigated when the code could have been incorporated linearly.

I realize the framework must be nice for the demo writers, and they get to wield their object oriented skills, but I don't think it helped me at all when attempting to grasp the SDK.

The Physx demos by comparison are much more linear and I think easier to grasp.

While the demos and documentationhave (I think) room for improvement, they are capable of getting the job done. Additionally, the excellent free forum support can fill in any questions unanswered by perusing the docs and demos.

Kommentar hinterlassen

Bitte anmelden, um einen Kommentar hinzuzufügen. Sie sind noch nicht Mitglied? Jetzt teilnehmen