C++ SDK of PlayerIO?

SirJosh3917 · 2016-11-27 03:49:53

Does anybody know or have an SDK of PlayerIO in C++? Does PlayerIO plan to make an SDK for c++ at all? I'm moving over to c++ mainly for cross platform reasons, and for other game-making-related reasons.

den3107 · 2016-11-27 13:17:59

Quick google showed nothing, though you might have to search deeper.
Currently if you want to make it cross-platform, unity is your best bet.

SirJosh3917 · 2016-11-27 13:58:31

den3107 wrote:

Currently if you want to make it cross-platform, unity is your best bet.

ninjasupeatsninja wrote:

I'm moving over to c++

ninjasupeatsninja wrote:

mainly for cross platform reasons

but also because it's faster than c# I believe, it takes up less memory in ram or something, and I have control if xyz is a pointer or not.

den3107 wrote:

though you might have to search deeper.

Looked through the old forums pages for anything and found this:
http://forums.everybodyedits.com/viewtopic.php?id=11674
C++ PlayerIO, however the download link appears to be old.

There is a php version by the same atilla but not yet released apparently ( which could be very helpful for web bots ):
http://forums.everybodyedits.com/viewtopic.php?id=11672

As well as Hexagon asking about a PlayerIO.js
http://forums.everybodyedits.com/viewtopic.php?id=11636

And here's processor's take on PlayerIO.js
https://github.com/Yonom/playerio.js

I can't find any download/tutorial links for a C++ PlayerIO.
I found forum links, but I believe those may be outdated ( as you can see the link provided isn't working )

XxAtillaxX · 2016-11-27 14:12:44

There currently aren't any native C++ libraries available, however you can work with Visual C++ or Objective-C.

You missed OpenPlayerIO, which is a recent open-source alternative to PlayerIOClient.
You may have success in porting it to .NET Core which will allow for easy cross-platform support, whilst still using C#.

SirJosh3917 · 2016-11-27 14:18:18

XxAtillaxX wrote:

There currently aren't any native C++ libraries available,

What happened to your C++ playerio project?

XxAtillaxX · 2016-11-27 14:19:13

ninjasupeatsninja wrote:

XxAtillaxX wrote:
There currently aren't any native C++ libraries available,
What happened to your C++ playerio project?

It's VC++.

Zumza · 2016-11-27 14:26:48

ninjasupeatsninja wrote:

den3107 wrote:
Currently if you want to make it cross-platform, unity is your best bet.
ninjasupeatsninja wrote:
I'm moving over to c++
ninjasupeatsninja wrote:
mainly for cross platform reasons
but also because it's faster than c# I believe, it takes up less memory in ram or something, and I have control if xyz is a pointer or not.

Yes, if its used properly it is indeed faster than C#.
Also, pointers are very tricky. You might very easily fall into a memory leak.

XxAtillaxX · 2016-11-27 14:34:04

You shouldn't restrict yourself to a low-level language because it has capability of being performant, modern CPUs can handle millions of concurrent operations quite easily.
If you were to use that as an argument, why restrict yourself to C++? You could use Assembly, it's more performant by virtue of being lower-level. It's just impractical for most implementations.

Oh, and you can also use pointers in C# as well, with unsafe mode.

Zumza · 2016-11-27 14:49:12

XxAtillaxX wrote:

You shouldn't restrict yourself to a low-level language because it has capability of being performant, modern CPUs can handle millions of concurrent operations quite easily.
If you were to use that as an argument, why restrict yourself to C++? You could use Assembly, it's more performant by virtue of being lower-level. It's just impractical for most implementations.

I'll rather make a ratio between the time I need to allocate developing the application and its performance.
Obviously when it comes to big projects C# wins.
But for a specific optimisation problems, I would prefer C.
Im often assigned task like this, every 100 milliseconds matter.

SirJosh3917 · 2016-11-27 15:12:12

XxAtillaxX wrote:

modern CPUs can handle millions of concurrent operations quite easily.

But I have my computers that aren't perfect at all e.g. my server is running on 4gb of ram and a processor that's like 1.9ghz - which was one of my older windows xp computers.

XxAtillaxX wrote:

If you were to use that as an argument, why restrict yourself to C++? You could use Assembly

do you have any tutorials please i would like to learn i want to mess with processor virtual machine virus is super cool also i want to compile assembly for brain **** 100 byte compiler that'd be amazing 100 bytes a brain**** compiler that's amazing please i would like tutorial im using AMD tutorials on how to assembly how does compile please

XxAtillaxX wrote:

Oh, and you can also use pointers in C# as well, with unsafe mode.

huh ok.

C++ has the bonus of a fresh install of a computer and you can run the application btw.
no net framework needed
( I tested this with a windows 7 computer i just randomly got )

EDIT:
Also does VC++ matter much? Can't you port to native

c:\mingw\bin\g++ -o exe.exe main.cpp

Tomahawk · 2016-11-27 15:20:22

Show me a bot that would noticeably benefit from pointers and other nanosecond micro-optimisation and I'd laugh and tell you you're doing it wrong.

There's no existing bot concept that's so memory and CPU intensive that it justifies these kinds of performance twiddles. Unless you're doing some kind of massive backend data crunching or emulation or idek, your primary bottleneck will always be the latencies between your PC and PlayerIO servers.

So this:

ninjasupeatsninja wrote:

but also because it's faster than c# I believe, it takes up less memory in ram or something, and I have control if xyz is a pointer or not.

is irrelevant. Microsoft .NET compilers are clever things; they do most of the optimisation for you.

SirJosh3917 · 2016-11-27 15:47:14

Tomahawk wrote:

Microsoft .NET compilers are clever things; they do most of the optimisation for you.

Agreed - however with .NET you have to load in the .NET components making a simple "Hello World" and readkey take 1500K or something in task manager
And now with C++:

Tomahawk · 2016-11-27 15:53:25

ninjasupeatsninja wrote:

Agreed - however with .NET you have to load in the .NET components making a simple "Hello World" and readkey take 1500K or something in task manager
And now with C++:
http://i.imgur.com/Wfri55k.png

How much RAM do you have unused? 2MB?

XxAtillaxX

SirJosh3917 · 2016-11-27 16:04:00

Tomahawk wrote:

How much RAM do you have unused? 2MB?

You're acting like you shouldn't conserve ram and shouldn't do your best to optimize the programs and shouldn't do your best to code xyz nicely because oh this doesn't matter. If it's possible to go faster and there are no reasons why you shouldn't, why wouldn't you? C++ also has the benefit of working on Windows 95 which .NET doesn't reach. C++ can also function on any computer if compiled correctly, while the .NET framework to run it on linux or mac requires some external program.

If you're going to question my move to C++ instead of sticking with C#, it's the fact that it takes up less ram and doesn't have to load anything in but what you told it to, can reach more operating systems, doesn't require an installation of any kind, and it's "low level" - meaning it can manipulate things at a lower level, e.g. the console screen or hook into a keyboard/mouse.

XxAtillaxX · 2016-11-27 16:15:26

ninjasupeatsninja wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:
How much RAM do you have unused? 2MB?
You're acting like you shouldn't conserve ram and shouldn't do your best to optimize the programs and shouldn't do your best to code xyz nicely because oh this doesn't matter. If it's possible to go faster and there are no reasons why you shouldn't, why wouldn't you? C++ also has the benefit of working on Windows 95 which .NET doesn't reach. C++ can also function on any computer if compiled correctly, while the .NET framework to run it on linux or mac requires some external program.
If you're going to question my move to C++ instead of sticking with C#, it's the fact that it takes up less ram and doesn't have to load anything in but what you told it to, can reach more operating systems, doesn't require an installation of any kind, and it's "low level" - meaning it can manipulate things at a lower level, e.g. the console screen or hook into a keyboard/mouse.

1. Memory is cheap, modern computers have >1gb of memory.
2. Optimization should be done in cases where it's necessary. There's a distinct trade off between development time and efficiency.
3. Windows 95 is deprecated, modern computers do not and typically should not, use deprecated and unsupported operating systems.
4. Cross platform support is very much possible with .NET Core, and in many higher-level languages this is very much possible. For example, JavaScript.
5. You can hook into hardware with .NET - clearly you haven't or you'd know this is the case.

Koya

Zumza · 2016-11-27 16:18:21

Tomahawk wrote:

Show me a bot that would noticeably benefit from pointers and other nanosecond micro-optimisation and I'd laugh and tell you you're doing it wrong.

If this was addressed to me, you should know I wasn't talking about EE bots.

Zumza wrote:

Obviously when it comes to big projects C# wins.
But for a specific optimisation problems, I would prefer C.

Zumza wrote:

I'll rather make a ratio between the time I need to allocate developing the application and its performance.

A bot would require an user interface, networking, and threading, which aren't at all easy to code in C. Therefor C# is obviously the best solution.
All those pieces of C# however are coded in C. Theres no matter of contradiction that C# is one of the best language two bind those pieces and make them work together.
But when it comes to new fields of Computer Science such as: robotics, image processing, or Artificial Intelligence, C definitely rulz.

SirJosh3917 · 2016-11-27 16:48:00

XxAtillaxX wrote:

stuff

What's the point in trying to convince me to continue using C# anyways.

XxAtillaxX · 2016-11-27 17:06:13

ninjasupeatsninja wrote:

XxAtillaxX wrote:
stuff
What's the point in trying to convince me to continue using C# anyways.

I'm not trying to convince you to do anything, I'm merely refuting your reasoning against it.

Koya

Tomahawk · 2016-11-27 17:27:20

ninjasupeatsninja wrote:

What's the point in trying to convince me to continue using C# anyways.

Though making bots that work easily on Mac OS is a valid point.

Vinyl Melody, SirJosh3917

den3107 · 2016-11-28 00:19:30

Zumza wrote:

A bot would require an user interface, networking, and threading, which aren't at all easy to code in C. Therefor C# is obviously the best solution..

ninjasupeatsninja wrote:

But I have my computers that aren't perfect at all e.g. my server is running on 4gb of ram and a processor that's like 1.9ghz - which was one of my older windows xp computers.

@Zumza Most likely he's looking to run a bot 24/7 on a server, meaning he'd most likely have a command-line interface, and not a graphical one you were probably insinuating.

SirJosh3917 · 2016-11-28 00:54:40

den3107 wrote:

meaning he'd most likely have a command-line interface

The server is running windows 7.
lols around in lols

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#1 2016-11-27 03:49:53

C++ SDK of PlayerIO?

#2 2016-11-27 13:17:59

Re: C++ SDK of PlayerIO?

#3 2016-11-27 13:58:31, last edited by SirJosh3917 (2016-11-27 14:00:08)

Re: C++ SDK of PlayerIO?

#4 2016-11-27 14:12:44

Re: C++ SDK of PlayerIO?

#5 2016-11-27 14:18:18

Re: C++ SDK of PlayerIO?

#6 2016-11-27 14:19:13

Re: C++ SDK of PlayerIO?

#7 2016-11-27 14:26:48

Re: C++ SDK of PlayerIO?

#8 2016-11-27 14:34:04, last edited by XxAtillaxX (2016-11-27 14:34:28)

Re: C++ SDK of PlayerIO?

#9 2016-11-27 14:49:12, last edited by Zumza (2016-11-27 14:52:17)

Re: C++ SDK of PlayerIO?

#10 2016-11-27 15:12:12, last edited by SirJosh3917 (2016-11-27 15:13:04)

Re: C++ SDK of PlayerIO?

#11 2016-11-27 15:20:22

Re: C++ SDK of PlayerIO?

#12 2016-11-27 15:47:14

Re: C++ SDK of PlayerIO?

#13 2016-11-27 15:53:25, last edited by Tomahawk (2016-11-27 15:54:22)

Re: C++ SDK of PlayerIO?

#14 2016-11-27 16:04:00

Re: C++ SDK of PlayerIO?

#15 2016-11-27 16:15:26

Re: C++ SDK of PlayerIO?

#16 2016-11-27 16:18:21

Re: C++ SDK of PlayerIO?

#17 2016-11-27 16:48:00

Re: C++ SDK of PlayerIO?

#18 2016-11-27 17:06:13

Re: C++ SDK of PlayerIO?

#19 2016-11-27 17:27:20, last edited by Tomahawk (2016-11-27 17:28:58)

Re: C++ SDK of PlayerIO?

#20 2016-11-28 00:19:30

Re: C++ SDK of PlayerIO?

#21 2016-11-28 00:54:40

Re: C++ SDK of PlayerIO?

Board footer