I have made a light weight java web-server serving html files and static content (made with pure java library nanohttpd), i have successfully made a javaFX launcher window that has a single button, clicking button simply runs the server in the background and opens the localhost URL in Android/PC browser (I was unsuccessful in making an IOS version using javaFX)
I am thinking of using libGDX as "launcher window" because of IOS support and access to mobile specific hardware like SMS/GPS which javaFX don't have.
I am targeting IOS/Android/PC, I'd like to ask libGDX developers how possible is this given my target platforms?
Yes you can
There's a catch though, you may have to build the UI the game dev way
I've made a game or two using it and had rather steep learning curve in the beginning to get a hold on to how it worked. For example you'll have to provide the images for button, background and also, the pressed view of the button... like that. But your app is not a game. So you won't have to worry that much.
Once you learned how to place them in the screen successfully, there is not much to worry about because the API provides everything you need to carry on from there.
Also I found enough resources/tutorials online enough to make a game from ground up. So you'll definitely can.
And there's very little to worry about your multi-platform problem.
Related
The reason why most people would ever make their android project in javafx would be to have the same codebase across different platforms (such as ios, desktop, android, maybe even web using Bck2Brwsr/teavm/doppio)
But my question is, is there any advantage in javafx ui framework itself when compared to android ui framework?
I have never ever written even a hello world application for android, but I intend to do it now. So I am wondering if having the code in javafx is worth the effort when I can develop directly on android apart from the benifit of portability.
This type of question might result in a subjective/opinionated answer but I think it is a good question so I will provide my assessment.
Having the same codebase across all those platforms is huge. Do not dismiss this. I'm using Gluon Mobile to port aspects of the Deep Space Trajectory Explorer (DSTE) to Android and iOS. As you can see from the video its extremely complex application. There's no way I would rewrite that in native Android... it would be a no-go from a cost perspective.
Starting development from JavaFX makes it easier to make complex visuals. I don't just mean traditional 2D GUI forms. Again looking at the DSTE you will see we use Canvas to do dense renderings and JavaFX 3D along with the FXyz library to do 3D renders. These things are easy in JavaFX and again using Gluon simply "just work" on Android/iOS. In fact it only took about a day to get those aspects of the DSTE code base to work on a Pixel C tablet, most of which was getting the Gradle build setup properly. Now imagine having to port 3D code from JavaFX to a Native framework? I'm a 3D guy and I still wouldn't try it.
Testing is so much easier on the desktop than a mobile device. This doesn't mean the testing is 100% on desktop. Sometimes something that works on desktop "doesn't work" on the mobile platform and you have to tweak accordingly. However you can save a LOT of time standing up the application using JavaFX knowing that 90% of it will work the same on your mobile device.
Word of advice though... remember that a desktop application is NOT a mobile application. You will be tempted to just "port" your desktop app to your device. I was my first time. You can get into other issues where the interfaces and layouts you design for a desktop "work" on the mobile device but are not appropriate and so the usability goes down. Start slow when you port. Think of what aspects of your desktop workflow should be mobilized. Only port the things you absolutely belong in a mobile workflow. Save yourself some headaches.
I'm working on a game which would work both on the web, as an applet, and on the Android phone, as an app.
Is that possible to do, and if so, what do I need to be aware of to make that work (i.e if there are any settings that I shouldn't hard code and instead determine them based on the user's device when the game is run, or any java libraries that I shouldn't use?).
Also, the game needs to accept touchscreen as input for the Android app. Is that possible to build into the same game which will also be run as an applet? May be so at run time, the applet decides whether to use Mouse or Touchscreen for the input when it is run?
Although Android apps are written in Java, the framework around the app is extremely different of the framework wrapped around an applet. You won't be able to have one .jar file that you can include as an applet and throw at an Android device because that's just not how it works.
You will however probably be able to create all the game logic and objects and have them in be shared with the applet code and android app. You can probably even get away with having them in one repository and project (although it's probably going to have to be an Android project that you then wedge in your app build scripts).
In order to tackle the different controls for your game you are probably going to have to abstract away the input, and have your game/level object have a call back like userHasPoked(int x, int y) and then have the applet call that method on click of the mouse and the android app calls it on touch (which is oddly still called onClick).
I think it'll be a long road, but much easier than rewriting the whole thing. It'll probably seem like a lot more work up front, but once you are done wedging your code into an applet and an Android app, you'll probably "never" have to touch that code again and can just keep adding to the game.
I wouldn't underestimate the task, but that sounds like a very fun programming exercise. Good luck!
What kind of game do you develop? It may be the better approach to develop an Javascript game.
That can be installed with phonegap (cordova) onto an android device.
Let me break this for you....
Model - The Business Logic and Data
View - The Display of the Output of the Model
Controller - On which the action is done.
The advantage of using this MVC architecture is that, you can keep the same model and keep changing the Views.
So keeping this idea in mind, you can have the same model for both the Web App and the Android App, and then implement each others Views to it respectively.
When considering a platform for a game, I've decided on multi-platform (Win/Lin/Mac) but can't make up my mind as far as browser vs. desktop. As I'm not all too far in development, and now having second thoughts, I'd like your opinion!
Browser-based games using Java applets:
market penetration is reasonably high (for version 6, it's somewhere around 60% I believe?)
using JOGL, 3D performance/quality is decent; certainly good enough to render the crappy 3D graphics that I make
there's the (small?) possibility of porting something to Android
great for an audience of gamers who switch computers often; can sit down at any computer, load a webpage and play it
also great for casual gamers or less knowledgeable gamers who are quite happy with playing games in a browser but don't want to install more things to their computer
written in a high-level language which I am more familiar with than C++ - but at the same time, I would like to improve my skills with C++ as it is probably where I am headed in the game industry once I get out of school...
easier update process: reload the page.
Desktop games using good ol' C++ and OpenGL
100% market penetration, assuming complete cross-platform; however, that number reduces when you consider how many people will go through downloading and installing an executable compared to just browsing to a webpage and hitting "yes" to a security warning.
more trouble to maintain the cross-platform; but again, for learning purposes I would embrace the challenge and the knowledge I would gain
better performance all around
true full screen, whereas browser games often struggle with smooth full screen graphics (especially on Linux, in my experience)
can take advantage of distribution platforms such as Steam
more likely to be considered a "real" game, whereas browser and Java games are often dismissed as not being real games and therefore not played by "hardcore gamers"
installer can be large; don't have to worry so much about download times
Is there a way to have the best of both worlds? I love Java applets, but I also really like the reasons to write a desktop game. I don't want to constantly port everything between a Java applet project and a C++ project; that would be twice the work!
Unity chose to write their own web player plugin. I don't like this, because I am one of the people that will not install their web player for anything, and I don't see myself being able to convince my audience to install a browser plugin.
What are my options? Are there other examples out there besides Unity, of games that have browser and desktop versions? Did I leave out anything in the pro/con lists above?
I'd suggest writing a game first.
It's easy to get caught up in how to make the best game ever,which can run on anything from an abacus to SkyNet, but the reality is that you're going to have plenty of challenges ahead of you just finishing a game that runs on your own PC.
Write a game first, for one platform (whether that platform is "Windows native with DirectX", or "Java applet" or even "pure AJAX in a browser"). If you can do that, then you can start thinking about how to port it to other platforms. But trying to do everything is a sure way to end up achieving nothing.
Or to put it another way:
I've decided on multi-platform (Win/Lin/Mac)
so you've actually decided nothing. Decide on a platform to develop on. Then make the game. Then make it work on other platforms.
Don't worry so much about what your "audience" will find acceptable. If your game is fun, then yes, people will happily install Unity. Just like they'll install your game if it's not browser-based. But the important point is not "what do I have to install to play it", but rather "is it worth it". Your focus should be on making a game that is worth the installation.
And unless you're planning to sell 20 million copies of the game and live off it, your "audience" doesn't really matter that much, does it? What matters is putting the game out there so those who are interested can try it.
But a single-platform game is a lot better than an unfinished cross-platform nothing.
A game that requires me to install Unity is a lot better than something that takes you an additional 3 years to develop because you insisted on reinventing the wheel.
Yes you can have the best of both worlds.
It's perfectly possible to write a Java application that will run in both an applet (for your online users) while also running as a standalone application in downloaded form.
The key technologies are:
JNLP
JOGL for the graphics, which also has some good demos
I'm not so familiar with it but I think jMonkeyEngine looks very promising if you want more of a full-featured game engine
If it's any use, an old game I wrote called Tyrant supported running both as an applet and as a standalone downloaded .jar file, all the source is open if you want to look at it. This used simple AWT rather than 3D graphics.
And finally here's another example of converting an applet into an application with a pretty minimal amount of code.
If you really want that kind of penetration then I suggest HTML 5 + javascript depending on the performance you need.
First of all you start with the wrong question. Your decision for a technology should be driven by the concept behind the game. It seems that you are sure about the idea to write a game - so ask your self what the requirements for the game are. This will lead you to your technologie. If it doesn't get an idea of "what" you want to do.
To your Pro's and Con's:
Don't focus on things you will never need or be able to use. Thinking about the steam platform isn't interesting for a hobby developer. Also android isn't interesting if you are not really want to ship your application for android. This Pro's will actually never be a pro in reality.
To sum it up: Let this decision be driven by your idea, not the technology itself. If you have a clear idea of what you want to do you will get your answer.
(And btw.:
Think about what browsergames imply. Behind a Browsergame there is a huge service-area, only for keeping the game running. Companys working in such areas are basically service-providers.)
You might want to look into Google's Native Client, which allows you to write your application in C or C++ (or anything else that compiles to native code, really). A new feature coming to the SDK is LLVM support, which will (hopefully) allow NaCl software to target any platform that Google's Chrome browser runs on (or any browser that the NaCl plugin works with - currently x86 and ARM are supported, IIRC).
You mentioned Android in your question - have you thought about developing the game purely for Android?
In effect you get the best of both worlds, easy to maintain, easy to release new versions, easy to monetize and get some small income and you don't have write your own installer or update mechanisms either.
Yes. You can make something that will work in both. Basically, make your program work inside a JPanel. The applet can display the JPanel, and the desktop version is just a window with your JPanel in it.
You could also have a full Swing (or whatever) GUI, which the applet launches in a new window when they click the little "start" button you'd have on your applet.
There are a few other differences you'll have to take into account, like possibly loading resources, but I've done it before for simple games I've made.
I don't think you can really compare the two:
In my opinion:
Applet, flash and other browser based games are typically small "toy" games either written for free or supplemented with advertising. For examples, check out the Addicting Games website.
C++ games are more likely to be heavyweight studio-written games relying on dedicated physics engines, graphics engines, etc (particularly true of games distributed on Steam I would have thought). The learning curve is likely to be much steeper, as C++ is inherently a more difficult language than Java / Flash.
If you're unfamiliar with C++ my advice would be to steer towards Java with JOGL. That way you can scale the Open GL learning curve before having to tackle C++.
EDIT
To address the other section of your question regarding implementing a game in both browser and desktop form, you could consider implementing the game in Java and deploying an applet and standalone version, whereby the standalone version can take advantage of Java's full-screen exclusive mode API. You could base both applications on the same codebase. You could also consider shrinking the applet's footprint size by retaining data files (e.g. game levels) on the server-side and retrieving them dynamically when required.
While WebSense won't let me browse directly to the site, for obvious reasons, the first thing that came to mind when reading this question is a game like Wurm Online. It's written in Java with JOGL, implements content streaming and local caches, and seems to have touched on a lot of the points you're interested in. It's a desktop Java application rather than being truly "in-browser" but I think you could still learn quite a bit from its implementation.
The in-browser game is always in peril of having its window closed or refreshed, causing it to abruptly lose state unless everything is being kept server-side. This means you either have very simple games that can maintain synchronization using a call/answer model (such as the myriad of Facebook "Mob Wars" text-based games) or risk an inadvertent bump of F5 catapulting someone back to their last "saved game."
I'm not sure that refusing to use a plugin because you personally don't like it is a sensible choice. This option lets you write you app installable as a desktop app, or a browser plugin (with not much extra work) and you still get to write it in C++/GL. You said you don't think your users will install plugins... why not? If they will install an application then why not a plugin which basically boils down to the same thing?
You could look at Flash too, which is gathering some 3D functionality and can run in-browser or as an AIR dektop app. But then users would need a Flash plugin, which you presumably don't have either.
I have a Windows Mobile application written in Java that uses AWT for the user interface. I am looking at porting the UI to SWT. I got a hold of the SWT libraries for windows mobile and I started looking at what work will be involved in actually porting it over. I think the first thing I have to decide is how to handle a large number of screens in the application.
In AWT the UI is basically a single java.awt.Frame with CardLayout. Each screen is then just an extension of java.awt.Panel, and is added to the Frame. Then whenever we need to change to a different screen we just set that panel to the top-most.
SWT doesn't have such a layout manager (and I'm not even sure if that is the best/most efficient way of doing it anyway, since the system resources associated with every screen in the application are always held). One way I thought of doing it was that each screen would be its own org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Shell. Switching from one screen to another would involve a display manager class creating the new screen (shell) and disposing of the old one (not sure of the performance hit here of creating the shell and all of the widgets every time the screen is shown?). I am not sure though if having multiple shells in one mobile application is a good idea??
Does anyone have any suggestions on the best way to handle multiple screens in a mobile application using SWT? Is there an equivalent to the method we are currently using in AWT, i.e. CardLayout? Or am I right in thinking that this is not really the best way of doing it, given the use of resources for every screen, even if they are not being displayed?
So the answer to my own question seems to be that there is in fact a StackLayout in SWT, which is pretty much identical to CardLayout in AWT. So I can use that and the job of porting from one to the other is pretty easy because they act in the same way.
Not sure how it would play out in Windows Mobile, but MigLayout is a great layout manager for SWT, which may support the kind of layout you describe.
Check out its demos.
How do I create a J2ME app for cellphones with a GUI similar to the menus you see in Java games? I've tried MIDlets with Netbeans but they only show you one GUI element at a time. (textbox, choice, login, etc)
And which Java IDE would you typically design these GUIs in? Netbeans or Eclipse? and is IntelliJ IDEA usable for this aswell?
Do I have to write/get a library that draws GUI controls to screen via bitmap functions .. and keeps track of the keys pressed for focus?
Try to use LWUIT - nice UI toolkit for j2me:
https://lwuit.dev.java.net/
http://lwuit.blogspot.com/
You can also use minime: http://code.google.com/p/minime/
It's an open source GUI library for j2me. miniME works on canvas level (lowest level in j2me) to draw every control so your UI will look exactly the same whatever the handset it'll be running on. Other advantage are:
- miniME uses its own event loop to manage user controlled event (botton pressed, softbar, ..), so you Application will "behave" the same whatever the handset.
- miniME support the concept of Views and stack of view, in order to make navigation between different view/screens very easy.
Here is an example: A View is what you have on the screen at a given moment (for example the main menu screen), then to go to a sub menu, you create a new view, and by calling a simple API, you push it in the stack of Views. The previous view (the main menu) is still existing, but inactive. When the sub menu view complete his work (for example, user press back, or do a selection), you can just go back to the previous view by calling a pop api.
Your question is a bit vague to give a specific aswer, but you might want to check out LWUIT or Polish, you can develop both with either Eclipse or Netbeans.
As far as designing GUIs go, neither IDE will help from a visual perspective. J2ME UI development is all done in code, beyond creating any initial graphics in a proper graphics editor you don't get to see your output until you test.
Read up on the LCDUI package documentation which explains how the UI classes work and the differences between the 'High-level' and 'low-level' APIs.
I can't comment on which IDE to use - but I do know that to create custom UI (like the ones you see in J2ME games), you have to explicitly draw the GUI controls.
Beware that you may need to customize the GUI depending on the target phones. You have to cater for different screen sizes, key pad configurations, default theme etc. This would probably mean that you need different builds for things like different screen sizes which would drive up your Java Verified certification costs (if you need it).
You may be able to find a set of nice looking UI controls that you can buy online and use (try J2ME Polish). The easy way out of course, is to use default J2ME controls :)
Links to many j2me GUI libraries: link1, link2
I know that kuix is not bad and free - watch demo.
But i prefer to make my own gui elements - this is much more flexible (but takes some time).
As for IDE - you may want to make some kind of gui-editor tool, construct interface in it, save result to some file, and read it from your app.
It's way too cumbersome to write your own GUI, especially since there are so many available these days. If you're familiar with desktop development in VB.Net and C#, you might find "J2ME GUI" easy to use. You can download it from http://www.garcer.com/. It has a similar feel and makes it easy to learn. This is the kind of GUI that I expected to come standard with MIDP2 when I started mobile development. Would have solved a lot of issues.
If you are familiar with web stuffs then you can use KUIX (kalmeo.org/home/index) framework having xml and css supports. In place of It you can use also Polish framework (www.j2mepolish.org) it's also uses the xml in easy way rather than kalmeo kuix framework.