My Dissortation for my Degree -> Review Needed
by Stephen Walsh · in Torque Game Engine · 03/02/2006 (9:47 am) · 15 replies
Hello people,
I think its time a gave something back, so here it is. Unfortunealy i cant upload it anywhere, its over 10MB big, but it does describe the building process of small level in Torque.
It would be great if someone would take the time to read it and post their comments.
If you email me i will email you back the document (i will have to do it this way, untill i get granted space on garagegames to upload it too.)
This offer is only there for the next month if i dont get space to upload it too.
Here is a snap shot of the outcome of what you should be able to after reading it, it really is one big tutorial.
Email address => walsh dot stephen at gmail dot com.
I am also on msn at that address
I think its time a gave something back, so here it is. Unfortunealy i cant upload it anywhere, its over 10MB big, but it does describe the building process of small level in Torque.
It would be great if someone would take the time to read it and post their comments.
If you email me i will email you back the document (i will have to do it this way, untill i get granted space on garagegames to upload it too.)
This offer is only there for the next month if i dont get space to upload it too.
Here is a snap shot of the outcome of what you should be able to after reading it, it really is one big tutorial.
Email address => walsh dot stephen at gmail dot com.
I am also on msn at that address
#2
the address is elenzil.com/stephenwalsh, the document makes reference to occupying files , most of these are linked to websites where they where downloaded, but one or two aren't.
Look forward to the feed back
Stephen Walsh
03/02/2006 (11:19 am)
I would like to thank orion elenzil for his help in hosting this file.the address is elenzil.com/stephenwalsh, the document makes reference to occupying files , most of these are linked to websites where they where downloaded, but one or two aren't.
Look forward to the feed back
Stephen Walsh
#3
03/02/2006 (12:08 pm)
Um.. it's not quite up yet.. i'm having trouble getting the file out of email. i'll post when it's up.
#4
- we're working on getting the version w/ images there as well.
03/02/2006 (12:12 pm)
.. okay, it's up at the url stephen gave.- we're working on getting the version w/ images there as well.
#5
Stephen Walsh
03/16/2006 (6:13 am)
Anyone get a chance to review it, i see about 13 people have downloaded it, anyone any comments?Stephen Walsh
#6
Look at your consistency in the bullet information you present, they are often subjectively styled differently from each other (we will do this vs. non subjective statements)
I would find a better phrase than '3d graphics', sounds a bit dated and misinformed.
Gantt chart, not gant chart.
Your evaluation of Cipher vs TGE is subjective... 'very good' doesnt mean much.
DIF format does allow LOD. Other dif info is not very accurate (rendering).
I don't have time to read the whole thing, but it seems you have some research to do. The first half could definitely be compressed significantly by removing subjective opinions on how difficult things are and simply stating well researched facts. Presenting this as a dissertation brings with it certain expectations on point of view and presentation of data.
It is a great start, good luck!
03/16/2006 (4:38 pm)
As a dissertation (not dissortation!) I would definitely focus on grammar and spelling. Looks like you ran a spell checker but your second paragraphs starts off with some misinformation, such as your definitition of graphics, and gramatically you have some sentence fragments that need to be fleshed out to full sentences.Look at your consistency in the bullet information you present, they are often subjectively styled differently from each other (we will do this vs. non subjective statements)
I would find a better phrase than '3d graphics', sounds a bit dated and misinformed.
Gantt chart, not gant chart.
Your evaluation of Cipher vs TGE is subjective... 'very good' doesnt mean much.
DIF format does allow LOD. Other dif info is not very accurate (rendering).
I don't have time to read the whole thing, but it seems you have some research to do. The first half could definitely be compressed significantly by removing subjective opinions on how difficult things are and simply stating well researched facts. Presenting this as a dissertation brings with it certain expectations on point of view and presentation of data.
It is a great start, good luck!
#7
Thanks Again
03/16/2006 (4:51 pm)
Thank you, as for the grammer and bullet points, they have been fixed, you where reading the draft, thanks on the heads up on the other errors i will fix them asap.Thanks Again
#8
made ref to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_graphics for def on CG.
and removed any mention of "how difficult things are "
Thanks very much for you input,
if anyone has anything else to add it would be a great help.
Stephen
03/20/2006 (6:02 am)
I have fixed the grammer , updated the DIF table, changed 3D Graphics to CG, as for Ciper vs TGE evaluation i did rate them out of 10 but i was inofrmed not to use number as i would be asked to back up the numbers with tones of refferences and quotes.made ref to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_graphics for def on CG.
and removed any mention of "how difficult things are "
Thanks very much for you input,
if anyone has anything else to add it would be a great help.
Stephen
#9
Its good if you want a pure-C game engine (see Quake Engine) and don't mind having no updates.
03/20/2006 (3:48 pm)
I have a license to Cipher.Quote:Cipher has a small community … if you post on the forums with a problem, there is a high chance you will be answered by the maker of cipher himself, who is very helpfulNot so true. The community isn't really that helpful, and the maker, RikH, doesnt update the engine or post on the forums anymore. It has an incomplete terrain rendering engine, and the level in the demo is hard-coded into the engine.
Its good if you want a pure-C game engine (see Quake Engine) and don't mind having no updates.
#10
One of the other ways that you could have approached the comparative issues in the beginning would be to talk to licensees of the engines. Depending on your IRB, you would most likely have to use these comments as anecdotal commentary on the flesh of the engines in an attempt to gain a deeper glimpse (unless, of course, you have time to go through the Human Subject Committee).
Also, ask your committee whether using "the author" seems obtuse since it is a constant repetition throughout. I can understand not wanting to use "I" in a science-oriented study, but "the author" is overused to the point that it made me groan internally every time I read it. It bristled the hairs on the back of my neck nearly as much as reading "um's" and "you knows" in transcripts. Restructuring the sentences from:
Or even better, ending with the "what are the differences between them?" and then showing the table, labeling it "Table 3.1: DTS and DIF comparison". Then explain any ambiguities of the table itself.
Your Quark -> DTS diagram is incorrect (pp. 27). DTS and DIF should be switched since Quark compiles DIF's (well, map2dif does, but that's ephemeral to the discussion). 3DS Max exports DTS models rather than DIF's.
As noted above, I would be very hard on the subjective statements like "In the above snapshot it is visible that the lighting, particle effects (fire and smoke), AI (Kork) and playability are all very nicely done." Rather, the usefulness would be highlighted with something like "Fig. 4.1 illustrates a number of features included with the core engine such as particle effects (fire/smoke), lighting, building structures, and the player model." Note that Kork is relatively meaningless since he is so distant from the camera as to not be referentially discernable (you can't tell what it is other than a name in the distance). I know who Kork is, but since you went to such great pains in the beginning of the paper to explain polygons, I am assuming little in-depth Torque knowledge among the readership of your dissertation.
Just a couple thoughts. I haven't had time to more than glance through it. It's a good start. I just needs some TLC revision.
03/21/2006 (8:48 am)
My first recommendation (and you may have already done this since you noted that grammar had been fixed) would be to sit down with a peer-editor in your program. Edit theirs and have them help edit yours. There are a number of sentence fragments dangling about, almost in a tacked on fashion. Plus, if you are helping them catch their errors, they will be extremely willing to help you catch yours. This also helps with studying for orals and comps.One of the other ways that you could have approached the comparative issues in the beginning would be to talk to licensees of the engines. Depending on your IRB, you would most likely have to use these comments as anecdotal commentary on the flesh of the engines in an attempt to gain a deeper glimpse (unless, of course, you have time to go through the Human Subject Committee).
Also, ask your committee whether using "the author" seems obtuse since it is a constant repetition throughout. I can understand not wanting to use "I" in a science-oriented study, but "the author" is overused to the point that it made me groan internally every time I read it. It bristled the hairs on the back of my neck nearly as much as reading "um's" and "you knows" in transcripts. Restructuring the sentences from:
Quote:The best way to show this is in a comparison table. Here is one the author drew up for this very reason.to:
Quote:A comparison table describing the differences between the DTS and DIF formats is illustrated below.Could help with clarity. After all, they should already know that you're the one writing it. "The present research shows..." rather than "the author's research shows..." Or perhaps more popular among academia nuts: "the author's research assistant's research shows..." ;)
Or even better, ending with the "what are the differences between them?" and then showing the table, labeling it "Table 3.1: DTS and DIF comparison". Then explain any ambiguities of the table itself.
Your Quark -> DTS diagram is incorrect (pp. 27). DTS and DIF should be switched since Quark compiles DIF's (well, map2dif does, but that's ephemeral to the discussion). 3DS Max exports DTS models rather than DIF's.
As noted above, I would be very hard on the subjective statements like "In the above snapshot it is visible that the lighting, particle effects (fire and smoke), AI (Kork) and playability are all very nicely done." Rather, the usefulness would be highlighted with something like "Fig. 4.1 illustrates a number of features included with the core engine such as particle effects (fire/smoke), lighting, building structures, and the player model." Note that Kork is relatively meaningless since he is so distant from the camera as to not be referentially discernable (you can't tell what it is other than a name in the distance). I know who Kork is, but since you went to such great pains in the beginning of the paper to explain polygons, I am assuming little in-depth Torque knowledge among the readership of your dissertation.
Just a couple thoughts. I haven't had time to more than glance through it. It's a good start. I just needs some TLC revision.
#11
Sorry but I have been told that the use of "I" is strictly not allowed in this write up. i have to work around it.
But your right I did go OTT on the "the author" - I'll try rub it out,
lol unfortunately by saying "my assistant" I rule out any prove that I did any work at all :)
03/21/2006 (9:39 am)
Excellent review David, I have posted draft 2 in reply to Jameson review, but i will do a draft 3 to take into account your finding, Sorry but I have been told that the use of "I" is strictly not allowed in this write up. i have to work around it.
But your right I did go OTT on the "the author" - I'll try rub it out,
lol unfortunately by saying "my assistant" I rule out any prove that I did any work at all :)
#12
Stephen's most recent version is available now here: elenzil.com/stephenwalsh.
Sorry for the slowness of getting things posted there, but at least they're there !
03/21/2006 (9:56 am)
Hi All -Stephen's most recent version is available now here: elenzil.com/stephenwalsh.
Sorry for the slowness of getting things posted there, but at least they're there !
#13
Thanks again,
if its okay, i will email you draft 3 later tonight.
03/21/2006 (9:59 am)
Orion , there is no need to say sorry, you take your time, i should be thanking you for hosting it for me,Thanks again,
if its okay, i will email you draft 3 later tonight.
#14
03/21/2006 (10:00 am)
I can understand the distanced "objectivity" of not using I in scientific works. Most people run up against such requirements (which can make writing grant proposals, human subjects proposals, thesises and dissertations a jumbled mess in terms of cross-referencing styles). Sentence reorganization can rub out a number of the "The author"'s. I'd recommend any time that it is a subjective opinion on something (say instead of "my research shows" or "the author's research shows" it woud be "the research shows"). Simple and utilitarian.
#15
03/21/2006 (10:01 am)
Sounds good, Stephen! 
Torque 3D Owner Matthew Langley
Torque