OMG I found a new method of learning

[K.I.L.E.R]

My stupid book on computer graphics is basically talking about crap again.
So you know what I say? "Sod off you little plick!", Kruno says.
Anyway I'm going through a little code snippet which makes sense, or so I thought it did but here's the trick.

The book has made a few stupid naming conventions which I class to be errors.
If you don't name something properly it's an error.

Anyway so I'm going through the stupid code snippet and I'm interpreting the entire bloody thing into my own words while I type.
The thing is, I glanced at the snippet of code previously and I understood what was going on and what it achieved however I'm getting a better understanding of it by going through it line by line and interpreting things into my own words and changing things I don't like into my own mathematical functions.

Anyway I think this is what people call active learning.
You aren't just reading, you are examining and restructuring based on your own understanding.

For some reason it works.

Here is what I understood so far:
To calculate a lightsource to a plane per pixel, you have to actually get difference from the pixel position to the lightsource.
I was previously doing it per vertex.

EDIT:
OMG YOU SHOULD SEE THE MISTAKES THE BOOK MAKES!
I spotted 3 so far.

 

[Jabbah]

The book has made a few stupid naming conventions which I class to be errors.
If you don't name something properly it's an error.

Anyway so I'm going through the stupid code snippet and I'm interpreting the entire bloody thing into my own words while I type.
The thing is, I glanced at the snippet of code previously and I understood what was going on and what it achieved however I'm getting a better understanding of it by going through it line by line and interpreting things into my own words and changing things I don't like into my own mathematical functions.

That so reminds me of this :smile:

 

[poopypoo]

Lol, I thought for sure, your new method was going to be "post on forums and wait for Chalnoth to give me the answer" ;;;D

cool, man, I agree, I have to learn everything this way. The most important thing is not only taking notes but putting them into your own words.

 

[pegisys]

thats the only way I can learn anything, if I don't do it that way I just forget it

anyway what book are you reading, and what language

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Language = GLSL.
Book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/020138597X/103-5122604-3143820?v=glance&n=283155

I have the 4th edition.
Ignore the reviews by people who rated it one star.
They obviously don't understand the important of maths concepts, which are far more important in computer graphics than lines of code. I honestly don't know how anyone can learn computer graphics concepts by looking at code. It's absolutely ridiculous considering the concepts behind computer graphics are all mathematical.

In my computer graphics class we don't even look at code unless it's in the labs, and we are expected to know the commands. We spend all our lecture time learning the maths and ideas behind computer graphics.
I learnt to use OpenGL a few years ago, I just didn't understand what was behind it and how the concepts came about.
Now I can apply computer graphics theory independently from any API.
I've actually created a 3D renderer with only using JAVA2D.

OMG!!! NO OPENGL!!!! Just pure mathematical understanding lead me to create 3D graphics in a simple, flat 2D environment with a 2D API.
COULD THE EXPLANATIONS OF PURE MATHS AND THEORY FAILED ME JUST LIKE IT HAD THOSE ONE STAR REVIEWERS?

I hate code samples, I love math + theory.
Code is something I can do by myself in my own damn fucking time and I don't need some a-hole telling me how to code.
I've been coding it for over 4 years, I don't need those shithouse code samples and I certainly don't want to learn from a bunch of code samples. It irritates me to no end.
I've picked up several errors within the code sample I was analysing last night.
The only reason I picked them up was because it didn't match the book's theoretical explanations of how light works.

Honestly, this book is the best openGL text book I've read and yes I have read 5-6 other popular books on OpenGL and game development, the thing I hate about them most is that they are filled with code samples and don't explain crap.

At least with this book I can prove to myself how things work by explanation in both English and mathematically.
Even if I have trouble with the mathematics, once the problem is sorted out I am that much better at understanding maths and how to use it practically.

 

[pegisys]

Thanks, sounds like a decent book, I may check it out, and I agree about books that just has a bunch of code samples and doesn't explain the concept