Aktuella utvärderingar

Visa resultat

Här kan se resultatet från utvärderingen och exportera statistiken till ett annat program. Det går också att göra en enkel filtrering genom att klicka på svarsalternativen och kommentarerna eller en avancerad filtrering genom att använda knappen längst ned.

Simulation engines, Lp 2 Ht09, TDA571/DIT031

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2009-12-08 - 2009-12-21
Antal svar: 12
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 29%
Kontaktperson: Åsa Samdell»

Your own effort

1. How many hours per week did you spend on this course?

We mean total time, that is, it comprises the time you spent in class and the time you spent on your own work. Try to estimate the average time over the entire study period.

12 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»2 16%
Around 20 hours/week»5 41%
Around 25 hours/week»2 16%
Around 30 hours/week»2 16%
At least 35 hours/week»1 8%

Genomsnitt: 2.58

- extremly high workload» (At least 35 hours/week)

2. How large part of the teaching offered did you attend?

12 svarande

0%»1 8%
25%»2 16%
50%»1 8%
75%»4 33%
100%»4 33%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

- Just the first and second lecture. Nothing was told except what was on the slides.» (0%)
- well, the thing is to write an engine, not to learn things from lectures» (50%)
- The lecture slides covered everything that was presented during the lectures so you could just read them trough instead of attending the lecture.» (75%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

The course syllabus states the course goals in terms of learning outcomes, i.e., knowledge, skills and attitudes to be acquired by the student during the course.

3. How understandable are the course goals?

12 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»2 16%
The goals are difficult to understand»1 8%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»4 33%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»5 41%

Genomsnitt: 3

4. Are the goals reasonable considering your background and the number of credits?

Answer this this question and the succeeding one, only if you do know the course goals.

11 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»9 81%
No, the goals are set too high»2 18%

Genomsnitt: 2.18

- Writing a physics extension require someone into that, AI requires someone good at algorithms, network = network experience, so the background req. can vary a bit.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- More on this later» (No, the goals are set too high)

5. Did the examination assess whether you have reached the goals?

12 svarande

No, not at all»1 8%
To some extent»3 25%
Yes, definitely»1 8%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»7 58%

Genomsnitt: 3.16

- a lot of work that cannot really be a part of the exam. Research and other things» (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

6. To what extent has the teaching been of help for your learning?

12 svarande

Small extent»9 75%
Some extent»3 25%
Large extent»0 0%
Great extent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.25

- It was too vague and unobjective. It lacked practice.» (Small extent)
- Teacher reading stuff from slides I pretty much already know. Why not go deep into the problemsolving needed to tie together the project. Close to nothing from the lessons have been of use for the project.» (Small extent)
- Most usefull is information found on the web, articles and books. And of course in the source of other engines,examples and frameworks. The lectures PRESENTED a couple of those, but not more than can be found with google/wikipedia in a few minutes. I think the lectures should have focus on STRUCTURE, which is rather hard to find good articles about.» (Small extent)
- Practical How-To"s would be good.» (Some extent)

7. To what extent has the course literature and other material been of help for your learning?

12 svarande

Small extent»6 50%
Some extent»5 41%
Large extent»1 8%
Great extent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.58

- It wasn"t necessary.» (Small extent)
- Didn"t buy any. Can"t see how the lessons related to the book in any way.» (Small extent)
- The course book did give some ideas about structure and layout of a sim. engine, but also to some small extent the different sub systems. But it is very focused on C++ and spend to much time avoiding overhead with vftables and such stuff that is rather irrelevant micro-optimisations relative to how to store, cache, and pass around game object/game state data and minimize bugs as well as how to do good testing in a sim. engine. Most of that we had to figure out ourselves.» (Some extent)

8. How well did the course administration, web page, handouts etc work?

12 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»1 8%
Rather well»8 66%
Very well»3 25%

Genomsnitt: 3.16

- Course web page is badly organaized, parts of it is in swedish other parts in english. The usage of google docs worked rather well but the twitter feed was distrastous as it was offline sometimes. Supervision bookings polls took to long to appear on the homepage.» (Rather badly)
- Kind of odd to put the schedule on both google calender AND doodle, when the other courses @ chalmers uses the time edit. Three systems to sync with my personal calender. NOT optimal. Good with a feed such as twitter, but it was hard to get the news unless visiting the twitter page..» (Rather well)

Study climate

9. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?

12 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»3 25%
Rather good»4 33%
Very good»0 0%
I did not seek help»5 41%

Genomsnitt: 3.58

- I quote: "Any technical difficulties is your problem". The technical difficulties is a part of the course. If we are unable to solve them we will fail the course.» (Rather poor)
- We were told not to ask technical questions but to seek out the answers ourselves.» (Rather poor)
- I could always ask my group for support.» (Rather good)
- There was oppurtunities to ask other students for setup, compile, error and other common stuff with Ogre, but other than that - we were pretty much alone. Good to have a rather big group with good people though.» (Rather good)

10. How well has cooperation between you and your fellow students worked?

12 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»0 0%
Rather well»3 25%
Very well»9 75%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.75

- most of us had to use home computers since most of our laptops did not run windows. So we had to work through MSN, Skype, google wave, google groups and google docs. Worked well!» (Very well)

11. How was the course workload?

12 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»6 50%
High»4 33%
Too high»2 16%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

- I think that the course itself is flawed, it is not possible to make a game in 7 weeks much less a simulation engine.» (High)
- I"m really upset that the deadline for group/individual report is in january. The course lasts for 8 weeks, why are we expected to hand in stuff 2 weeks after the course has ended? And don"t tell me that "you can hand in your stuff whenever you want" cause we both know that would create an unfair situation where students that are somehow okay spending time after that course has ended achieves better results. The course should be planned so that you can finish it within the study period.» (Too high)
- As a software engineer in the middle. There was simply too much work to do in the end. Specially with no person responisble for MISC to handle different stuff that dont belong anyplace else. (input, gui, etc) » (Too high)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

12 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»8 66%
High»2 16%
Too high»2 16%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

12 svarande

Poor»1 8%
Fair»4 33%
Adequate»2 16%
Good»5 41%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.91

- Not very structured» (Fair)
- Nice with one big project.» (Adequate)
- One of the courses I"ve learnt the most from in terms of making a big piece of software with really complex and compilcated parts (real-time, graphics, ai, network, physics, loose dependencies, etc)» (Good)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- The course project is what should be preserved.»
- The making of a sim. engine. C++»
- The project is good.»
- The supervisions.»
- The focus on the project»

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- Perhaps lower the goals of the course, that will allow the teacher to go into more details of the covered areas. I feel that details were really lacking.»
- Why bother having lessons when it"s only slides being read anyways. And why bother having lessons that are of no concern to the examination.»
- We got the impression the extensions had to "create something new". This was very difficult.»
- Ogre is just a platform for rendering. Its fair that the graphics guy can choose freely among renderers as the network guy can choose between rakknet, opentnl etc. ALSO, most important: Give lectures about STRUCTURE. Most/all students know about basic newton mechanics, 3d graphics, TCP/UDP communications and development environments. What we do not know is how to structure a simulation engine in terms of software.»
- The lectures need to be more serious and deep.»
- It would be good to structure the project better, maybe make some basic framework that all groups can start working on.»
- Make groups in beforehand if you are not going to let the students choose anyways.»
- Maybe go beyond the slides in the lectures»

16. Additional comments

- I think this subject is a very interesting one, but the way it is presented in this course, it is rather uninteresting. It lacks details, all we see is "what can be done by the engine" rather than "how we can achieve this". The lack of details was really frustrating. I would probably learn more by reading a book alone.»
- Chalmers needs a course in setting up, running and debugging/interpreting errors in Microsoft Visual Studio.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från