jacobrec/asteroid-sim

Contest submission for the 2017 University of Alberta Engineering Contest programming division

Asteroids Simulator

Created by Jacob Reckhard and Kyle Hennig

As part of the 2017 University of Alberta Engineering contest, we had 6 hours to create the working code and put together a presentation.

Program Requirements

Part 1

• You must visualize and simulate a variable size asteroid field
• When asteroids collide, they must break apart into smaller asteroids, whilst maintaining their original momentum
• There must be a method for changing the number of asteroids in the simulation

Part 2

• The shuttle must be able to fly anywhere in the asteroid field and avoid the asteroids for as long as possible

Rubric

Program Design GUI

Screen size of application:

• Does the program use the full screen size? /5

Interface and usage:

• Does the program use a simple interface? Is it easy to use? /15

Display:

• Do the asteroid and shuttle sizes seem appropriate? Do they accurately represent their real counterparts? /15

Code Readability:

• Is the program coded in a systematic manner? Using appropriate architecture? /8
• Is there a sufficient amount of comments? /2

Documentation

• Is there an accompanying README? /3

Solution Performance

Complete Solution:

• Does the program meet the requirements described in the problem? /5

Part A:

• Do asteroids break apart when they collide? /5
• Can you vary the number of asteroids currently being displayed? /5
• Are asteroids recreated when others leave the screen? /2

Part B:

• Is the shuttle able to navigate through the simulation? /5
• Does the shuttle avoid asteroids for a suitable period of time? /5
• Does the program offer above and beyond features? /10

Performance:

• Does the simulation scale well when more asteroids are added? (Slowdown isn’t too extreme) /5

Bugs:

• Are there any reported bugs/issues? /-15 (-5 per bug)
• Are there any un-reported bugs/issues? /-50 (-25 per bug)

Presentation and Management

Content:

• Was the presentation clear and understandable? /5
• Was the code well explained during the presentation? /5

Professionalism:

• Did the team appear professional? Were all team members available? /3
• Was the team communication clear? Such as: proper use of jargon, not extremely technical? /2

Presentation:

• Was the presentation interesting? Easy to follow? /5