Sign up ×
Game Development Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional and independent game developers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I can't seem to find a nice explanation of the Data Oriented Design for a generic zombie game (it's just an example, pretty common example).

Could you make an example of the Data Oriented Design on creating a generic zombie class? Is the following good?

Zombie list class:

class ZombieList {
    GLuint vbo; // generic zombie vertex model
    std::vector<color>;    // object default color
    std::vector<texture>;  // objects textures
    std::vector<vector3D>; // objects positions
    unsigned int create(); // return object id
    void move(unsigned int objId, vector3D offset);
    void rotate(unsigned int objId, float angle);
    void setColor(unsigned int objId, color c);
    void setPosition(unsigned int objId, color c);
    void setTexture(unsigned int, unsigned int);
    void update(Player*); // move towards player, attack if near


Player p;

Zombielist zl;
unsigned int first = zl.create();
zl.setPosition(first, vector3D(50, 50));
zl.setTexture(first, texture("zombie1.png"));

while (running) { // main loop
    zl.draw(); // draw every zombie

Or would creating a generic World container that contains every action from bite(zombieId, playerId) to moveTo(playerId, vector) to createPlayer() to shoot(playerId, vector) to face(radians)/face(vector); and contains:

std::vector<vbobufferid> player_run_animation;

be a good example?

Whats the proper way to organize a game with DOD?

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 10 down vote accepted

There is no such thing as a "game with DOD". Firstable, that buzz-word is a bit fuzzy, because each system is designed data-oriented. Each program works on a set of data and makes certain transformations to it. Impossible to do that without orienting the design towards the data. So it's not mutually exclusive with "normal" design, but adds constraints in memory layout and the way memory is accessed respectively.

The idea behind DOD is to pack and group data belonging to one functionality closer together in a continious memory block, in order to have less cache misses, getting rid of virtual functions and vtables, easier parallelization, no (or minimal) random memory accesses and to write code for highly optimized processors like the Cell's SPUs in the PS3 with its limited memory resources, optimizing memory access and DMAs to and from it's main memory.

This does not simply mean to change everything from "Array-of-Structures" (AoS) to "Structure of Arrays" (SoA) like shown in the examples here. It can also mean mixing both and to interleave and pack data belonging to one functionality closely together, like for instance "position" and "velocity" to avoid jumping in memory for the integration of the position.

However, pure DOD systems are very hard to implement, as each pointer access is a violation of that pure concept, as you don't access a continious memory block anymore, but doing random memory accesses by dereferencing a pointer. This is particularily important for writing code for the SPU when moving for instance a particle system from the CPU to the SPU, but in the normal daily game development it is not important. It's a way to optimize sub-functionality, not to write games with it (yet, as Noels article explains).

Mike Acton from Insomniac Games has a lot of intesting material related to this topic, you can find some of his stuff here as well as Noel's articles, both highly recommended.

share|improve this answer
One thing I'd like to add to this answer: DOD isn't ALL about SoA systems. While SoA structures tend to work best for DOD, they don't always fit the actual DOD concept. The concept behind DOD is simply the idea that you are designing the code around the data, not the other way around, which is the usual method. –  Gurgadurgen May 17 at 11:47

I have been searching for a good example of this aswell, but with limited resouces on the net and no one to tell me how to do it properly, i did it with the following implementation. (it might not be the best, but it follows the basic idea)

   //Basic data
   Vector3* Position;
   Vector3* Rotation;
   Vector3* Scale;

Car : Object
    float* acceleration;
    Object* GetObjectData();
    //invoke the updateCars, to update all cars.
    void    UpdateCar() { UpdateCars(Postion, Rotation, Scale);

    //Update all your objects in a big loop.
    void    UpdateCars(vector3* Position, vector3* Rotation, Vector3* scale);

So the implementation is more or less like this : You have an base object class, which holds all common data. When your car class get constructed, you specify what amount of data you want to pool up, and therefor have enough memory for all the objects.

from there you can offcourse add identifiers or what ever feels nessecary for your implementation. but i tried this on a simpler game, and it workt pretty neat.

It´s not that far away from your design either, and frankly i dont know any more efficent way to do this.

share|improve this answer
A few DOD issues: 1. Lose scale, for sure. Calculations regarding position & rotation are virtually always unaffected by scale, so it will pretty much never get used, and just take up cache space. 2. I'd also lose rotation, and replace it with velocity. A car is intended to move straight, but its velocity will ultimately determine its direction. The driver presses the gas petal, but physics moves the car. 3. Don't inherit from classes for the data if you don't plan on using it in almost all calculations, together. 4. Even in OOP, cars do not update each other. Use free functions. –  Gurgadurgen May 13 at 13:25
This is more of an example, not an ultimate guide. you of course have to pick the best fitt for your own implementation. ( as it is stated ) –  Tordin May 15 at 6:45
Your example is an example of standard OOP abstraction, and takes little to no advantage of DoD strategies. DoD is about the data, not about the model. The fact that you even have a "car" object is a dead giveaway that this isn't much of an example of DoD. A car is pretty specific, and DoD tends to do existence-based object composition and polymorphism, rather than inheritance-based. So, for example, you might have an object that holds information that is required for a specific transform, and make an array of those objects, instead of an object with information for multiple transforms. –  Gurgadurgen May 15 at 17:02

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.