1StepCloser's Forum Posts

  • What do you need help with?

    Problem: When modifying an existing return function's parameter input values, I'm not able to see which parameter I'm modifying.

    Image 1: Parameter interface shown when you first start adding the parameter values.

    Image 2: Parameter interface does not show when modifying the values (unless you wipe all values clean and start over)

    Desired Result: Parameter interface shows when modifying any of the parameter values.

  • Only shows parameters when at the start of the function.

  • could it be a mouse issue? sometimes when I click too fast or double click (or set my mouse speed all the way up), it quickly changes focus to wherever my mouse is... and I will type S..P..R.. and realize I'm not in the search field.

    It can even happen when pressing enter at step 2 rather than clicking with the mouse.

    After further testing it looks like this is the trigger to cause focus to automatically divert away from the search box:

    1. Add action or condition

    2. Select an object

    3. Go back out into the condition/action page

    4. Select another object

    5. Loses focus each time.

  • Any update on if this is getting fixed? It certainly messes with workflow:

    1. Add condition

    2. Select object for condition

    3. Type condition using search *(Can't do this because it doesn't focus search box anymore)

    4. Press enter to pick that condition

    At step 3 when I start typing focus goes to back button, so when I hit enter I end up back at selecting an object for conditions.

  • Sounds like you would need 70 with the variable. My best approach would be to focus on the item/room and only allow objects to pathfind to it if their variable matches the variable of the item/room.

    Thanks for the input, So it seems like the method you are proposing is a means of preventing the pathfinding from occurring if an object is pathfinding to an object enclosed in a room of a different relation, rather than relying on pathfinding to filter obstacles based on relations?

  • As above then, make them separate objects which is the norm

    So I have about 70 characters in my game, are you saying I would effectively need an object per character per relation type? (If I had say an ally, neutral, and enemy, and I have 70 characters, I would need 210 character objects?)

  • Here is an example lionz:

    In this case, the player is automatically locating an item needed, it is located in a room with the access point being the door. I can simply disable the collisions of a door for that object type but it will allow enemies to also pathfind through doors, which is a mechanic I don't want.

  • Try Construct 3

    Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • Scenario: A character needs to retrieve an item that is within a room with a door closed. It will not find a path because the door is an obstruction.

    Goal: Doors are not seen as obstacles if their relation matches the characters relation (Ally/Enemy)

    Issue: Physics, Line of Sight, and Pathfinding are all object-based not instance-based, so using a variable (Relation = Ally) is not useful for setting instances as obstacles, because any character can potentially be any relation, thus enabling a door for that object will negate the purpose of relations.

    Any ideas on how to approach this issue?

    Tagged:

  • Is there a method for tracking errors from the console back to the event sheet?

    Tagged:

  • I believe you are referring to the individual tables within the advanced random plugin?

    If so, yes, my advanced random table has hundreds of probability tables so I was trying to avoid that, but it seems I'll have to:

    1. Whenever a probability table is created or altered, save a key value pair in a dictionary.

    2. When loading a game, loop through that dictionary to restore the state of the advanced random plug-in.

  • Thanks for the rapid response newt, that's unfortunate but expected.

  • I'm running into a situation where loading the full state of a game does not include the state of the advanced random plugin. If this is the case, I need a way to save the probability tables within the advanced random plugin so that I can restore it's state.

  • Yeah, we talked about conditional expressions here: construct.net/en/forum/construct-3/general-discussion-7/personal-performance-160459

    This test just really showcases how big of a difference this can be.

    As for ELSE, per the manual it is as you state. I use ELSE quite religiously, so this is good to know.

  • c) Avoids all the if statements by putting it into a single conditional expression when applying movement to the object, i.e. each step:

    action - set sprite x = x < 0 ? 800 : x > 800 ? 0 : x + sx*dt

    action - set sprite y = y < 0 ? 450 : y > 450 ? 0 : y + sy*dt

    These expressions allow you to 'short circuit' the evaluation, i.e. if the first part (x<0) is true then the rest of the checks will be skipped. This is what I wished the ELSE event would do...

    Hope that makes sense...

    Wow, 25k difference by switching to conditional expressions?

    I thought the else condition operates the same way, but with the downside of still having event block overhead unlike the conditional expression. This is interesting, thanks again for these experiments.

  • Thanks simstratic,

    1) I'm curious how such a pronounced difference can be possible between C3 and gamemaker if, as you state, gamemaker YYC export is compiling to entirely C++. Is this a case where JIT compiling can outperform C++? My guess is it probably has to due with the difficulties of replicating comparisons between different engines.

    2) Can you go into more detail about the different ways you set up Construct 3s experiments? (Behaviors vs Events vs conditional expressions vs conditional expression with rotation) There are some significant differences between these results that could be relevant to those of us trying to squeeze out every bit of performance possible.

    Thanks,

    1Step