Sargas's Forum Posts

  • Hey there, i'm trying to make a dynamic zooming camera for a 4 player game. (it's an arena/stadium type game)

    The idea is that the camera is always framing the 4 players with an acceptable margin. So if the players are near each other the layer zooms in, if the players are far apart, they layer zooms out.

    If we could do this without the camera going outside the layout it would be great.

    I've been trying to do this for a while now, but I haven't been able to produce any proper results yet. My best effort so far was to "pick the distance from the player who was farthest from the camera coordinates", and use that to manually set the zoom values on a cosp formula using lower and higher zoom values, but it's crap and doesn't work like it should, though sometimes it looks like it's going to Dx

    i searched around the forums, and saw a couple post where they where using the distances of the players, compared to the window's size, but i wasn't able to make that work either. I'm assuming i'm really not good at scaling the damn layers (i need to scale only a couple of layers, and not all of them in the layout)...

    anyway, any help would be really appreciated T_T

  • Are attachments no longer available? I was going to upload it to the forums, but there doesn't seem to be a way anymore...

  • yah, i did that,

    when angle was < 0 , add 360.

  • Why are angles sometimes printed as "-180 to 180" instead of "0 to 360"

    and how can i turn a negative angle to 0 to 360 angles? =(

    this is very confusing and a little bit annoying.

  • k, so the answer is no, thanks.

    I had read that several times, just didn't remember it said it there =(

  • anyone knows?

  • Hey =)

    When we use renders cells objects with just the 1 frame are ignored, but what about objects that have more than 1 animation. Are they still ignored if they are playing an animation with 1 frame, even though they have another animation that has more than 1?

    I really wish them to be ignored based on the animation they are currently playing =O

  • I also tried (long before posting this bug report) to change the value inside the line instead of using the deadzone parameter, and no luck there either.

    btw, i'm not stuck or anything because of this problem, i used a workaround that works like this should work.

    I'm setting the player angle to the stick angle / 8 , and the speed using vector X and Y in the 8direction behavior based on the stick axis value.

    However, i'm still pretty sure this is an actual problem with either the plugin in chrome, or the plugin in C2.

  • I'm using an original xbox 360 controller...

  • — and that is why the gamepad object has a deadzone parameter. And in this case, even with the deadzone at 99, the problem still occurs.

  • Problem Description

    When you set the gamepad axis to simulate controls for the 8direction behavior, the result is that the player can only move diagonally.

    I used the "gamepad 0 axis Y < 0 = simulate up" thing for up, down, left and right.

    Attach a Capx

    [attachment=0:3h8xnvnz][/attachment:3h8xnvnz]

    Description of Capx

    Very simpe Capx, just a sprite with the 8direction behavior, and a gamepad, that is set to handle controls on the event sheet.

    Steps to Reproduce Bug

    • Step 1: run the game
    • Step 2: activate gamepad by pressing any button and try to move vertically or horizontally..
    • Step 3: fail to do so, and instead move only in diagonals.

    Observed Result

    the sprite can only move in diagonals, for some reason it can't move just up, or just left, it is always both axis at the same time, even with the deadzone to over 90. If you disable half the events, however, you can move up or down, or left and right. but with all 4 lines active. only diagonals for some reason.

    Expected Result

    to be able to move in at least 8 directions.

    Affected Browsers

    • Chrome: YES
    • FireFox: don't know
    • Internet Explorer: it doesn't even detect the gamepad...

    Operating System and Service Pack

    Windows 8.1 x64 latest updates.

    video card up to date as well.

    Construct 2 Version ID

    Release 198 (64 bits) checked.

  • Hey there. This could be a dumb question, since i don't understand if there is a reason behind it.

    But is it really a strict limit that tiled objects are rectangles? Could it be at all possible for them to be "transformable", similar to how we can move around, add, and delete the points on a collision polygon?

    The most basic use of this would be filling up an area without having to use several instances of the tiled objects. when up against a shape that isn't a flat line. (like in the attached img) it would be a lot simpler if the tile object could be freely transformed into an "organic" polygon =)

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • Ok, so huge layouts are viable now, like i though.

    but i have a big question now. Since to make the most of rendering and collision cells, objects on those layers should not have any behaviors, events involving them, or more than 1 frame. However, when you are making a huge level, a lot of the assets are actually things you must interact with (floors, walls, platforms, etc). And those need to have at least 1 behavior on them. so, in practical terms, how would you setup the layout, to really take advantage of the cells?

    My guess would be to have the "visuals" of the level on a render-cell-appropriate layer, and then make an invisible layers that handles collisions with tiles that have the behaviors on them. That seems to be the way to go... but is it?

  • Ashley He's talking about the Properties Bar, where pasting things doesn't work.

  • With all the rendering and processing optimizations that have been implemented fairly recently. I wonder if the answer to this question has changed.

    I understand that now there would be no problem with having a really huge layout, since the game won't even think about whats not involved on the viewport. Whereas before every inch of the layout counted. You could also use groups for each area of your huge layout and disable those for the areas you're not in.

    So, what do you guys think, If you where to make a pc game with a "A link to the past" type world map. Would you dare to put everything on a single layout now?

    (although I remember that alttp had an overworld that wasn't that big in reality, and then it had a lot of smaller, separate areas =P)