Zebbi's Forum Posts

  • Zebbi , this still needs some tuning, but the basics are there.

    Is this what you want to do?

    Yes, i know, it is just a workarround for probaly only the this specific capx. Still hope it brings you to somewhere else then a status quo.

    https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1SSu ... 3RYeTdfZUk

    Ashley, if you would like to take a look, mayby this shows you the purpose of what is asked. On the other hand i understand that is the same question as 'Can we plz have private obstacle maps?'. Wich i doubt is possible.

    Hmm, seems that the "enemies" are still controlling the overall global solid on/off, which is causing the problems where you can bash your players head against the bottom of the stairs sometimes, you fall off sometimes and you don't always walk under them properly, what was the workaround you implemented?

    Private obstacle maps isn't really what's needed I don't think, just individual object flags for solids.

  • But if you have an action that says "for this instance, ignore solids", won't it then fall through the floor if it's standing on a solid? It sounds like the only way is to say "for this instance, ignore solids of <family>".

    Ashley Yes, exactly, this way you can create, as I did in the example, sets of stairs that when you walk under, the stairs become un-solid and when you land on, they become solid, just like an angular jump-through; the difference being that now enemies and even other players would be able to use the stairs as well; at present, if the player is walking under the stairs, the stairs are non-solid, and if the player is on the stairs, the stairs are solid. This action would allow the enemies and multi-players to interact individually with the stairs.

  • hazneliel re: my previous post, maybe this example of mine could be an idea of how to go about crouching: https://www.scirra.com/tutorials/1389/m ... av-mbcdash

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • Ashley's looking into it, lend your support!

  • Ashley's looking into it, lend your support!

  • I've looked in to this a little more. I'm still a little confused by this proposal. So it looks like you want the ability to disable the staircase's solidity independent of the enemies - so you can stand on the staircase while enemies pass through it, or pass through it while enemies stand on it.

    However I'm not sure actually how your suggested "disable collision filtering" action would work, and how that would solve this. The only "collision filtering" the platform behavior does is to filter out any disabled solids. If you disable that "filtering", then it will act like all solids are enabled. So then you will always go up the stairs, never through them.

    So I think I kind of see what you want, but I don't really understand what your proposed action would actually do internally, and how that fixes this. My first thought would be to have a Platform action to say something like "disable solid for this instance only", which isn't anything to do with disabling filtering. Alternatively there could be something like the LOS behavior where you can optionally choose a custom object/family to be solids instead of just using the solid behavior, and then you'd have to have two sets of objects for player and enemy collisions, which could then be separately disabled.

    Either way, the Platform behavior has some of the most complex code in the engine, so I doubt this will be straightforward.

    Ashley Fair enough, my wording wasn't probably the finest! I think it can be described as simply "per individual instance of any object, can we disable it's interaction and reactions to solid objects" rather than changing the solid's interaction with everyone else. I definitely think the closest would be "disable solid for this instance only" but I know Ruskul and JackieChan had some ideas on this, and JC described the request as "It would be great to have a "ignore collision with selected solid" feature in construct 2 that would work with all behaviors".

    Does my example give any clear indication as to what I kinda need?

  • No, sorry, we can't give an ETA on any features.

    Would you say it would be difficult or relatively simple to implement for a future C2 update?

  • Subscribe to Construct videos now

  • Thanks for putting this together. Tbh I think Ashley wanted a topic here to placeholder for an update to the platform behaviour - this forum is the evernote for tweaks to c2. The case for collision filtering solids is incredibly strong in if the behaviour is to be used by more than just one actor.

    I'm still keen on having this as I can't really advance with a game I was working on until it's possible to ignore solids for an object per object. Ashley any ideas when this might be available?

  • That's pretty cool but I recommend using a sprite object instead of tiles so you don't have 2 families to check collisions with (solid tilemaps & solid sprites).

    But painting tiles is so much fun!

  • This topic might help:

    It has a capx that separates the decoration tiles into a second tilemap with events.

    Wow, so the events basically duplicate the tilemap on load and clears off any that aren't solid?

    > [quote:1zi4mjyg]

    > Not sure about that, there are a few smart arses here, but not half as many as Clickteam has, and their forum is deadin the water for most technical requests/discussions. Here you can always get help/replies almost straight away.

    >

    Yeah clickteam and gdevelop isn't our main competition concern. Gamesalad, GameMaker, Unity,Unreal, etc. They all have tools to make games easy and all their forums are active. Yes the help section is good but can be better . Overall if your suggesting that everything is ok, I see it very differently.

    I haven't actually seen those forums myself, I've received some good help around here, tbh, but there's been some difficult moments like anywhere.

  • I don't want to mess around with designing two different tilemaps for collisions and non collisions, are there any alternative ways around this, like using the event sheet to replace certain tile indexes with non collision versions?

    I am glad to see such an interest in Construct3 but lets temper expectations a bit now time wise. As time goes by I see things in this forum that shows me unless Construct3 is magnificent , its going to fail. Construct3 has to be mind blowing and thats going to take them a while to make.

    Honestly I feel Construct2 is the best 2D game engine on the market and I have tried all the major ones. But speaking bluntly I feel as though out of all the engines , Construct2 has the worst website. Other game engines have bright and fun forums plus updated showcases. In C2 you have an old showcase with less than 10 games. Also in the C2 forums you have too many people who are smart-asses and are negative. Truth is it's going to be very tough to get a bunch of new buyers to buy Construct3 if things in this website don't change.

    Other game forums are far busier than this one because of the thing I stated. I met a lot of good people here that I like but recently I slowed down coming here often because its slowing getting worst and less busier. Like I said Construct2 has the best 2D engine and is great on mobile . But don't rush the developers because the product has to be stellar in order to sell. They don't have the benefit of an awesome website like other game engines do.

    Not sure about that, there are a few smart arses here, but not half as many as Clickteam has, and their forum is deadin the water for most technical requests/discussions. Here you can always get help/replies almost straight away.

  • A month ago the author did not visit the forum, is what I hate about the plugins, I try to use the least possible amount of plugins.

    I wouldn't hate plugins because the developer has other things to do, lunarray was very helpful to me via PM with this plugin and most of these plugins don't need continued support to function as per their original purpose.

    Quite the contrary, using as few plugins as possible would be limiting the extensive possibilities of C2.