Is it possible to set the elasticity of a physics object based on where another object collides with it?

For example with a pinball game, when the ball hits the top of a slingshot, it should have a little elasticity because it's hitting rubber, but when it hits the side of the slingshot there should be more elasticity because it's getting physically repelled.

Is there a way to adapt the elasticity for two different parts of the same object, or does it have to be two different objects, one hidden possibly?

Thanks!

Looks great — and has so many applications! Can't wait to see the finished result

Thanks for the responses and for clarifying the best approach.

The question stemmed from a Udemy course I watched where one object was given a *lot* of extra points:

so on one hand I thought this could be applied to the playfield too, the warnings that popped up made me want a definitive answer from the experts (thanks!)

Box2D+ looks interesting — I'll definitely check it out

Thanks for the reply — — much appreciated; so to answer my original question multiple shapes with more points collectively is preferable to a single large shape with more than the accepted number of points, as far as performance is concerned?

I'm fine with having a notification pop up when I add the first point past the accepted number, but one notification is enough — by that point I'm aware I've gone over so subsequent notifications are overkill, just a suggestion for UX.

The extra points are based on the curve of the shape and the ball (in this case) having to travel smoothly around it.

Thanks again

I'm making a pinball game and the playfield is an irregular shape (like pinball playfields generally are).

To use a single shape for the playfield it needs around 30 points to define the collision polygon (complete with warnings of reduced performance).

Is it better to use multiple shapes to create the playfield (each with say, 6 points) or to have all the points on a single shape?

Thanks

NB - can the warnings of too many points on a polygon be disabled? I kind of got it after the first extra point, but it repeats itself and each warning has to be dismissed.

Thanks for the replies — makes perfect sense. I've done it with squares, and was fine, but looked a little messy (even though the player never sees that view) so was looking for a way to make it neater and easier to create than use multiple blocks

Probably easier if I show pictures — if I have a racetrack like the first picture, a png with transparent background, then a reversed out version - second picture - to be the solid, the car doesn't move at all.

Would this be because Construct3 (or 2) doesn't support the alpha channel and treats the whole thing as a solid, or am I doing something wrong?

Many thanks

Thanks for all the feedback, I went ahead with the purchase (hey, it's only $12 right?) but initial impressions are that while it will no doubt be useful once I've reached the top of the learning curve, it doesn't have the jump-in-and-play feel that Construct2 offers.

Megabeard, I've used Clickteam stuff on and off for years (since Klik and Play, and The Games Factory) which is maybe why Construct2 seems like such a familiar piece of software.

GMS will be one of those 'when I get around to it' applications I'm guessing, but no harm in having it in the meantime, just in case.

On the whole I'm pretty happy with Construct2 and am eagerly awaiting the Mac port of Construct3 when it sees the light of day.

I own Construct2 and love what it does, and have now seen Gamemaker's humble bundle so am considering buying it too.

While I think for $12 you can't really lose (aside from having to buy additional export modules and this isn't really about price) it is another piece of software to learn, quirks to overcome, processes to develop etc and for what? If Construct2 (and 3 when it sees the light of day) does everything Gamemaker does there isn't really much point in having both, particularly given the time you would spend getting to grips with the new software.

So my question is, for those people who have both or have tried both to the point of completing games, is there any benefit in having both of them in your arsenal; do you look at the game you are considering building and make an educated decision on which to use to develop it?