Nitro187's Forum Posts

  • Then perhaps a feature request.... such as, Create family object, where you can specify the ID of the actual family member. It's too bad this isn't possible.

  • I'm attempting to create a family object, and specify it's instance variables, however... the family 'member' it creates is at random. How do I specify which object within the family gets created at the point of spawn?

    Sure... I can spawn that specific object, which is part of the family instead of spawning the entire family... but I'm looking at an alternate way. Any suggestions?

  • Geez, you're fast!

    Have a break! It's new year!

    Thanks again! And Happy New Year!

  • Hate to be a debbie-downer, lol... but doing that fix that you did yesterday, may have caused another issue... unless it's just me. Now when you have 8 directions turned on, it can't find any matches at all. 4 directions works fine, but 8 directions nothing is found. If you can't see this bug, let me know, I can whip up an example.

    Thanks!

  • Awesome... thank you so much!

  • Nitro187

    Try set "Directions" property at rex_board_squareTx object to "'8 directions", to test neighbors in 8 directions.

    It's currently set to 4 directions, which is what I want... I don't want diagonal, I only want 4 directions... but the "nearest neighbor" is showing diagonal positions as well for some reason.

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • Is there a quick and dirty way, I can do a condition "Are neighbors (UID)" but by chess?

    Essentially, I'd like to check if the neighbors are like this:

    ..Y

    YXY

    ..Y

    instead of

    YYY

    YXY

    YYY

    Thanks!

  • Wicked.... thanks Paradox! That'll help out immensely.

  • Change event 7 from an Else to a condition that picks overlapping blocks. "Else" wasn't picking.

    [attachment=0:3m3e6o8e][/attachment:3m3e6o8e]

    Now when it hits the ground, without it hitting a red block, it thinks it's still "falling"

    Ninja edit: actually, what I meant to say is, if you drag and drop any of the items, then try creating a new one by right clicking, they don't behave properly....

  • Ok, so I have two enemies that I do not want to touch each other when they fall... without using solid objects, as I'm using a drag and drop feature... so I have this setup:

    Enemy Object, with 4 instances on the screen

    if Enemy IS overlapping Enemy at offset (0,8) then change ONLY THIS instance variable "me" to 1

    else continue to fall

    Problem is... it'll changes the instance variable of "me" of the other object to 1, instead of the other.... or both... is there a way to fix this from happening?

    Attached is an example that describes this problem... if you see in the code, it's set to make the instance "false" when it overlaps... but all it does is makes the one it overlaps false, but not both... it's complicating, but hopefully you can see what I mean in the example. Right click on the screen to spawn more 'falling' enemies. The ones that are there at start up, fall... and then change their variables properly... but the ones you create at startup, have no idea what's going on when it comes to changing themselves when they fall on top of another object, only the 'ground'... even though the code is in there. Try dragging and dropping around the ones that already hit the ground... notice they no longer fall? Now try a spawned object that hasn't hit the ground, but hit another object.... it SHOULD behave the same way, but instead, it continues to fall.

    [attachment=0:3l90wfat][/attachment:3l90wfat]

    There has to be a way to interact with two different instances of the same object when using conditions\actions... right?

    I'm thinking more of a define option, like this maybe, for times when you using the same object:

    Condition:

    Object(0).Click

    (btw, I know it's easy to select a specific iid here)

    Action:

    Create-> Object(1)

    (but there is no way to grab the iid here, and use it in the next action, as you can see)

    Set position (Object(1) to Object(0).x+200 & Object(0).y+0)

    (at this point, "Object" is now ONLY using the newly created one)

    Delete Object(0)

    (continues to use the newly created instance)

    Is this at all possible? This would be amazing.... cause instead, what this does (without the possibility of the bold'ed items) is deletes the object you JUST created.

    Thanks!

  • You may wonder why the hell I would have a file locked.... well... tell that to Google Drive, Dropbox, and most recently a virus scanner.

  • Here's a more step by step method:

    1) Open up a project, and wait until it does an autobackup. (file will be named "<yourprojectname>.capx.backup1")

    2) Lock that file some how.... here's one way to do this: install WinRAR, right click on the file, go to 'add to archive' then while it's compressing, press 'pause'. That file is now locked until you release it from WinRAR

    3) Now with that file locked.... make a change, and try to save the project.... good luck!

  • Problem Description

    Construct2 freezes when saving or backing up if one of the files are in use.

    Steps to Reproduce Bug

    • Open any project, and have the project create an autosave file
    • Make that file in use (open it in a program that will lock the file)
    • Try to save, or let the auto-backup happen

    Observed Result

    Notice Construct2 tries to save, but gets hung up and stays on the 'saving' screen... even after the file is no longer locked.

    Expected Result

    It should give you an error stating the file is locked and you cannot save, or save, but under a different name, etc etc etc.

    Operating System and Service Pack

    Windows 7 64bit SP1

    Construct 2 Version ID

    All versions... it has done this for a while, I just keep forgetting to report it.

  • So is this 100% not an option, or would this possibly be considered? If it's not ever going to be considered, I really need to think of another method... this is the only one that seems to be the best one to me.

  • dunno if this is what you looking for but mabey build the game with all the dlc in the game but only accessible through code input.

    so players that buy the code can gain access to the code thats already written in the game. then any time you come up with a new map just write it into original code then change ver number then make new access code.

    Although that is doable, there are lots of different ways to get around not having this feature, which is why I'm making the feature request. In the end of the day, all game developers should do that... but time restrictions and so on make it impossible to put all the content you want into your original game... and without having people to re-download and re-install everytime you want to give an update, it's hardly a solution... but thanks for the idea.