This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 »
931
Announcements / Re: Thanksgiving Holiday Updates
« on: December 03, 2012, 01:25:06 pm »
Changing a username isn't trivial. Changing the display name is, but we can't have people changing their name every ten seconds. Maybe now we can, but later on it'd be a bad idea. Some people would piss others off, delete their post, and change their names. Or whatever. Just not really a good idea.
934
Announcements / Re: Thanksgiving Holiday Updates
« on: December 02, 2012, 07:00:26 pm »
Tell me what you want your username to be and I will set it.
935
Announcements / Re: Thanksgiving Holiday Updates
« on: December 01, 2012, 08:27:00 pm »
That Octocat thing wasn't a joke, by the way. I've gone and given myself a less generic avatar which should be massively disorienting at first, but eventually will seem natural.
936
Issues Help Desk / Re: Compiling without Java or at least trough commandline
« on: November 27, 2012, 12:23:15 pm »
Through cmd, yes.
Without Java, no.
If you're using GCC on the machine, it will build fine for that machine.
ENIGMA won't have a Java-free CLI until I decide to write an EGM loading library in C++. Which is very low on my priority list.
A cross-compiler is likely to exist.
Without Java, no.
If you're using GCC on the machine, it will build fine for that machine.
ENIGMA won't have a Java-free CLI until I decide to write an EGM loading library in C++. Which is very low on my priority list.
A cross-compiler is likely to exist.
937
Announcements / Re: Thanksgiving Holiday Updates
« on: November 26, 2012, 09:49:14 pm »
Somehow I imagined the functions being much more numerous and spread out. Derp. Anyway, thanks for that. I should be able to act on your changes sometime this weekend (certainly by next Wednesday).
938
Announcements / Re: Thanksgiving Holiday Updates
« on: November 26, 2012, 04:47:05 pm »
In other news, the problem of [snip=edl]if (collision_line(x,y,xend,yend,obj_peanuts,1,0))[/snip] always evaluating true is not something that I can make JDI fix on its own.
Can I get a willing labor force to go through ENIGMA's instance functions changing the return type to instance_t?
You'll have to put [snip=cpp]typedef int instance_t;[/snip] somewhere, like in instance_system_base.h.
If a few people can go ahead and do that for me, pretty printers (mine and others' alike) can replace boolean casts for conditionals, etc, with an inline bool_gz(x) method which just evaluates x≥0.5 (or x>0 for integer types). I can't just go ahead and make all bool casts use > 0.5; GML is the only language I know that does this and it's only useful insofar as the instance system is concerned, so our best bet is just to define that weird fucking behavior for only the instance type. It's good to have an instance_t anyway for if we ever want them to be raw pointers (which are unsigned, and so always ≥ 0).
Can I get a willing labor force to go through ENIGMA's instance functions changing the return type to instance_t?
You'll have to put [snip=cpp]typedef int instance_t;[/snip] somewhere, like in instance_system_base.h.
If a few people can go ahead and do that for me, pretty printers (mine and others' alike) can replace boolean casts for conditionals, etc, with an inline bool_gz(x) method which just evaluates x≥0.5 (or x>0 for integer types). I can't just go ahead and make all bool casts use > 0.5; GML is the only language I know that does this and it's only useful insofar as the instance system is concerned, so our best bet is just to define that weird fucking behavior for only the instance type. It's good to have an instance_t anyway for if we ever want them to be raw pointers (which are unsigned, and so always ≥ 0).
939
General ENIGMA / Re: Game Maker Studio HTML5 discount
« on: November 25, 2012, 08:20:05 pm »
You could compile for Android if you followed TGMG's jungle of a set of instructions for doing so.
940
General ENIGMA / Re: Game Maker Studio HTML5 discount
« on: November 25, 2012, 09:37:25 am »
I don't negotiate with morons. But hey, you're welcome to buy it, and if you want to stick around and tell us anything GM:S can do that we can't, that'd help.
941
Announcements / Re: Commit Privileges
« on: November 19, 2012, 02:53:39 pm »
I can see your point, forthevin, but I think we should examine the typical use case. For a binary search to fail where brute force would succeed, the colliding pixels would have to be fewer in breadth than 2**(n-1), where n is the distance from the bounding box edge to the pixel. So for a one-pixel collision to miss, it has to be at least three pixels from the bbox edge. Otherwise, the check with d = 1 or d = 2 would catch it. The check with d = 4 would potentially miss it.
So, that circumstance *could* arise, but I'd argue that it wouldn't. If we want to build it for every case, then we can't use the bounding box as a hint, either—the bounding box can be placed away from the actual collidable area.
I'm not that worried about it, though, as the function dogged it in GM so people learned to avoid it. Besides, no offense to you or anyone else, but I intend for ENIGMA to default to polygon based collisions if I (or anyone else) ever have a chance to work on them.
So, that circumstance *could* arise, but I'd argue that it wouldn't. If we want to build it for every case, then we can't use the bounding box as a hint, either—the bounding box can be placed away from the actual collidable area.
I'm not that worried about it, though, as the function dogged it in GM so people learned to avoid it. Besides, no offense to you or anyone else, but I intend for ENIGMA to default to polygon based collisions if I (or anyone else) ever have a chance to work on them.
942
Announcements / Re: Commit Privileges
« on: November 16, 2012, 10:45:03 am »
Okay, gentlemen; I just noticed you were talking about move_bounce. I am not privy to how you implemented it or move_contact, but I am hoping that for bbox, you just do some subtraction, and then for precise, you do some subtraction and then do a binary search (add one, add two instead, add four instead, add eight instead, add sixteen instead, add twelve instead, add eleven instead). Otherwise, I have more cleaning up to do when I'm finally free.
943
Announcements / Re: Commit Privileges
« on: November 14, 2012, 09:50:09 pm »
I don't want it to have an option; it should never appear in your code. Ever. The operating system handles it. Or at least it should, in a correct implementation, which I WILL have it use in the near future.
Anyway, I saw your request to remove the tracker link from the title bar, and I decided to make titles shiny instead.
Also, went ahead and fixed the avatar gallery, since that's been broken for God knows how long.
Anyway, I saw your request to remove the tracker link from the title bar, and I decided to make titles shiny instead.
Also, went ahead and fixed the avatar gallery, since that's been broken for God knows how long.
944
Announcements / Re: Commit Privileges
« on: November 14, 2012, 03:43:56 pm »
Please stop fucking using get_working_directory(). All of you.
945
Function Peer Review / Re: working_directory, temp_directory and program_directory
« on: November 03, 2012, 09:22:11 am »
DFortun81 did it. He was writing an encryption program that operated recursively. Without knowing it, he ran it on "", which of course was the working directory. All his files became encrypted; problem was, there was no cipher because the encryption algorithm was wrong. Lost everything in that directory that didn't have an EXE to decompile.
LGM shouldn't be keeping a file open for the source until it is ready to write.
LGM shouldn't be keeping a file open for the source until it is ready to write.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 »