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 »
916
Programming Help / Re: Very hard time with ENIGMA (while, for, until, etc.)
« on: May 07, 2014, 12:36:49 pm »
I edited first post to remove irrelevant info and add more relevant ones.
917
Programming Help / Re: Very hard time with ENIGMA (while, for, until, etc.)
« on: May 07, 2014, 11:38:07 am »
That's incorrect, the drawing gets refreshed and not drawn on top of itself. As I mentioned in my post if I do it manually instead of a for loop it works correctly
I tried the for loop in a script and in a non draw event, etc, still same problem
for (i=0; i < 100; i++)
This should start counting from 0 and increment i by 1 every step. Oddly, the i starts at 100 and not 0. and stays 100.
Tried placing this for in a non step event and debugging, and i still starts at 100, even if I declare the variable, global, int, var, same shit.
I tried the for loop in a script and in a non draw event, etc, still same problem
for (i=0; i < 100; i++)
This should start counting from 0 and increment i by 1 every step. Oddly, the i starts at 100 and not 0. and stays 100.
Tried placing this for in a non step event and debugging, and i still starts at 100, even if I declare the variable, global, int, var, same shit.
918
Programming Help / Very hard time with ENIGMA (while, for, until, etc.)
« on: May 07, 2014, 12:07:06 am »
I am working with experimenting with different things
What is not working for me is loops, while, do, until, variables are broken like it's not possible.......
Here is just an example and yes I used in the create event i=0. Again I repeat, I tried with global, int, you name it I tried it.
This is in draw event, and as you may have already guessed it this is causes a incremental counter to draw until it reaches 100 then it draws steady at 100.
Now, there are other ways of doing this, and initially I tried using for but it did not work I tried everything, global, int, var, storing i in another variable, nothing worked.
This does not work......for some odd reason i starts at 100. Same if I use other methods except with the method #1 inside the string(i++).
Does nothing, nothing gets drawn so this proves the code is not being executed. I purposely removed the last line draw_text without the i++, as it would have mislead you and showed the last digit of i displayed, so I removed it for debugging purposes.
Looked in GMS's docs, and that is how they document while and how it's supposed to be used.
Now it's funny because while worked in other areas
of my code, here is an example where I used while and it worked, for horizontal collision, in this example Hspd is set to +4 if player presses right and -4 if player presses left, and if a collision is detected ahead of time, it will move the player 1 pixel at a time until it touches the wall, sort of like the move to contact thingy. This works fine.
This works, so why does a simple counter loop with while does not ?
Here is another example not involving the draw event, this is in an object's step event, again i was set to 0 in create code. an object with a sprite,
In this example the object should move 1 pixel at a time until it moved 100 total pixels.
When run the object appears nowhere, as probably i is having some garbled values. tried with int, i starts at 100 and stays there.
I made my own debug in draw event
draw_text(10,10,"Variable i : "+string(i));
draw_text(10,20,"Value of x : "+string(x));
Result when run, i is 100 instantly,
What is not working for me is loops, while, do, until, variables are broken like it's not possible.......
Here is just an example and yes I used in the create event i=0. Again I repeat, I tried with global, int, you name it I tried it.
Code: [Select]
if i < 100
{
draw_text(10,10,"Count: "+string(i++));
}
else
draw_text(10,10,"Count: "+string(i));
This is in draw event, and as you may have already guessed it this is causes a incremental counter to draw until it reaches 100 then it draws steady at 100.
Now, there are other ways of doing this, and initially I tried using for but it did not work I tried everything, global, int, var, storing i in another variable, nothing worked.
Code: [Select]
for (i=0; i < 99; i++)
{
draw_text(10,10,"Count: "+string(i));
}
This does not work......for some odd reason i starts at 100. Same if I use other methods except with the method #1 inside the string(i++).
Code: [Select]
{
while (i < 100)
{
draw_text(10,10,"Count: "+string(i++));
}
}
Does nothing, nothing gets drawn so this proves the code is not being executed. I purposely removed the last line draw_text without the i++, as it would have mislead you and showed the last digit of i displayed, so I removed it for debugging purposes.
Looked in GMS's docs, and that is how they document while and how it's supposed to be used.
Now it's funny because while worked in other areas
of my code, here is an example where I used while and it worked, for horizontal collision, in this example Hspd is set to +4 if player presses right and -4 if player presses left, and if a collision is detected ahead of time, it will move the player 1 pixel at a time until it touches the wall, sort of like the move to contact thingy. This works fine.
Code: [Select]
if place_meeting(x+Hspd,y,wall)
{
while (!place_meeting(x+sign(Hspd),y,wall)) x+=sign(Hspd);
Hspd = 0;
}
This works, so why does a simple counter loop with while does not ?
Here is another example not involving the draw event, this is in an object's step event, again i was set to 0 in create code. an object with a sprite,
Code: [Select]
for (i=0; i < 100; i++)
{
x=i
}
In this example the object should move 1 pixel at a time until it moved 100 total pixels.
When run the object appears nowhere, as probably i is having some garbled values. tried with int, i starts at 100 and stays there.
I made my own debug in draw event
draw_text(10,10,"Variable i : "+string(i));
draw_text(10,20,"Value of x : "+string(x));
Result when run, i is 100 instantly,
919
Works in Progress / Re: PIT²
« on: May 05, 2014, 05:40:37 pm »
There was a nice demo I saw for GMS when they introduced shaders and in the demo was a day/night cycle manipulation using shaders. Amazing stuff if you know shader language. Don't know if this is functional yet in ENIGMA.
BTW I like the dark blue version,
BTW I like the dark blue version,
920
Works in Progress / Re: PIT²
« on: May 05, 2014, 02:14:06 pm »
Always nice to see an actual game being made with ENIGMA,
921
Issues Help Desk / Re: Are constants accessible from Drag and Drop actions?
« on: May 05, 2014, 12:35:35 pm »
Why do you use constant for direction facing? why not do it manually and comment code ?
facing (0=right 1=left) type.......
facing (0=right 1=left) type.......
922
Programming Help / Re: C++ questions!
« on: May 04, 2014, 09:22:33 pm »If you use Microsoft's C++ compiler to make a console app, or a GUI app with plain Win32 (or either of these with any statically linked libraries),
I thought it was the DYNAMIC ones that required dependencies on the user's system and static linked them but made files bigger. Interesting. So if I use Microsoft's Visual C++, does it use the Microsoft compiler or can I tell it to use MinGW. If not mistaken one could do that in ECLIPSE, I don't know if it can be done in QTCreator.
Quote
you will have a dependency on Microsoft's C++ standard library, which may or may not be installed on the target machine. Microsoft provides "Visual C++ Redistributable" installers for each version of this library (yes, this is required even for console apps- "visual" is just the brand name).
Hmm nice to know. So Visual C++ redist does not get automatically installed in windows ? I have the .NET and Visual C++ 2005, 2008, 2010 and x64 ones, I didn't bother looking if they were there with my W7, pretty sure they were installed by software I have
Quote
If you use MinGW instead, you will depend on the GNU C++ standard library (and libgcc). You can statically link it (and libgcc) to have literally no dependencies, but that makes your exe bigger. IIRC this is what ENIGMA does.
I'm ok with the file sizes ENIGMA produces, they are still far smaller the ones produced in GMS, even YYC, as ENIGMA also allows further optimization and removal of extensions and unused features. Also the smallest I could get with ENIGMA is a 304K file compressed, so when releasing app I could use it with a SFX. I can live with these file sizes anytime, if it means not forcing the user to install stuff.
Quote
If you use Qt or another library besides plain Win32 for a GUI, then you will depend on that library. You can statically link it, if you don't mind the large file size. You can also manually include the required DLL's with your exe when you distribute it, or you can have an installer for your app that puts them somewhere the exe will find them.
And that installer is a feature of QT Creator ? Is it also a feature of the MS VC++ ?
By installer i'm assuming it is putting them in the windows / system folders and registering them. Could I just avoid installers and just have an EXE of my app created along with all their dependencies and zip them, so that the user unzips all these files in one folder including the dependencies ?
You can use Dependency Walker to find which DLLs your EXE requires, but you should generally know already by the documentation of the libraries you use. For example, if you use a .NET language (C# is the biggest one) you'll need the .NET Framework, if you use Qt you'll need those DLLs, etc.
Quote
Neither Visual Studio nor Eclipse require any kind of license to distribute your EXEs. Qt is LGPL, so statically linking requires you make your app LGPL as well, but otherwise there's no licensing requirements.
(this post all applies to Windows)
Ok, so I am better off using Visual Studio right ? I never really understood all the jargon and LGPL and licensing, it gives me a headache
And yes, I will only focus on Windows and have no plans for anything else for quite some time, other than maybe some android app/games and take on TKG's offer for that.
So having a user install runtime libs etc should not be a problem as most software out there have some dependencies that need installing, people who use Microsoft and Adobe software to name a few know that all too well LOL. Just as long as I am aware of what my EXE will require so that I can properly document it, as I am really very new to the whole dependencies thingy.
Thanks.
923
Off-Topic / Re: The choice was obvious, and it wasn't Enigma
« on: May 04, 2014, 02:15:54 pm »
Understood.
I am curious to know, does your ENIGMA made game still work now if you compile your source with the latest ENIGMA/LGM builds ?
I am aware that certain things that may have worked before got broken or changed between builds.
I am curious to know, does your ENIGMA made game still work now if you compile your source with the latest ENIGMA/LGM builds ?
I am aware that certain things that may have worked before got broken or changed between builds.
924
Programming Help / C++ questions!
« on: May 04, 2014, 02:10:14 pm »
I am considering soon playing around with QT, VisualC++, ECLIPSE, etc. I am looking to make experiment with console apps and GUI apps and goal eventually to code my own resource packer and handler in C++ for use in my ENIGMA project, for games where I would directly access individual external resources packed into single files.
But for now let's focus on stand-alone EXE compiled from C++.
Now please correct me if I am wrong.
I am to understand that if my source C++ is a console app and uses the standard libraries, my final EXE will run without any dependency .... meaning a person running my EXE will not require to install .NET or VC runtimes or any DLLs......Right ?
What if I wanted to do stuff in QT or Visual C that involves a GUI, (forms, windows, etc.)
I am to understand these are the ones to use dependencies by the final EXE......Right?
Now a lot of software require you to install .NET or the visual C runtime, obviously dynamic linking makes smaller files and static linking can be a pain or not recommended, etc. I mean it's obvious most software out there requires dependencies, even commercial games, GUIs, tools, require user installed libraries, dependencies, runtime stuff, etc. I have no problem with that. But as opposed to having a user install them (some people fear installs ) can I have the compiler automatically add all the dependencies required included in the same folder as my EXE ? this way when the EXE is run it would use the whatever it needs directly in the installed folder instead of having it installed by the user ? I hope this is not confusing
So question is this since I have never use said apps. How do I know which dependencies my EXE will require installed.
I mean on my windows I already have .NET and all the runtime libs and DLL installed ,but if I give the EXE to someone else, what will they need ? Is there a tool inside those apps that will automatically tell me what dependencies my EXE will require ? What if they do have dependencies, is there a way to create an auto installer that will check system for dependencies and if they are not installed / install them ?
Also heard from people QTCreator makes big EXEs ...... and that you require a special license to distribute your EXE, is this true ? thousands of $? IS this the same for Visual C++ or ECLIPSE or other tools ?
Thanks for the help.
But for now let's focus on stand-alone EXE compiled from C++.
Now please correct me if I am wrong.
I am to understand that if my source C++ is a console app and uses the standard libraries, my final EXE will run without any dependency .... meaning a person running my EXE will not require to install .NET or VC runtimes or any DLLs......Right ?
What if I wanted to do stuff in QT or Visual C that involves a GUI, (forms, windows, etc.)
I am to understand these are the ones to use dependencies by the final EXE......Right?
Now a lot of software require you to install .NET or the visual C runtime, obviously dynamic linking makes smaller files and static linking can be a pain or not recommended, etc. I mean it's obvious most software out there requires dependencies, even commercial games, GUIs, tools, require user installed libraries, dependencies, runtime stuff, etc. I have no problem with that. But as opposed to having a user install them (some people fear installs ) can I have the compiler automatically add all the dependencies required included in the same folder as my EXE ? this way when the EXE is run it would use the whatever it needs directly in the installed folder instead of having it installed by the user ? I hope this is not confusing
So question is this since I have never use said apps. How do I know which dependencies my EXE will require installed.
I mean on my windows I already have .NET and all the runtime libs and DLL installed ,but if I give the EXE to someone else, what will they need ? Is there a tool inside those apps that will automatically tell me what dependencies my EXE will require ? What if they do have dependencies, is there a way to create an auto installer that will check system for dependencies and if they are not installed / install them ?
Also heard from people QTCreator makes big EXEs ...... and that you require a special license to distribute your EXE, is this true ? thousands of $? IS this the same for Visual C++ or ECLIPSE or other tools ?
Thanks for the help.
925
Off-Topic / Re: The choice was obvious, and it wasn't Enigma
« on: May 04, 2014, 11:44:31 am »I'm only interested in ENIGMA because it's free/libre software, not dependent on any proprietary software
Yes the FREE part is a good reason, although some people would not mind paying $ for decent software. Also GameMakerStudio has more opensource in it than people think
another reason people might use ENIGMA, or more precisely LGM (since LGM is the GUI (IDE). ) is that it looks like using GM, it has much the look and feel that people got used to with GM.
Quote
fit that description (like mine) is LateralGM, mainly the room editor (Game Editor is the only other free/libre game engine I'm aware of with such an editor, and Game Editor's collision detection system is useless for
In terms of ROOM EDITOR you will notice GMS' is better, in the sense that when you are clicking on an instance ID in the list you KNOW where in the room it points to, as it draws an outline over the instance. You also can scale, rotate, etc, you can't do that yet in LGM.
Also in LGM you can manually disable uneeded features/extensions, for less overhead and much smaller file sizes, which
in my opinion is an important optimization that GMS should have been built on. This is one great feature of ENIGMA/LGM you will appreciate as you use it.
Quote
My interest in ENIGMA has nothing to do with some sort of hatred of Game Maker or YYG. There are things I don't like about Game Maker, but they apply to ENIGMA just as much. Game Maker just isn't an option since it's proprietary.
Keep in mind ENIGMA is far from perfect, it is not a complete replacement of GMS or completely finished product. I too learned that I used it
Also there are certain things you have to do differently and learn new ways. Certain things you will have to learn code to do, such as physics (for now), etc. and if you are into C++, this is a great tool to get started.
I'm doing that just now and gaining a lot of interest in it. Can even use C++ inside your projects. I tried it and it works.
926
Programming Help / Re: B2D physics question
« on: May 03, 2014, 07:16:10 pm »That seems to me like the most arbitrary limitation one could possibly create, what is wrong with a "Check Convexity" button?
I honestly don't think that is in their priority of things to do anyway, especially if there exists an alternative method to plug in the points using code, their library maker and system actually works so it would be easy for one to make
Quote
physics meshes are usually quite simple. That suggestion was just my idea on why they have that 6 point limit. Of course the reason could be anything.
Your suggestion sounds logical, I can't think of other possible reasons, maybe however, if the limit of 6 is not applicable to the GML counterpart, then this would prove your suggestion is correct and the only reason.
Quote
But I could imagine how a simpler algorithm could work with only 6 points. They maybe also wanted to limit users, so they wouldn't use unnecessary number of points. Like I can image someone using one point per pixel to make a "pixel perfect" collision,
Another very good point, but this can be prevented by mentioning it in their documentation along with images on how it works. GMS has become far more advanced and has advanced functionality in code, so they shouldn't just assume every user is dumb enough to set a point on every edge pixel
Quote
which probably would be unbelievably slow and useless. So in essence they made a "good practice" limit. But I can image cases were 6 can be too few.
Yes I found that out when I made my physics example, the one I discussed about in my other physics topic. A star shape, which if not mistaken requires 10 points.
Quote
Newbies sadly don't want to code.
Can you blame them ? Not everyone who starts using comes from a solid programming background. When I first used GM I was so happy because of the D&D thing, but then later gained a lot of interest in doing GML and now learning C++, I would now rarely if at all use D&D.
When I joined GM however I was a newbie but had some programming background, sort of, as I did BASIC, ASM, etc. so I knew the logic of programming ,just had to learn GML functions SO it makes it all the much easier.
But otherwise pure newbies, nope, I can understand why they would not want to code.
Here is another thing with GM, apparently there is one guy who does ALL his games with D&D, he's very skilled and very good and he did some stuff unimaginable. He was even talked about by YYG devs themselves during a presentation, don't know if it was Mike Daily, Russel, but it was mentioned. He releases his stuff too.
It's funny now but I found once I got into GML I can't really go back to D&D, it confuses me and so tedious. BUt I have a long long way to go with GML I am still not up to par with the experts far from it.
927
Off-Topic / Re: The choice was obvious, and it wasn't Enigma
« on: May 03, 2014, 05:39:39 pm »
He is, his goal is to stir shit up and he succeeded and it was my mistake to get into it
He didn't earn his title for nothing.
He took the personal attack route, and I will defend myself to that.
I am always open to discussing hot sometimes controversial topics
even if they are negative, who's he to decide what gets said around here.
, I will say what I have to say about GM /YYG, if it is a problem for the community, then they should go dig posts from 2013 and before.
or know what to do
1) Set rules
2) Moderate and police like they do on GMC.
But it is obvious that I am not here to fight about GayMaker studio,
but just so happen to express my gripes when there is context into the discussion. That's all.
This forum was way negative and inflammatory long before I joined. PROOF is there. devs can't seem to get along and have big differences in what needs to be done and how and when, THAT, is the biggest problem derailing enigma, not my negative remarks on GMS lol.
You can continue feeding the trolls like I did But I don't think this is productive ,why don't we go back to discussing ENIGMA stuff shall we Maybe I should not respond to anymore of this rubbish but if I see some personal attacks and flames I WILL defend myself make no mistake.
He didn't earn his title for nothing.
He took the personal attack route, and I will defend myself to that.
I am always open to discussing hot sometimes controversial topics
even if they are negative, who's he to decide what gets said around here.
, I will say what I have to say about GM /YYG, if it is a problem for the community, then they should go dig posts from 2013 and before.
or know what to do
1) Set rules
2) Moderate and police like they do on GMC.
But it is obvious that I am not here to fight about GayMaker studio,
but just so happen to express my gripes when there is context into the discussion. That's all.
This forum was way negative and inflammatory long before I joined. PROOF is there. devs can't seem to get along and have big differences in what needs to be done and how and when, THAT, is the biggest problem derailing enigma, not my negative remarks on GMS lol.
You can continue feeding the trolls like I did But I don't think this is productive ,why don't we go back to discussing ENIGMA stuff shall we Maybe I should not respond to anymore of this rubbish but if I see some personal attacks and flames I WILL defend myself make no mistake.
928
Off-Topic / Re: The choice was obvious, and it wasn't Enigma
« on: May 03, 2014, 02:49:01 pm »
Is this the trial of Robert & Darkstar2 ? Why the bloody hell do any of us have to justify ourselves,
this is getting ridiculous, why am I even bothering !
LOL. Fuck me! My bad for feeding trolls.
So how is it better for a community with trolls and fanboys going around dissecting negative or any posts from other members. For fucksake, I didn't know this was a GM fans club ! It isn't.
Exactly, I don't think most of what people say here about YYG/GM/GMS is unfair, I think facts speak for themselves.
The long posts I feel are necessary for explaining into detail to avoid any misinterpretation. If I were to say "GMS sucks my hairy balls" that's 1 line, is that better or is it better to go into details as to why I feel a certain way ?
I will try to keep it short. The longest reply / post I ever wrote on a forum was 35 pages full, and I'm not kidding ! But in a very specific case this was to my advantage in the end.
SO yeah I will do my best to shorten the post unless I feel I have no choice otherwise in some specific case.
As far as my opinions on GM/YYG, they won't change, so whenever I have something negative to say I will bloody say it, there will always be fanboys and YYG defenders, fine by me.
I am a PAID user so I think I can rant and be negative if I want to, when it is warranted, considering the features I wanted were present at the time I spent my money on said software and were later removed for completely retarded reasons.
Moving along now.
this is getting ridiculous, why am I even bothering !
LOL. Fuck me! My bad for feeding trolls.
So how is it better for a community with trolls and fanboys going around dissecting negative or any posts from other members. For fucksake, I didn't know this was a GM fans club ! It isn't.
really do a good job. So I wouldn't say anybody is being negative, I think I am fairly balanced on the issue.
Exactly, I don't think most of what people say here about YYG/GM/GMS is unfair, I think facts speak for themselves.
Quote
Also, Darkstar makes 10 posts everytime he posts, lol, that's not necessarily relevant to this at all.
The long posts I feel are necessary for explaining into detail to avoid any misinterpretation. If I were to say "GMS sucks my hairy balls" that's 1 line, is that better or is it better to go into details as to why I feel a certain way ?
I will try to keep it short. The longest reply / post I ever wrote on a forum was 35 pages full, and I'm not kidding ! But in a very specific case this was to my advantage in the end.
SO yeah I will do my best to shorten the post unless I feel I have no choice otherwise in some specific case.
As far as my opinions on GM/YYG, they won't change, so whenever I have something negative to say I will bloody say it, there will always be fanboys and YYG defenders, fine by me.
I am a PAID user so I think I can rant and be negative if I want to, when it is warranted, considering the features I wanted were present at the time I spent my money on said software and were later removed for completely retarded reasons.
Moving along now.
929
Programming Help / Re: B2D physics question
« on: May 03, 2014, 02:02:16 pm »If they check convexity when editing the shape then it's possible that they didn't bother to create an algorithm that could check it for more than 6 points.
That sounds logical, but I'm wondering if there could be another reason as well. Perhaps they figured 6 was enough for starters and that if you needed more you could add them manually
I've never done physics through GML, so I would not know; do they support doing physics from GML ? Like adding the points yourself ? I would think the limit of 6 points is an editor limit (the convexity is indeed checked realtime) and that you could in theory check for convexity yourself by sketching (in a 3rd party program) and manually adding the points. Have not tried this. Would be an interesting experiment. This is the method currently done in LGM since there is no collision shape nor any physics in IDE, so it's entirely low-level for physics here. Mind you writing an external script or GUI and converting it to code would not be hard and think I might be able to do that, but directly integrating to ENIGMA/LGM, not skilled enough to handle that for now
Quote
I think their is reusable as well. It's one per sprite, so every instance using that sprite uses that shape. I don't think it's a bad design, as the whole point is making a collision shape for the sprite.
When I was new to this I was very confused. I thought that the physics engine handled everything, that you just plugged in physics attribute and the rest was handled by the engine, meaning that you did not have to set a collision shape and points, the the physics engine would consider the entire sprite shape and work the same way as precise collision works.
So defining points is mandatory ? what about more complex shapes that have curves or weird shapes
that would be difficult or impossible to trace with points ?
Quote
I don't use GMS so I didn't know they added that. I think you should add something similar to LGM.
There was a big discussion on that, the feature is visible in LGM, but when you click on it nothing happens. He answered that the IDE has it just for editing purposes and that it was not implemented yet and that we have to all use B2D and do everything manually, which basically involve plugging all those values you enter in the IDE directly into their physics GML equivalents, or in ENIGMA's case it would be the B2D functions.
Quote
You can add a separate resource if you want, but then compatibility will be harder (but should still be possible). As Darkstar and others have pointed out, one massive problem with ENIGMA (and still with GM) is that it's too "low level", as in, you have to do everything in code.
That's how it was since the time of Mark Overmars. It would have been tedious to convert every possible function into D&D objects, and they just wanted to keep the basics and commonly used features while allowing the more advanced users to access extra features through functions. To my knowledge that's how most other programs work too. The ones that allow everything done without single code are probably quite limited.
Quote
I don't have any problems with that, but others want something like Unity, which has editor for everything. So adding collision shape editors among others would be a nice addition. It would probably take time though, so I don't know if you should try that now.
That suggestion was already made, but lack of time and other things to do first. Also I don't think adding this to the IDE is the only thing, they would have to integrate the physics values from IDE so that it works. Having code free physics in ENIGMA is more than just adding collision shape, and they have no time for that. So yeah there are things low level that people have to do themselves, but that is the case with GM, shaders being a good example.
That's why GM was designed to allow extension through libraries that people made ! Until code free physics is possible using LGM, one could create a library but problem is LIBs don't work here either. They show up, but have no effect. So only alternative is writing an external editor that allows you to edit shape and points, enter physics values and have it spit out the set of codes to be used ! Much the same way the ParticleDesigner app worked for GM, which btw was entirely made using GM.
Quote
GMS seems to reuse the path editor for that, so might be easier. It already has the possibility to add points, have an image in the background and other things that are useful.
BTW you mentioned Unity has an editor for everything. I never used Unity before. So what you are saying is that every aspect of game has an editor right ? But it still requires coding to put all that together. From what I heard it's a steeper learning curve.
With PROPER documentation and examples, and explaining step by step why things are done that way, people would eventually learn to do everything by code. This is something GM lacked back in the days. Docs have gotten better, but still far from perfect, which is why at that point you have to dig for those tutorials, some are crap some explain things very well. GM started with ease of use in mind, but I think YYG is bringing GM in another direction, adding too many features at the low level, requiring advanced users, and I can see they are relying mostly on the community to do the educating than the developers themselves......so people have to wait until some contributors volunteer to make tutorials, etc, and they are not always correct or comprehensive.
930
Programming Help / Re: B2D physics question
« on: May 03, 2014, 01:01:23 am »For a reason, because their whole system is designed horribly, mine has reusable shapes as well without duplicating RAM. Anyway, I can confirm this point limit exists,
So who's going to volunteer in asking them why this limit of 6 and see what amazing reason they come up with ?
BTW I noticed you are using only the standard edition and not pro...shame on you, you are missing out on a lot!
Quote
This is why I think it would better to just make ENIGMA better and not even offer support for their physics but do everything our own way. It would probably be better to split the ENIGMA project in 2, we'd get much more done if we just did things our own way, because then we wouldn't have to worry about compatibility, and we could just do things the right way.
Agreed with this but properly documenting it as to help make the transition smoother.