Show Posts

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.

Messages - time-killer-games

Off-Topic / Re: Holes in everything...
« on: July 11, 2014, 01:44:24 pm »
II) Catholic Christianity
Catholics have (in theory) even more holes in their faith than Protestants, even with the fact Catholics have been around MUCH longer!

A) What kind of "just" or "perfect" God would give his holy priests the reputation of general rapists and child molesters? 'Nuff said.

B) Pray to Mary? Pray to Holy Saints in Heaven? If a saint in heaven doesn't forgive me neither will Jesus? That's right, they have all the books the Protestants do but with "additional" books the Protestants don't. In the Protestant Bible, it's very clear and blatant (especially in Acts and Paul's letters) you don't pray to anyone but Jesus Himself (or the Trinity). But the "other" books the Protestants dropped and the Catholics kept don't say that at all. Your etenerinty doesn't have to be completely due to the Trinity's final decision, heck, what if someone who's in heaven doesn't like you? You're going to hell babe.

C) This one I have yet to do most of my research. Please feel free to suggest more for me to add to the list but I'll have to review the content with research first to ensure it's valid. I have to be very careful about adding to these lists to prevent "I told you so! You were wrong!" kind of arguments.

Off-Topic / Holes in everything...
« on: July 11, 2014, 01:28:59 pm »
There are many holes in literally every premature conclusion as to how this universe exists. Please forgive me I'm too lazy to have a citation for everything. I'll make each subject matter a different post to play it safe on the per-post character limit.

I) Protestant Christianity
Christians ignore a ton of major flaws in their belief system. They acknowledge these things exist, but don't call them "flaws" without giving reasons because there aren't any.

A) The mark of the Beast is 666. There is a footnote under the New International Version (NIV) translation stating a clear contradiction that some ancient records say the mark is 616 instead of 666. If God were truly God he could at least preserve his Holy Word to be a tad more consistent.

B) Depending on the verse reference and translation, the cloth Jesus was wearing when hung on the cross was either scarlet (red) or purple, which are not the same color. There are multiple mentions of that cloth he was wearing, in the same exact bible version, whichever you choose to view, within the exact same translation you'll find this self-contradiction.

C) The Old Testament prophesies the Messiah to never break a single bone during his future visit on earth. Now, in the New Testament, aka this so called future, they the writers of the four Gospels try to make it sound consistent with that prophesy but failed miserably. The two thieves who were crucified beside Jesus had their legs broken so they could die quicker and more painfully. However they didn't do that to Jesus because he died quickly before they had a chance to do the same to him. So they stabbed his gut with a spear instead, to verify his death.

Please note he probably died sooner due being whipped with chains of hard metals and bone, he was kicked, etc many other forms of physical abuse the two thieves  fortunately didn't have to go through. Since Jesus had nails going directly into his hands and feet as mentioned specifically in every translation of the Protestant Bible, his bones were broken indeed. An epic failure of the storytellers'. Hands and feet have very fragile bones. Try sticking a huge 3-inch diameter'd nail anywhere in there and watch them break.

D) Many more yet to be listed. Please feel free to suggest more for me to add to the list but I'll have to review the content with research first to ensure it's valid. I have to be very careful about adding to these lists to prevent "I told you so! You were wrong!" kind of arguments.

Off-Topic / Re: animated gif avatars
« on: July 10, 2014, 09:53:41 pm »
Here it is:

Shank you! :D

Tips, Tutorials, Examples / Re: Multitextured Terrain Example
« on: July 10, 2014, 09:46:36 pm »
@Josh it doesn't have to be photo-realistic to look good you know. I personally like the repeated texture it reminds me of Roller Coastrer Tycoon 2 (which was a 2d isometric game but with a similar atmosphere).

Off-Topic / animated gif avatars
« on: July 09, 2014, 10:12:25 pm »
Enable animated gif avatars like right now. I spend hours trying to find a decent converter to scale my avatar down to suit the file size limit. I uploaded it to find out it doesn't animate. It's stuck on a frame in which I'm not actually picking my nose! Look closely! My finger isn't even touching the rim of my nostral! The horror!!!!!

Off-Topic / Re: GM:Studio Standard Now Free
« on: July 09, 2014, 10:11:58 am »
onpon, you have to actually visit:

Scroll like 2 lines and you'll find this:

Monkey is open source. Visit GitHub to fork Monkey and create your own version!


Off-Topic / Re: GM:Studio Standard Now Free
« on: July 08, 2014, 01:24:51 pm »
If I don't get a 90% discount for my master collection purchase and if they stop supporting SDK updates and bug fixes for 1.X I might as well forget about studio and piggie back on Monkey-X for full Windows Desktop, Windows 8, Mac, Linux, Android, and OUYA support and lifetime updates. Monkey-X does support a good amount of other platforms including user made platform exports but I don't think I'll need any of those.

At least I'm not completely relying on YYG. Monkey-X is a one easy payment of $100 and bam you get everything GMS 1.X master collection does except Tizen which no one really cares about. And with Monkey-X I can reasonably expect SDK update adjustments so my games won't grow incompatible with most recent hardware. I will link to it again in case anyone missed it.

Tips, Tutorials, Examples / Re: Multitextured Terrain Example
« on: July 06, 2014, 01:53:28 pm »
Really cool screens. Any chance you'd send me the shaders for GMS testing when you feel it's ready?I might need the textures/models too so I can reproduce a similar project completely in GML.

Developing ENIGMA / Re: Command Line Interface
« on: July 06, 2014, 08:49:40 am »
Robert, I already explained this, I know JPG can have a transparency pixel. But JPG is a lossy format. Meaning I could make a sprite with a blank white background for where I'd like it to be transparent, but when I save the JPG from MSPaint or whatever image editor there will be a slight value/color variation in that white area so when I tick the "transparency pixel" box it will only make transparent a rough portion of the initial area one would want to be transparent.

I think we are still not on the same page so I guess from here on out I'll be more on-topic in this thread.

Tips, Tutorials, Examples / Re: Multitextured Terrain Example
« on: July 06, 2014, 08:46:37 am »
Hairy, that is a true work of art. You should be proud. :) I'll test these shaders in GMS when I find the time.

PS add more scenery if you like, trees, rocks, etc just don't change anything with the shaders, textures, lighting, etc concerned with the water and terrain. It looks beautiful. :)

Developing ENIGMA / Re: Command Line Interface
« on: July 05, 2014, 01:41:03 pm »
Runtime probably isn't the correct word for what I meant. It's only transparent after the exe is compiled and run. If you try to save that BMP as a BMP file and not a BMP used in a exe, yeah there won't be transparency.  Applications can hack the appearances of a BMP like replacing a color with transparency but good luck trying to make BMP do that in windows photo viewer. I don't know if we are misunderstanding each other or I've missed something important in my years as a computer geek I have no idea.

Tips, Tutorials, Examples / Re: Multitextured Terrain Example
« on: July 05, 2014, 01:22:57 pm »
Now that's some sexy water reflections going on there. Does that same shader work in GM?. Is this just for terrain or do we support multiple image'd OBJ materials? In any case this looks pretty cool! Congrats! :D

Developing ENIGMA / Re: Command Line Interface
« on: July 05, 2014, 01:16:38 pm »
That's strange, I've never seen a single BMP with transparency or alpha on it's own in my life. I have seen ways to make them transparent programattically within applications at runtime (like what that check box in GM7 did), but I've never opened one in the browser or photo viewer that has it's own transparency/alpha by itself. This is new news to me.

Developing ENIGMA / Re: Command Line Interface
« on: July 05, 2014, 02:05:05 am »
BMP isn't as good it has no alpha. Even with a transparency corner. Last I checked when it comes to file sizes BMP aren't much different. JPG look like shit and can't have transparency even with a transparency corner, because the lossy quality will prevent a good portion of the image that should be transparent to not be transparent as the color used in that corner is based on that one exact RGB/HSV. GIF might work but the quality will in almost every case be down-right horrible.

Developing ENIGMA / Re: Command Line Interface
« on: July 04, 2014, 11:54:48 pm »
The need to have a corner transparent check box ever since GM 8.0 has been permanently blotted out due to the fact it's useless now with built-in PNG support. The only reason 7.0 and older have that check box is because they use BMP and BMP doesn't support transparency on it's own.