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 - Goombert

Issues Help Desk / Re: GMX Reader
« on: January 07, 2014, 11:29:41 PM »
No that is what I am supposed to do, that is exactly what the GMK reader/writer does. However as I said it simply is impossible with Studio's GMX format, there is no way for me to do it. I know you didn't mean that, but I was simply stating for the record that if it was possible I would make it compatible with all GMX versions, but I can only make it compatible with the newest GMX version due to it not being versioned. I haven't thought of it as a very big issue anyway, since YYG's don't even seem to give a shit, and they will likely run into the same issues, so like I said I will just continue to do what they do and make it always compatible with the latest version of Studio.

At any rate, I built the latest version of LateralGM from my local fork in Eclipse and it loaded your project fine.

The directory structures appeared correct and everything, it loaded in 11,270 milliseconds, and there was a warning as you can see in the debug output that one of your images has null data or rather 0 width and height, basically you have an empty sprite in that project.

What exactly was the issue you were having?

Lol you already figured out the issue, but yes we started moving all our code into namespaces in C++, this avoids variable name conflicts. Basically the engine has a variable named "Solid" somewhere that is conflicting with you naming a resource "Solid" since when you name a resource it actually just ends up as a global variable which can not conflict with other variable names in our engine. This is why we keep all the GML functions in enigma_user and our engine stuff in namespace enigma, at any rate it simply needs found and added to the appropriate namespace wherever that "Solid" variable is.

Edit: Upon further investigation, it appears that you either had two resources by the name "Solid" or a resource named that and then a variable named that. Which would also result in a conflict, but I am able to use "Solid" as a name for a resource and as a variable, just not both at the same time. This is actually kind of nothing we can do about it, but this was the only way I could reproduce it. It is also a good idea to prefix sprites spr_ and objects obj_ to avoid resource and variable name conflicts.

Issues Help Desk / Re: GMX Reader
« on: January 07, 2014, 09:50:19 PM »
Yes as I said that is not my fault at all that they don't put the version number in the actual project file. So when you go to load a GMX, you have no idea what version you are loading, which is necessary because future GMX projects are likely to break older ones. So I can not make different versions of the GMX readers and writers I just have to constantly keep them up to date like they do, and I guess your pretty screwed if your project won't open, except of course you have me who can help you fix any anomalies in a GMX (if I can find them).

Developing ENIGMA / Re: GM5 Compatibility plugin --feedback requested
« on: January 07, 2014, 09:47:41 PM »
Wow, I am surprised I was not aware GM5 had those differences. Also, sorlok, I loved your contributions so far they were good! Allow me to address some of your issues.

There are some outstanding issues on C++ keywords being used as variable names (e.g., "short") that will inevitably have to be addressed.
This is actually why we namespace everything in engima_user and keep it separate from the enigma namespace.

I've duplicated functions like draw_rectangle(), since GM5 does not provide an "outline" parameter. JDI finds these duplicates just fine, but perhaps this affects argument validation?
Well if you want, you could simply add those functions to the main repositories as overloaded functions.

In fact, I'd be fine with you merging all of that into the main repository, as long as it does not break future compatibility. As in you overload functions and keep things separate so both versions can be used side by side.

Other than that though, keep up the good work sorlok!

Issues Help Desk / Re: GMX Reader
« on: January 07, 2014, 07:48:32 PM »
It should be able to read and write GMX files up to version 1.2

A few things will be overwritten if you open a GMX and instantly save it, and those are, configs, extensions, and include files. I do not even attempt to read them when loading the GMX.

If you have a GMX file that is failing to load please upload it and I can attempt to fix the exception in the reader or writer. It is also helpful if you upload a small GMX project that simply exhibits the bug if you can do so, which makes it much easier to roll out other possibilities.

Off-Topic / Re: What is a good programming language to start off with?
« on: January 07, 2014, 07:44:26 PM »
I am not sure if my English is absurdly bad or something, but people keep somehow not understanding me.
I thought you were Aussie?

All that is an example of "And that you need to figure it all out. While in ENIGMA/GM you usually write all your stuff on your own.
The argument you're making though is equivalent to this. I am going to make an application, but I want it bare bones, so I am going to write it in assembly and or binary.

But also, in ENIGMA you can simply add your code to namespace enigma_user and it can become usable just like you would write an extension for Unity3D. In GM you have to mess around with an extension, dll's, and mangling around with scripts that implement callbacks. Not only is GM slower and less optimal by jumping through more hoops, it's also a lot harder to make an extension for.

Every part of GM's design is wrong, and ENIGMA only partially corrects some of the issues, but that doesn't change the fact that the whole concept is just fucktarded.

Off-Topic / Re: Everyone is Always Right
« on: January 07, 2014, 06:37:17 PM »
Robert, you said you are gay.
Gay computer instructor.

Off-Topic / Re: Everyone is Always Right
« on: January 06, 2014, 05:53:56 PM »
Not at all TKG, most evolutionists simply want to find the truth. There is of course the old saying that ignorance is bliss.

But anybody that thinks the Big Bang means something from nothing, has obviously never studied it. It is widely believed another universe collapsed in on itself which created the big bang. While we are at it, the big bang is not an explosion either, it is an expansion, the misleading name of the theory has lead to much of the misunderstanding, a singularity of matter is pretty much impossible, but you can be illuded to think it is by not being able to perceive extra dimensions.

(For the record I really hate the motherf***ers that made the sitcom The Big Bang Theory)

As you see, even religious people believe in the Big Bang and try to attribute it to god, some people theorize about multiple universes which is the most likely.

And for the record, I am afraid of death, the unknown is the root of all fear, but I do know that it doesn't matter. Even Einstein was not afraid of death, and made this famous quote when his friend died...
"Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

The reason Einstein said this was because of General Relativity, time is treated as another dimension of space. We already know that time travel is possible, it's just not practical.

To believe that the Universe will come to an end and that be it, is just frankly retarded. If you are here now, you had to have been here before, it doesn't make any sense for the entire Universe to be a one time event. The most likely scenario is that the Universe at large just continues on forever, it's cyclic in that it will eventually collapse on itself creating a new Universe and a new big bang forever and ever repeating.

And any statistician knows what happens when you have an infinite number of tries.
Eventually it all averages out, if me and you sit and roll dice, you may win, but if we play enough times, me and you will both win about the same amount of time 50/50 almost.

So in other words, once you die, the Universe has an infinite number of tries at recreating your exact atomic structure, and it is 100% likely to do so.

Off-Topic / Re: What is a good programming language to start off with?
« on: January 06, 2014, 05:03:29 PM »
Harri, you are still way off base. As I mentioned in the Qt hardware accelerated paint scene, you generally don't actually do any painting, you place static text, which is batched one time, and it will always draw until you remove it from the scene, which is different from the 90's style graphics you would be doing with GDI where you have to batch and draw every regular update. Irrlicht does it the same way, Unity3D does it the same way, in fact every comprehensible game engine makes static GUI elements. GM has no method of placing static text in a room.

So again, GM is not designed for easy rendering, or hardware accelerated rendering. The very first thing they should be teaching people is that you don't construct primitives in a regular update loop unless you absolutely have to.

But that is my point exactly. I wasn't saying Unity is in any way worse. I was saying that it has a lot of functionality built-in. You don't blindly have to code things, you can code it and view the effects visually. You can actually code how your entity behaves in the scene editor, kind of like if objects handled their draw events while in GM's room editor.

And that you need to figure it all out. While in ENIGMA/GM you usually write all your stuff on your own.
And you are still incorrect, because you've never actually tested Unity before. Unity3D can turn off all that built in stuff, and a has WIDE array of extensions, you can add scripts directly to your project that will modify the interface of the Unity editor. You can for instance write a script that brings up a custom dialog for you to import a custom mesh format, or something similar.

Which for productivity may be bad, but for education it is good. The audio dialog shows the same thing. It has far more options, but that means you need to understand far less.
GM isn't good for education either, as I already pointed out, Unity3D is more visual, but somehow magically more powerful too. Also, that argument can not be made about Studio either, or even earlier versions of GM. Because each entity in Unity has an editor only complex as the components attached to it. In Studio for instance, you will always see the sprite options on every object, in Unity3D, you only see that if you attach a material to the entity. Or for instance, you only see the audio options if you attach an emitter, you only see the particle options if you attach an emitter, you only see the phyisics options if you attach a rigid body.

You seriously need to venture out and try some different game engines other than GM.

Off-Topic / Re: Everyone is Always Right
« on: January 06, 2014, 04:12:21 PM »
40k in evolutionary terms is drop in an ocean.
Right, thank you for pointing it out, that still doesn't explain how modern humans could live with their Neanderthal ancestor who had such large differences, just 40,000 years ago. In fact, that only proves we should be living amongst a descendant of ours with such differences right now. Unless, again humans are too involved with their own evolution, or also the melting pot as I mentioned. This also doesn't quite fill the gap in knowledge about how different races such as whites, blacks, and Asians fit into the puzzle.

In science it actually still is theory. I already pointed out what is law and theory in science. Gravity is defined by general relativity theory, not by general relativity law. We of course do know that it works and in layman's terms it is a law. But scientifically, it is a theory.
That depends on the context, if we are talking Newtonian physics, then the inverse square law describes gravity quite well.

Actually scientist do recreate same experiments with consistent results. That is why big bang is also "theory" in the scientific sense - as in everyone agrees that it most probably happened - or alternatively - as close to fact as possible. Like we know pretty detailedly what happened less than fraction of a second after the big bang. Knowing what happened before this fraction is still the open question and that is why we build very expensive machines.
What experiments? You better not say anything at CERN, because those have only been created by the same scientists in the same laboratory, we haven't recreated these in any other particle collider. Which is a good reason for most of it still being theoretical physics, especially when no other scientific advancements or observations have been based yet on those theories.

Not to mention, you also have to be skeptical of people like Michio Kaku, who are quite religious about their studies. I don't know if you've ever listened to any of his stuff before, but some of it is really out there.

In science theory and fact and law are often used interchangeably. There are subtle differences, but overall they doesn't make one less true than the other. And theories try to explain observations and make predictions. I guess using "facts" in any context is quite bold because of the misunderstanding people might get.
Although you are right, because in the end we really can't prove anything. Most of science is proving beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't like seeing these words in scientific context. Because while of course people do fight new ideas, scientists are the ones who are the most open minded. They are the ones having no problems changing their understanding when new facts arise. They don't care about being "right" before, they care about being "right" right now.
I thought scientists were generally supposed to be skeptics of everything?
Otherwise they're just as bad as religious people. Also are you not aware of religious scholars? There actually are such fields now, which of course, I do not agree with, because this is going into an experiment or study with an objective bias.

But that doesn't mean that we should not see scientists are not always perfect, as they are human beings !
Right, and that is just it, anybody can be a scientist. But real science is based on logic and proving things so that we know they are true. It is the difference between the belief in absolutely nothing, based on complete lies.

Now if we look at computer science however, everything is much much more concrete because there are not nearly as many external factors that must be considered. Most of computer science is built around very very consistent reproducible algorithms. Why? Because every computer is built the same pretty much. So maybe physics needs to ask the questions differently, it's not how did the big bang happen? But rather, how would we go about creating a universe, if humans were to do so? What would be the best way? Once you answer that question, you can basically infer that all universe's would probably be created the same.

Evolutionists are also very passionate about always being right and will often make up lies since in their world there is no motivation to stop lying. Not in every case, but it is quite common. Normally I hate to put labels but they technically don't have a book of rules to guide them on what is right, wrong, or for them to possibly be aware of what a "lie" is and why it shouldn't be so loosely practiced.
Yes, but you're talking about regular people, or just idiots you meet on Youtube videos, there's plenty of those, who don't know how to reason. Anyway, there are books for which evolution goes by, for instance the mapping of a species genome. For instance, you can access the gene database of the Human Genome Project right now...

That example of the flies you gave I won't believe until you've tested it yourself. Please do that and get back to me. If you want to be right show me a log and video results, then just maybe will there be a snowball's chance in hell I'll take you more seriously. Again I will say this, the example I gave of the sweater wasn't the best example out there I know that's not what evolution is claimed to be all about. But it's just as rediculous and makes just as little sense. That's all I meant. I can still Admit now I could be wrong, but have you made the smallest attempt to do so yourself? Of course not. Everyone is always right. We can't all be right. And the chances of being right are slim amoung millions of conflicting opinions.
Both of you are giving some out right hilarious examples, I gave a perfect one that was already tested where the organisms over 2000 generations began living off each others byproducts.

There are many denominations of this faith, they can't all be right.
Actually, pretty much every religion is a denomination of Christianity, including Islam. Muhammad is believed to be the descendant of Noah's son Ishmael. Just about the only major religion that is truly fundamentally different is Buddhism.

Now, there are also many "holes" in Evolution, just like there are many versions of Christianity, there are many versions of Evolution. Some believe in the big bang, some believe the universe was always here. Some believe the Gulf of Mexico is a crater left by an asteroid which killed off 70% of the dinosaurs. While others believe that asteroid wasn't enough to kill off that much, so they believe there is another crater somewhere. There were several possibilities but other people believe none of the craters discovered to date were enoungh to potentially wipe out them all. Honestly whether it was an asteroid that destroyed the dinosaurs partially it doesn't exactly disprove creationism. But just like baptists, any version of Christianity, Evolution has a ton of "holes" and unanswered questions. It doesn't mean it's comepletely disproven however. All the faiths out there as well as evolution, we all have our logical and compelling reasons to believe what we do. None of us, including evolutionists, should have the audacity to say we are undeniably right. That's bogus, just because you can't relate, just because you think you know everything, just because you have your own reasons doesn't mean we don't have our own reasons. Everyone thinks their right. Evolutionists formed their views no more or less reasonably than any average creationist.

If you teach yourself and study information on something whether it's right or wrong if you are determined enough for it to be right, it will become reality to you, it's just how the human mind predictably works. If you force yourself to believe something that isn't reasonable to believe it will one way or another become a reality. Whatever that reality may be, that is one reality out of many others, so many it's too many digits to count.
I've already argued the latter for you, but as for the former, that is missing the point entirely. The real goal is to get as close to the truth as possible, so simply because evolution has a few holes and a lot of idiots don't know how to reason with you, isn't an excuse to write the entire thing off.

Issues Help Desk / Re: Compile failed on CPP-level, no match for call
« on: January 05, 2014, 10:41:26 PM »
Yes your assumptions are correct then. I believe instance_id is a STL container, a dequeue specifically, as the error message states. Probably a bug in JDI somewhere, Josh is the ENIGMA founder and wrote the current compiler, the new one will fix all of these bugs and is nearly completed, you can see his latest edits scrolling across the top of the navbar right now. He'd be better suited to answer this question than I would.

He forgot to close enigma and reopen it when he made the change, you have to for the compiler to rebuild, only the engine changes are immediate.

Issues Help Desk / Re: Compile failed on CPP-level, no match for call
« on: January 05, 2014, 10:10:40 PM »
Wait, so that resolved the error then?

I think we need a second board here that is about help with actually developing games, I don't like mixing these with help topics about installation and stuff.

Issues Help Desk / Re: Compile failed on CPP-level, no match for call
« on: January 05, 2014, 07:47:25 PM »
Hello, berlin_alien, first, you can add code to your posts using the code tag in your post.

Second, you said that this was the code in question.
Code: (EDL) [Select]
checkedinst = instance_id(i);
But that code is actually this in your GML code.
Code: (EDL) [Select]
checkedinst =instance_id;