Sine and Cosine questions. Need some formulas/

sorry i dan't unserstand what you want exactly

I'm not sure on the exact movement needed, but when i think of formulas, I think of this article that helped me immensely
Please login to see this link.

Quote from rubes

I'm not sure on the exact movement needed, but when i think of formulas, I think of this article that helped me immensely
Please login to see this link.

Great link! I've seen it before but had forgotten about it. I've now copied/pasted it into my my MFA's comments

I also highly recommend Please login to see this link. on the Clickstore. It's got good visual and interactive examples of many types of equations.

VACCiNE 2 has an object that provide constant sin and cos outputs at different rates. Checkout the video on the Clickstore page at about 10:30, might be useful. Please login to see this link.

Quote from rubes

I'm not sure on the exact movement needed, but when i think of formulas, I think of this article that helped me immensely
Please login to see this link.

That's actually one of my old articles (written 2008). Some of the content is a bit outdated now, so I've spent the last day or two on a replacement, which you can find here: Please login to see this link.

It's still a work in progress, but already has quite a lot of content which hopefully someone will find useful. Suggestions are welcome. Happy kliking!

Absolutly exciting! thanks a lot!

Quote from MuddyMole

That's actually one of my old articles (written 2008). Some of the content is a bit outdated now, so I've spent the last day or two on a replacement, which you can find here: Please login to see this link.

It's still a work in progress, but already has quite a lot of content which hopefully someone will find useful. Suggestions are welcome. Happy kliking!

As usual, MuddyMole goes above and beyond to add ever more value to this community. That's fantastic. I've bookmarked it and will no doubt reference it frequently. Thanks!

I have a couple of comments about the 'syntax' though:

-the little arrow character in comments doesn't display properly when looking from my phone (Chrome for Android).

-I think the color scheme can invite readability errors currently because in some areas it resembles Fusion's native color scheme while in others it doesn't. For example, you use blue to highlight things or 'speak outside of the code' to the reader. But blue is the color that most users associate with Fusion's hard-coded functions, which is kind of the opposite of that. Why not use yellow instead? Yellow is more attention-grabbing (perfect for highlighting examples) and has little or no connotation with existing Fusion syntax.

-Changing radius("circle") to circle.radius makes it harder to read for me, not easier. For two reasons. Firstly, it obfuscates the difference between two very different entities: Objects (circle) and values (radius). Fusion keeps those things nice and separate, not just with punctuation ("...") but also by displaying them in different colors. But in your syntax, they're both yellow, with nothing really to tell them apart.

And the second reason is that the order is switched. Circle.radius and object.x probably seem right to anyone who's used to 'real code', but it's not how Fusion would order it, so for a Fusion-centric brain like mine, it just looks wrong. The somethingdotsomething convention is alien to Fusion, and the order is the wrong way around. When I see circle.radius my brain immediately sees it as circle("radius"), which forces me to perform a conscious mental translation to radius("circle") every time. I get why you don't want to explicitly suggest the need for an object by using radius("circle"), but consider then doing something like radius[circle], or at least radius.circle

But I'm probably a bit over-sensitive to syntax issues at the moment. I've been doing of lot of scripting recently using the autohotkey scripting language. Autohotkey is super useful so I've forced myself to wade through the process, but I can't adequately express just how much I really, really detest syntax. Everything I've coded in Autohotkey I could have coded about 1000% faster if it were in Fusion, and would have been way less stressful. I'm more grateful than ever for Fusion's [almost] syntax-free environment. So at the moment, any whiff of non-Fusion syntax makes my blood pressure rise X)

Anyway, those minor objections aside, it's a fantastic page - thanks again for making it for us!

MuddyMole: WOW! This is great and very helpful!

Thanks guys, and especially Volnaiskra for all the excellent feedback (and the coffees are appreciated!).

I totally understand what you're saying, and considering the article is aimed at CF2.5 users specifically, it does make sense.
It's just that a lot of the time, the "objects" in the examples are not actually true objects in the CF2.5 sense of the word. The values in an expression may be hard-coded values, or they may be global values (neither would use the brackets and quotes), or it may be more conceptual - like vector components being properties of a vector object, which belongs to an active object.
Incidentally, according to one of the old blog posts, Clickteam are going to be switching to the "object.property" syntax for Fusion 3.0 (and including vector types as well).

The "area of a circle" formula was a bad choice for the syntax section - where I include that formula in the section about circles, I actually left out the "circle." part because it's unnecessary and potentially misleading (I will change it, and try to clarify the explanation a bit). I was hoping to avoid having a different colour for objects and their properties (styling the expressions is very tedious work - I really should automate it, but so far it's all done manually), but you're probably right that it needs doing.

I think I'll see if I can add the option to toggle the syntax style between object.property and property("object") using CSS. I'm already planning to have a printer-friendly stylesheet in case anyone wants to print off a physical copy. As for the colours, yep, I just picked a few that I liked!

Anyway, thanks again - I'll continue trying to add more content and improve the way it's presented

Quote from MuddyMole

Incidentally, according to one of the old blog posts, Clickteam are going to be switching to the "object.property" syntax for Fusion 3.0 (and including vector types as well).

Yes, I remembered that after I'd posted. It'll take some time getting used to it, but I guess it makes sense since I think it'll better accommodate F3's parent-child object structure (Enemy.arm.hand.x probably makes more sense to look at than x.hand.arm.Enemy)

Quote from MuddyMole

That's actually one of my old articles (written 2008). Some of the content is a bit outdated now, so I've spent the last day or two on a replacement, which you can find here: Please login to see this link.

It's still a work in progress, but already has quite a lot of content which hopefully someone will find useful. Suggestions are welcome. Happy kliking!

Amazing job! I am bookmarking this goldmine for future reference.

Idea: It would be neat to have a table of contents link menu on the top so visitors can click their way down to the intended subject.

great stuff as always muddy!

Thanks!
And yes Chrilley - a contents list is definitely needed. I was originally planning to make the sections collapse so just the title is showing (as a kind of contents list), and then expand when clicked on, but I think that's more trouble than it's worth, and just a normal contents section is better. So far, the focus has been on the presentation and making sure it's easy to add more content. I still have loads of formulae to add. And then eventually, I want to add some .mfa example files and tutorials...

These arrows all seem to display on Chrome Android:

← (U+2190)
⇐ (U+21D0)
⇦ (U+21E6)

Quote from Volnaiskra

These arrows all seem to display on Chrome Android:

← (U+2190)
⇐ (U+21D0)
⇦ (U+21E6)

Thanks for that. It's strange that the other arrows don't work, assuming it's using the correct font. I might need to declare the character encoding somewhere maybe, or something like that (I'm really not much of a web designer). To be honest, I've only really tested on the browser that I use, which is Opera (based on Chromium). It hadn't even occurred to me that anyone would try to view it on anything other than a PC, since that's all you can run CF2.5 on.

I'm sure a lot of people browse the forums on their phones, and may come across your page that way. And maybe there are others like me who like to do some of their programming on paper. For example, while my girls are playing in the playground after school, I'll often sit with a notepad working out programming problems for Spryke, in which case I might reference a page such as yours on my phone.

That's a fair point. I've noticed a few other unicode characters aren't displaying on Android either, so I'll look at replacing or somehow fixing those too. I decided to make the page very modular (using very non-standard methods), with every section loading from a different html file, which is great in terms of keeping things small and organised, but it means that replacing those arrows in every one of them is going to be extremely tedious. It also means that the browser is caching those html files, and you may have to clear your cache before you see any of the changes that I've made since your visit - so that's quite an important thing that needs fixing as well!
But of course, those jobs aren't fun, whereas writing more content is, so you can guess which I'm doing...
Again, thanks for the feedback I hope Spryke is going well too btw - it feels like it's been a while since I last saw a progress update? (I don't do Twitter or anything like that, so that may be why)