Build 294.1 - Beta version

Quote from NaitorStudios

I'm not a huge fan of transitions, mostly because it pauses the entire frame when their happening, would be possible to add a "Freeze the app while happening" toggle?
Been working with this project and got it with lots of transitions, had to replace all that with custom ones because of the freeze lol

i agree, more modern interpretation of game transitions would be great.

also, a feature request for clickteam: we already have "on object collides with object". would it be possible to get "object stops colliding with object"? so we would have 2 "trigger" actions, and 1 "continuous" action: on begin overlap, on end overlap, and while overlapping.

Quote from casleziro

so we would have 2 "trigger" actions, and 1 "continuous" action: on begin overlap, on end overlap, and while overlapping.

the biggest advantage of this would be performance. one of many potential use-cases for this: player collides with the trigger zone of an enemy. on collision start, the enemy flag "track player" gets set to TRUE, which causes the enemy to run some expensive pathfinding AI. as soon as the player leaves the trigger zone, set flag OFF. would not need to continuously check for overlap each frame with this setup.

with the new "overlapping at" condition is it possible to make it so you can set the X,& Y of both objects instead of just the one?

Quote from NaitorStudios

I'm not a huge fan of transitions, mostly because it pauses the entire frame when their happening, would be possible to add a "Freeze the app while happening" toggle?
Been working with this project and got it with lots of transitions, had to replace all that with custom ones because of the freeze lol

Completely agree. Had problems with objects that I set to not be visible at start and when the fade-in transition played, all of these objects were visible until the transition finished. I ended up making an active object in the game window size to serve for custom transitions, either by frame-by-frame animation or by blend coefficient values contolled from the event editor. As for freezing active objects animations / movement when the transition plays, I add a same qualifier for all animated objects and from the event editor I set to stop the animation / movement for the qualifier when the custom transition plays, and start the animation / movement when it ends. To prevent player input while the transition plays I set a global value for player input, which I configure to be set to 0 when the transition plays and to 1 when it ends. Then when I check for player input I always check if this global value is equal to 1. I'm not sure if that's the best or ideal way to doing it but it works for me. Hope it helps in any way.

--Bug (regression): Select two different (not duplicates) objects. Double-click one of their altVals in the Properties Toolbar. Write "blabla" and press Enter. The Properties Toolbar now says "Undetermined" for that altVal, but it should say "blabla" since they both have that identical name.

--With altVal sorting, altVal indexes will become more important in projects where altVal names get rearranged. To help decrease confusion, it might be useful to add those indexes to the Layer Object's 'sort by alterable value' list:

Please login to see this picture.

Quote from SHINBAXTER

with the new "overlapping at" condition is it possible to make it so you can set the X,& Y of both objects instead of just the one?

Let me preface the following comment by saying that I'm currently very confused about this condition - what it's supposed to do, what it does, and whether it does it correctly - so I might have no idea what I'm talking about.

Do you mean like, is hero's head overlapping with enemy's big toe, where you can specify both where on the hero's sprite is her head, and where on the enemy's sprite is his big toe? That's how I thought this condition was going to work when I heard about it, but the way I understand its description in the changelog, I think it's supposed to work more like: is the hero overlapping the enemy over here at the town entrance, where you specify the location of the 'town entrance', and therefore there's no need to specify any XY values about neither hero nor enemy. Though from what I can see, it doesn't actually work like that at the moment (see my post on page 3), and currently does something like: is the enemy overlapping the town entrance (and ignores the hero altogether).

I'm going to commit suwuicide
Please login to see this attachment.

Quote from NaitorStudios

I'm not a huge fan of transitions, mostly because it pauses the entire frame when their happening, would be possible to add a "Freeze the app while happening" toggle?
Been working with this project and got it with lots of transitions, had to replace all that with custom ones because of the freeze lol

Same here. I'd use the built-in transitions if they didn't pause the frame while it was happening. And also, I don't like how the fade out transitions happen when the app is closing. So yeah looks like imma have to use custom ones ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Bug Report: Apps with Google Maps object, will not compile with version 294.1
When I reinstall version 293.10 the app compiles ok.

Quote from Yves

Not sure what is confusing about this condition, maybe I didn't explain it correctly and / or maybe it should be written differently. It works like "Is Object 1 Overlapping Object 2" but allows you to specify other coordinates for Object 1 (this allows you for example to check if if you can move Object 1 to a specific position).

If we write it like this, for example, would it be easier to understand :

Is Active 1 at X = X("Active 1") + 10, Y = Y("Active 1") Overlapping Active 2 ?

(for the moment it's written "Is Active 1 Overlapping Active 2 at X = X("Active 1") + 10, Y = Y("Active 1")" )

Oh, I see! That's totally different to how I understood it. Actually, I had two interpretations at different times (one when I saw the youtube announcement, another once I read the changelog), but they were both way off. So, I think I understand it now. If we were to write it in plain English, it would look something like this, correct?:

Would Active 1 overlap Active 2 if, hypothetically, we moved Active 1 to X,Y?

I don't think that that meaning is very obvious from the description/condition text, because they are written in the present tense (is Active 1 overlapping...). So I assumed it was testing for stuff that is actually happening right now, not testing for hypothetical scenarios. So I assumed it was testing whether Active 1 & Active 2 collided in a particular spot on the level (for example, you have many instances of 1s and 2s overlapping with each other all over the place, but you only care about the ones that collide within a certain range of the player)

Well, to me, it would have to be something like:

Would Active 1 at X=___, Y=___ Overlap Active 2

as anything that starts with Is Active 1... automatically suggests to me that it's testing for objects in their real, present locations, since that's how overlap conditions have always worked. Upon a bit more thinking, I can appreciate that the logic of:

Is Active 1 at X = X("Active 1") + 10, Y = Y("Active 1") Overlapping Active 2

is more or less identical to the logic of:

Does 50+10 = 60

And of course Does 50+10 = 60 seems fine to me. it'd never occur to me that it should be formulated:

[B]would[/B] 50 equal 60 [B]if we hypothetically added [/B]10 to 50

So if I find Does 50+10 = 60 perfectly natural and understandable, maybe Is Active 1 at X = X("Active 1") + 10, Y = Y("Active 1") Overlapping Active 2 should seem natural to me too. But it doesn't. I think it's because overlapping objects feel very 'real' and not abstract. 50+10 feels abstract. X("Active 1") + 10 feels abstract. But Is Active.....Overlapping Active 2 just automatically feels real to me, and so I assume it's talking about real (not speculative) things.

I'd be curious about what others think though. Maybe I'm the only one who was tripped up by this.

it seems to me to be better this way:
Code:
Would Active 1 at X=___, Y=___ Overlap Active 2

Ah so that is what this condition does. That's a really useful feature.

I've noticed an odd issue that's caught me out.
Seems if you delete some global values and add more to the bottom, making them out of order in the list, there are some oddities.

So, I deleted a bunch of existing global values.
You can see by the attached screen, new ones I created at the list used vacant variables.

For example I deleted 10 - 12 and 14-16.

When I created new ones, it started at global value 10, the first vacant value, as it should.

Please login to see this attachment.

The issue is, in the event editor (global if that matters), if I have an event checking against a global value or changing data in that global value, it defaults to the wrong value when you drill into the event.

So, say I have an event "If scheme = 1" and I double click on that event, the global value I'm working on in the event editor defaults to "snow".
Snow is no 20 in the global value list but given I've deleted some, it's in 14th place in the list so when I double click the event instead of defaulting to value 14, "scheme" it's defaulting to the 14th place in the list, which is value 20, snow.

So it doesn't seem to be checking against the global values number, rather it's counting down from the top of the list so when I'm working on global value 14 which happens to be the 22nd one down the list, it's only counting down 14 and defaulting to snow in the editor.

Here's a couple of screens.

When I drill into this event

Please login to see this attachment.

I get this window where it defaults to the wrong value.

Please login to see this attachment.

It's caught me out a few times as I've not noticed and experienced odd bugs.
At just I just thought it was user error until I sussed it.

Another unrelated issue.
The picture editor doesn't remember it's been maximised and defaults to a small window every time you open it.

Cracking update and these are the only 2 issues I've found so far.

Yes, I wish this condition existed when I did my enemy AI engine! So many times I had to move a detector in one event then test it for overlap in the next. Being able to do both in a single condition would have simplified things considerably.

Can we go back to the old-style icons instead of using the new style icons for everything?

Why does "N" not negate code now when I right click events to open the menu? Seems all shortcuts like this have been disabled.

Reordering Alterable Values causes the values to reorder properly, but they retain their indexes - meaning this is only a visual change and not true reordering of the values. Is this going to change or is there a setting I'm overlooking?

Reordering Alterable Values completely breaks the alterable value list in the event editor - rendering this feature completely useless. Is this a known problem? Right now I have multiple Alterable Values that when I click on them in the expression editor it puts a completely different alt value in its place.

This is just 2 minutes of use and I already need to go back to the latest non-beta version. Just wondering if there is some sort of release window for the full version? Is there a compilation of known issues that I am missing somewhere?

Quote from GamesterX23

This is just 2 minutes of use and I already need to go back to the latest non-beta version. Just wondering if there is some sort of release window for the full version? Is there a compilation of known issues that I am missing somewhere?

You're on the compilation of known issues X). It's this thread. I've reported a couple of the things you mentioned already, as well as a bunch of other stuff (I'm like you: I find bugs quickly - or rather, they find me quickly). Keep adding any new problems you find, so Clickteam can fix them. Like you, I can't use 294 yet because it's too buggy and is missing stuff. It's a huge update, so it'll probably take a good few weeks for them to get it up to scratch. Like I said, let's help the process along by reporting new problems that haven't been spotted yet.

Quote

Reordering Alterable Values causes the values to reorder properly, but they retain their indexes - meaning this is only a visual change and not true reordering of the values. Is this going to change or is there a setting I'm overlooking?

That's how it's supposed to be - the changelog is clear about that. It won't ever change until Fusion 3 due to technical limitations. If value indexes aren't important to you (ie. you don't actually address altVals by values in your code, but just by their names) then you can turn off the visible indexes in the preferences, and the experience should be more or less as if it were a true reordering.

Quote

Reordering Alterable Values completely breaks the alterable value list in the event editor - rendering this feature completely useless. Is this a known problem? Right now I have multiple Alterable Values that when I click on them in the expression editor it puts a completely different alt value in its place.

That sounds like a serious bug. I don't think I've seen it. Could you upload an MFA or screenshot example?

Thanks! Here is a pic that hopefully shows what's happening. When I select "Movement speed" in the expression editor it gets changed to "TrueX"

Using this same example

XPos -> XPos
TrueX -> YPos
TrueY -> Movement Speed
Movement Speed -> TrueX
Alterable Value F -> TrueY
YPos -> Alterable Value F

Alterable Value G and beyond work p

Please login to see this attachment.