Posts by Slimjimmyb

Welcome to our brand new Clickteam Community Hub! We hope you will enjoy using the new features, which we will be further expanding in the coming months.

A few features including Passport are unavailable initially whilst we monitor stability of the new platform, we hope to bring these online very soon. Small issues will crop up following the import from our old system, including some message formatting, translation accuracy and other things.

Thank you for your patience whilst we've worked on this and we look forward to more exciting community developments soon!

Clickteam.

    Any artificial physics uses iterative calculations - work out force at this time interval, acceleration, velocity, increment position, work out force at next time interval, etc.

    However - when very close to a magnet (or single-point force) the force and therefore acceleration can be huge. Say you're an inch away from the magnet accelerating towards it. Obviously in real life, moments later, you'd be an inch away on the other side and thus accelerated in the other direction by an equal amount resulting in overall equilibrium. However if we calculate this on a computer, by our next time interval we could be a mile away because the force is so strong at this point. As a result the object doesn't get an equal and opposite acceleration, and yes, gains energy. That at least is my best guess for what's happening here.

    Solution would be to either set up the orbit so the object never gets too close, or work out the forces artificially using vectors and distance and put a cap on the maximum force (which you can do if you control the equation). I do this, and my objects aren't flying out into infinity.

    Hi,
    This is a very specific issue, I'm building a physics-based game and I want the level to go on forever, and using virtual-width -1 works. I know there are other possibilities, but I'd like to take this approach if possible because it's logical, interacts well with parallax scrolling and doesn't involve a huge amount of work relocating objects when you reach the end of the map.

    HOWEVER - it only works fine using non-physical platform movement. Any physics object stops handling background collisions the moment you go off the conventional frame edge (yes, handle background collisions outside frame area is on). I suspect this is because of the way the physics engine 'adds background to the world' but there doesn't seem to be an option to refresh this when 'the world' moves on. It also has problems the moment you traverse into any virtual width, not just with virtual width -1. Added backdrops in the virtual frame DO add to physics world but don't refresh the non-colliding area, and I don't really want to be creating endless backdrops if I can avoid it.

    See below example file...

    Please login to see this attachment.

    Any ideas for solving this would be hugely appreciated!
    Many thanks,

    James

    Hi. Hopefully this is the right place to post this. First off great job with the physics, wonderfully simple, beautifully integrated, enormous fun, and just what the series needed.

    However, as a human my first instinct is to smash stuff together (i.e. if two objects of the same type hit with enough momentum, they'll take damage and eventually break) and I'm trying to figure out the best way to do this. There doesn't seem to be a built-in method for determining force of impact.

    I can't use speed because two objects moving in the same direction very quickly may glance off each other but not have enough relative speed that they should do damage. Now...

    If I was using two different object types I could approximate their mass by using the x and y edge coordinates to approximate area and multiplying by density. I could then calculate the x and y components of the velocity to determine the difference in speed for each component and thus the relative impact speed, which I could then, using the approximate mass, turn into a momentum or 1/2mv^2 energy transfer to each, determining how much damage should be applied to each object. My question is:

    1. The engine must already do this - so is there an easier way?
    2. Is there a more precise way to determine mass, other than counting pixels for each object?
    3. If I do need to take this approach, how do I get it to work for two objects of the same type/group? How do I ensure I'm looking at one of their velocities/masses, then the other's, then both added together, all in the same collision statement? Can 'for each' do this, and if so how does it work? (I've had limited luck so far).

    If you're taking requests a 'compare force on object to a value' statement would be INCREDIBLY useful.

    Many thanks,

    James