Don't have an account yet? Then register once and completely free of charge and use our wide range of topics, features and great options. As a registered member on our site, you can use all functions to actively participate in community life. Write posts, open topics, upload your pictures, put your videos online, talk to other members and help us to constantly improve our project and grow together! So, what are you waiting for? Become a part of us today!
To get support for a technical issue such as installing the software, to query a purchase that you've made/would like to make, or anything other than using our software, please visit our Customer Service Desk:
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!
This topic may be too premature, but recent thread about MMF3 spiked my interest in MMF3 development. Will there be option to sign-up for beta testing it during development? Will there be some beta extension SDK? And if so, what will be requirements to get in for beta testing?
And sorry if this topic was already discussed somewhere else, it just poped in my head.
Just out of curiosity, how does object selection works in Edif? If is declare condition in json with parameter "Object" how do I have to declare function in Edif? From experience in rSDK param object should be short and the number should be index of OI in OIL. But if I declare function in Edif to take param short or int, I don't get the same number as I get in rSDK(I tested).
I agree that it would be better to do actions on all object right away, and I agree that it's design flaw, but I do not think it's a bug. There are other design flaws in MMF that does not make sense and all of them are so deep in the code that fixing them would be near impossible. All we can do now is accept how it works and deal with. Hopefully all those quirks will be fixed in MMF3.
But what surprise me that it looks like many people think it's something new, mmf worked this way as long as I have it. So conclusion is that I don't defend this behavior as the correct one but just saying that it's not a bug.
It's not logic. It's a design flaw. No other development platform would do this. If you iterate through objects, it's not pushed later in some queue. Seriously, have you programmed in any other environment that does this? I sure haven't.
Hm, Francois this problem is the way MMF works too? Could you tell me workaround?
Please login to see this link.
workaround, don't start fast loop in events that do something for multiple objects(positioning, setting values,...), triggered event will mess up selection list
it does follow order of actions, it goes from top to bottom doing one object at a time, first time it will do all 3 action, second time it will do only actions for active because there are more then one, global object is one
sry but that's not a bug. Come on, action loops in MMF are unchanged as long as I know. Disasembly of that example looks like this: set global value to 10 set active1 altvalueA to globalvalue(10) add 50 to global value set active2 altvalueA to globalvalue(60) set active3 altvalueA to globalvalue(60)
Well I have been quite busy in the past few weeks and Skyrim does not help(and it will probably take me a month to finish it). I don't want to postpone release of the updated version that long so here is new early beta version. Unfortunately I was unable to fix OBJ loader for this version but I will get back to it.
changes:
DebugDraw: extension no longer mess up texturing for other extensions added some more debugdraw options
Bullet: several bug fixes added low level access to persistent manifold completed raycasting lots of new actions/conditions/expressions and fixes to existing constraints are now at about 75% completion
Please login to see this link.
ps: can any moderator change link in the first post please?
I'm not sure what are you trying to do but to round value up or down to the closest desirable value -> something like this should work: round(x"detector"+12.5)/25*25
It should just drop concave mesh on the ground. So as long as it falls down and roll as expected and does not crash then it's working ok. Problem is that it crash for me in the new version and I was not sure if it's something new or if it crash for someone else in earlier version too. And even bigger issue is that I have no idea why it's crashing because it's reporting KERNELBASE.dll as fault module and only in release version. Debug version works without problems. So if I don't find solution I will have to find different OBJ loader or write my own. And that's pita.
I didn't examine that file to much but I think that the problem is as follow
OR (Filtered) + Repeat While Moving Right + CeilingDetector is overlapping Obstacle <-A + FloorDetector is overlapping Obstacle <-B + Alterable Value A = 0 (Probably not relevant, but it is 0)
A = Condition A will select only those obstacle that overlap UpDetector B = Floordetector will never overlap obstacles that are selected by previous condition = condition will not be true
you should have different events for overlaps of up and down detector and then store overlap as value then you should be able to compare to both values
edit: I was unsuccessful trying to upload the file on forum so here on MFArepository Please login to see this link.
So what you want is to project MousePoint onto Line? Like this? Please login to see this link. That example is simplified but you can google proper math to do this with keyword dotproduct. I'm not confident enough to try to explain it myself, but vector math in 2D is pretty simple really.
Actually the "Correct way" is incorrect. Compare 2 general values condition does not change object selection so you may as well replace it with "always" condition. The fact that it will position hitboxes on characters is inbuilt feature of action loops in MMF. Condition "Create new event > right click on object > Alterable Values > Compare to one of the alterable values" will select only those object that fulfill that condition and if you comparing altvalue to value of different object then you will be comparing ALL OBJA.altval with ONE OBJB.altval => in case of comparing ID it will usually select only ONE OBJA and ALL OBJB(actually it will not change selection of OBJB=>no selection=all selected) => all hitboxes will be positioned on one character.