In the new HWA beta version, the pixel object crashes the program whenever I use the 'get color at' function. I haven't tried any other functions of the object.
Printable View
In the new HWA beta version, the pixel object crashes the program whenever I use the 'get color at' function. I haven't tried any other functions of the object.
This object, like a lot of others, is currently not compatible with the HWA. You should wait for the author convert this extension for HWA. :)
I hope it gets updated fast, because this is the extension I'm using to check if someone has the right version of a video codec installed. (think about that one for a second...)
WOW, you really are 'lazycoder'.
Ummm... huh? How's that lazy? I thought it was rather ingenious.
I just loaded the movie in the animation object, and use the pixel object to see if the color that is there matches the color that is in the movie. If it does, then they have a recent enough version. If not, then they don't, and all you can see is the background, in which case they will be given a link to the website, and will not be allowed to proceed.
The problem with just trying to play the movie, is that it DOES play, it just won't show the video.
It's lazy for so many reasons.
...The reason you hear the sound; but no video is displayed, is probably because your using a chunk based file, such as .AVI,
chunk files store there audio and video information separately.
.Avi(generally) = mpeg1 + mp3.
most people can run mp3 but mayn't be able to run mpeg1.
mayn't? That's something new. :)
Bless, I think he's making up words :D But yes lazycoder, that is pretty cleaver :D
How did you know I was holding a cleaver in my hand? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by dingdong
Actually, for my latest (and only) game, I'm going to have it just be the video in the .avi, and have the audio in a separate OGG file, that way it takes up less disk space.
Yea I knew that, and that's exactly the problem. It doesn't bring up any sort of error message saying the codec isn't installed, it just says to itself "well what the heck! Let's play it anyways". And so the player'll not see the video.Quote:
Originally Posted by SEELE
I have a plug-in to correct my spelling, and i suppose it though mayn't was a word (perhaps it's American or something)
My Last English Report(I'm Luke):
[miss Robbert's]
Luke's hand writing has improved a lot this year, Revealing his inability to spell.
:cool:
When i say lazy, i mean 'Unprofessional' Instead you could have it check the user's reg or a system file to see if the correct driver's are present.
On a side note, The animation object can play the video chunk of window's AVI's
Maybe you could run it without any codecs.
Lol. You know what I meant!
Without any codec? Yea sure... so that's about a 200MB file.Quote:
Originally Posted by SEELE
I've actually tried looking in the registry for the XVid version information, but I couldn't find anything substantial. So I just gave up and went with the way that was guaranteed to work.
It's not obtrusive in any way, it's just a tiny grey square in the upper left hand corner, and it is only up there for about a second.
Also, some people don't like programs digging through their registry.
I don't see how, running it without codecs would make it any larger.Quote:
Without any codec? Yea sure... so that's about a 200MB file.
Most codecs offer video compression like Xvid, Divx, Mpeg4, etc. That's why they're smaller than regular AVI or MPEG files.
The codec defines how the video is compressed. If it isn't compressed, then that means that every single pixel color is recorded. So not only does it take up tons of extra space, it also usually will not play at the desired framerate, because it's just too much for the cpu to handle, and most people don't have enough RAM to play those files.
Lossless files like that are only used in video editing, and that's so no quality is lost. The final output is always compressed in one way or another.
EDIT: Gah! byo got to it first!
Yes, I agree.
But if there is no compression, there is no need for a codec (Ie. MP3 VS WAV). And most people don't like to download 200 MB video files as mentioned. ;)
EDIT: lol. And we're not talking about compression like in ZIP files. Most video codecs have amazing techniques for rendering each frame. I can only think thse guys who did are crazy. :D
Data and video are compressed much differently.
Data is compressed losslessly, because if it wasn't, nothing would run. The data has to be EXACTLY the same.
Video, since it's a visual thing, can be compressed lossyly (if that were a real word!). Even though the exact pixel colors are not the same as in the lossless version, you will still have a hard time telling the difference between the two.
Yes. The DivX and Xvid codecs render only what's necessary between each frame, rendering only little squared regions when needed (although I'm pretty sure they use other compression algorithm together).
That's why we have small file sizes with these codecs. It's not ONLY because of the pixel rendering techniques, but the frame rendering. And the future is not so far. :)
I think there is some confusion,
Of course you still compress it;(guh) you just don't use and low level drawing protocols.
But you decode it as the same (of course slower).
I think we should all remember that AVI was an early stage of a bad idea, and is used only for convenience.Quote:
And the future is not so far
Uh... huh... I have no idea what that is supposed to mean...Quote:
Originally Posted by SEELE
Do you mean I should try the built in codecs (the ones that come with Windows?). I really don't like those ones because they lead to large file sizes, and crappy video quality. The game I'm making is freeware, (and therefore, you download it off the internet), so I have to keep the filesize as low as possible. The installer for XVid is only about 800kb, so I figure that's no big deal at all.
Going back to the original topic (no not THAT original, the one about me being lazy for some reason), checking in the registry isn't exactly the best idea. A newer version of the codec might have different registry key locations, or the locations may be different because someone is trying to run it on Vista instead of XP (or lower). Plus, even thought the registry entries are there, the user might have manually gone in and deleted the Xvid files (I don't know why they'd do that, it's just a possibility), so in that case it would appear that they have it, it just wouldn't play.
The way I chose to do it is the one sure way to make sure that they have it, it's the right version, and ultimately, it can play.
Was anyone keeping score? :D LMAO!
I can See my way will only confuse you, if you can make your way work; then great.
Good Luck.
I get this bug aswell.
yes, as for the original problem. all graphical extension will have problems with the HWA beta.
if you can't work around it, just wait until the necessary extension is ported.
Technically this object is a graphical object, and since 3rd party graphical objects don't work with HWA for now, so does this one.
Eh? You mean 3rd party objects don't work with HWA? Or do you mean it just has to be reprogrammed?
Some work, some must be optimized/verified, some others need to be reprogrammed to support HWA.
That only applies to graphical objects though :)
No no no! 3rd party graphical objects can't be used with HWA until the SDK is updated and the creator updates them.Quote:
Originally Posted by LazyCoder
Some 3rd party graphical objects may work without change, but will be probably be slow if they are not modified, that depends on what they do.
I guess this explains why my Colorizer's editor display drew lines but nothing more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LIJI
Has that happened yet with this object? Because for some reason, it doesn't crash anymore! Sweet!
EDIT: Nevermind... I had it set to software mode for some reason...