Bug...

[King_Cool]

Uppon pressing SPACE
- Create Active at 0,0
- Active < ACTION B >

Fair enough, each press of the SPACE bar creates a new Active and applies the Action ( ACTION B ) to it..

...
Uppon pressing SPACE
- Active < ACTION A >
- Create Active at 0,0
- Active < ACTION B >

If the Active has an Action ( ACTION A ) located before the Create Action, then any Actions after the Create Event ( for example ACTION B ) wil not trigger for the first Button press ( but only for the first button press ).

...
Is this a bug or is there some kind of logic behind this?
If this is somewhat logical, can someone pleace explain it to me?

[Jeff]

I played around a bit after you posted this and while I can't exactly reproduce what you say above, but I see something else.

I believe if you do some actions in an event on an active object
Then in the middle of the actions create a new instance of the active object
Then do more actions on the active MMF will have already selected the original active object instance and do the actions only on it.

If you can do an MFA of what issue your encountering it would be interesting to see it.

[King_Cool]

Sure thing.

The example contains 2 Frames.

FRAME 1
Uppon pressing SPACE
- Create Active at 0,0
- Active set position to 320, 240
( no black magic here, it works as expected )

FRAME 2
Uppon pressing SPACE
- Active set Flag1 ON
- Create Active at 0,0
- Active set position to 320, 240
( works as expected, except the first time you press SPACE the Active is created but not repositioned ( to 320, 240 ) )

...
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3537859/StrangeBug.mfa

...
EDIT:
Its not specifically the 'Active set Flag1 ON' Action which is the catalyst, you could replace it with 'Active set direction' for example, which leads me to believe its not the specific Actions which are causing the problem but rater structure of the entire Event

[BigHatLogan]

Hmm, the frame 2 actually does not work at all, not just the first time. The action B aka set position(320,240) should only affect the one created by previous action. But in fact it affects all, except the one that has been just created. That's just wrong.

[King_Cool]

Hmm, the frame 2 actually does not work at all, not just the first time. The action B aka set position(320,240) should only affect the one created by previous action. But in fact it affects all, except the one that has been just created. That's just wrong.

Indeed...

Ive updated the example to more clearly illustrate which Acives are being affected by the Actions ( by giving the Actives appearing animations as they are created ).
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3537859/StrangeBug.mfa

[King_Cool]

Hmm, the frame 2 actually does not work at all, not just the first time. The action B aka set position(320,240) should only affect the one created by previous action. But in fact it affects all, except the one that has been just created. That's just wrong.

Hmmm, might sound kinda silly...
In a strange way, this kinda sounds like a feature ( a very non intuitive feature ) and not a bug :P

You can choose to either apply the Actions in an Event to:
A )
The newly created instance

B )
All instances except the newly created one

...
Note i haven't thought this through to any great extent, nor have i tested the theory extencively at all

[BigHatLogan]

Hm, it can be feature, what is strange to me is that I thought that "create object" action was meant to effectively deselect all other instances and selected only the one created, breaking any possible object action loops. And only other way to change object selection as action are fastloops. But I guess it would have it's own set of issues.

[Danny]

This is expected to be honest, all you have to do here is create another "upon pressing space bar" event and set the internal flag to 1.

This way you're not breaking the scope. As it looks "on screen", technically it should select all objects, set the flag to 1, then create the object and scope down to that but unfortunately MMF's logic doesn't work that way evidently.

[KLiK-iT]

If you look in the event editor frame 2 and double click the box where the active is created or the other event or click on Event List Editor, you'll see the create active is second in the list. Set flag is first, create active is second and set position is third. Drag/move,. create active to the top and it works fine. Why MMF does this I have no idea? The way it's setup,.is the create active should be first, right, but it isn't.

I've noticed this a lot with MMF and always have to check my events in the Event List Editor to get them right. Not all the time, but sometimes when something just isn't working right and usually it's a order issue.

[King_Cool]

Well it appears to me, in this case by looking at this example, like Actions are able to change the 'Object Scope'*
I thought only Conditions were able to do this.

* By Object Scope i mean the list of selected Instances an Events Actions affect

Think about it ( see StrangeBug.mfa or former post to follow ), the Action placed prior to the Create Object Action ( in the same Event ) alters the list of Instances affected by the Events Actions.
In short, the Action is changing the selection of Instances for the Event... Strange

...
I dont see how this can be expected or understood in any way by anyone, else they have deep technical understanding of the workings of MMF2, or is indeed one of the people who have developed MMF2 on a technical level.

I have seen quite a few other bug reports or 'aledged bug' reports on the forum, and there seem to be some kind of division among people regarding what such "bugs" actually are.
Some call it "bugs" or "flaws" in MMF2 while others may call them "features" or state its "just how MMF2 works".
I find such labeling to be pointless, what we call it doesnt change the Bug, Feature or Function.

In this case i came across something which made me go ??? without me having any official or obvious way of concluding why MMF2 acted the way it did.
^ This for me, and maybe for others as well, has been concieved as a problem

It might be just me being stupid for not understanding it or it might be something which was never intended in the first place.
In any case i feel some kind of explanation or correct understanding needs to be had here.