predictive aiming built in?

Hello!

predictiving aiming circa 2008

I have been searching around for information regarding predictive aiming implementations into C2, and have been having difficulty discovering how best to utilize it today.

Has Ashley built it into C2 as a native plugin, as he guessed he may in his forum post above? I've looked through the behavior and plugin listings and nothing caught my eye.

Speaking of the behaviors and plugins, I am curious why these features from the community [so far as I can tell, though I am far from certain] aren't built into C2 itself more often. To shield the user from greater complexity?

Perhaps I am simply ignorant to this subject, and indeed I expect I am. But why not take the communities hard work and embed it into the program itself? Perhaps it is already done and I am far too new to have recognized it?

Thank you!

Nah, he hasn't built that in yet. The to-do list is so long, chances are it's been on there since 2008 and Ashley still hasn't gotten around to it. <img src="smileys/smiley17.gif" border="0" align="middle" />

As for community features, there's probably legal issues with it. Construct 2 isn't free -- Scirra doesn't want to risk getting sued for taking someone's ideas, even WITH permission. It's a sketchy thing.

Thank you for your response!

I don't have any outstanding legal knowledge, but I feel a legal system that doesn't protect the recipient of a gift (in this case, a plugin, etc), and allow for the use of such a gift through any reasonable means, is unreasonable.

If someone writes me a book, and gives it to me for christmas, and says "do with it as you please", in writing and signed, that that should be sufficient to ordain permissions.

It's a shame all of that work doesn't get to be utilized on the same stage it was meant for. At least not with the same kind of confidence, or something related.

Thanks again!

It's possible there's more to it than legal issues. You're right, they could have the plugin maker agree in writing... Maybe it's more of a quality assurance thing. Who knows?

I ported this example from CC to C2, it won't work perfect

It works fine converted to C2.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jmyj5eks115au ... .capx?dl=0

After Ashley made that example he added to Construct Classic as a system expression. C2 was only a twinkle in Ashley's eye in 2008.

Thank you R0J0!

teahousemoon : As a plugin maker for C2, I can explain somewhat why Ashley isn't integrating what's done by the community (apart from bug report/tests) inside the main C2 product.

First, as SullyTheStrange said, there's legal issues. Since in some of my plugins I'm using open sourced work (in various licenses) to do the job, that implies getting the clearance from all the contributors (some of them aren't on the web anymore, are dead, are in another company, etc...). The legal implications are to deep for a startup like Scirra to enter that mined playing field...

The second problem is that Ashley is already super busy and overwhelmed by the maintenance of his own codebase, his features and all. It's already difficult to keep a whole programming model in his own head when everything is made by you, it's even harder to maintain code made by somebody else. Too much risky...

I have a plugin that does exactly that.

You cannot copyright the laws of physics, just as you cannot copyright or patent maths or the laws of nature.

The only reason I haven't released the code yet is because it only works when one object is completely immobile. I'm extrapolating it to work when both objects are moving, as well as for parabolic trajectories (i.e.: in a platformer).

Here goes an example - don't mind the fact that it occasionally misses some, the collision mask is about 2 pixels wide for both objects, and whenever construct measures dt as zero, the bullet misses its mark.

Check it out

Is this what you're looking for?

The second problem is that Ashley is already super busy and overwhelmed by the maintenance of his own codebase, his features and all.

Yeah, that was why I thought it would be useful to takes other features to implement. But I now better understand the ridiculous potential legal ramifications. And obviously the debugging process involved with other people's code could be a pain, though only since there are only 2 [or so it appears] active developers in Scirra. Obviously, generally, other projects rely upon several coders implementing various features into a common framework.

So yeah, I understand better now. Thanks for the explanation, the legal tiering was very informative.

Fimbul, thank you, I will check that out a little later tonight, my plate is overloaded as it is at the very moment. I will get back to you shortly!