Instance picking ideas

Hello.

I posted already this: in uploads forum, but I got the feeling that people kind of ignored and missed it. So, I'll post now my instance picking ideas and some new thoughts here.

First of all, Consturct needs improved picking of object instances. The problem is currently that when there is two instances of the same object interracting in same event, user is unable point out which instance does he mean.

For simple example, let's have a game where there is creatures, and bigger creatures eat smaller, as they collide. The smaller thus destroys and the bigger gets even more bigger. A game this simple is relatively easy to make using different ways, but the most simple, intuive way would be addressing the two creatures with different names. We say that creature A is the bigger and B the smaller, and then describe that creature A does this and creature B does that. This is a feature that Construct doesn't currently support with different instances of same object.

A code example of would-be syntax:

Sprite1.A Collides with Sprite1.B
+Sprite1.A.Value('Size') > Sprite1.B.Value('Size')

Secondly, an idea about a faster, new type of loop, "For Each Pair". I got this idea when reading a thread about gravity simulation () In gravitation calculations, you must loop trough every object pair, because every object casts a force to every object. Traditionally you would do this with nested for each loop, which is unfortunately really slow. The gravitation simulation uses a loop where every object is tested with every object. This is a very common special case of nested loop, and I think that it could be TWICE faster!

A nested loop. Numbers are object instances and I means that the looping event is tested with instances of it's column and row.

  1 2 3 4 5
1 I I I I I
2 I I I I I
3 I I I I I
4 I I I I I
5 I I I I I
[/code:39e3huh9]

"For Each Pair" -loop. A new kind of loop which would perform about twice faster. O means that the looping event is not tested with the instances of it's column and row.
[code:39e3huh9]
  1 2 3 4 5
1 O I I I I
2 O O I I I
3 O O O I I
4 O O O O I
5 O O O O O
[/code:39e3huh9]

So, it runs through every PAIR of instances only one. I.e. if it has already tested and performed the event with instances 1 and 3, it won't do so again with instances 3 and 1. On top of that, it doesn't perform the loop with the instances 1 and 1, in other words, the same instance (well, this could be an optional choise). "For each pair" -loop could use "instance naming" described above.

[code:39e3huh9]For each pair of Asteroid (A and B)

I really like the first idea, if it's possible.

A code example of would-be syntax:

Sprite1.A Collides with Sprite1.B
+Sprite1.A.Value('Size') > Sprite1.B.Value('Size')

>> Add Sprite1.B.Value('Size') to Sprite1.A.Value('Size')
>> Sprite1.B Destroy
[/code:16n117d2]

Why have Sprite1 in the actions at all? It would be more useful if when a collision event is made the first object is named A and the second is named B so it would be like this:

Sprite1 (labelled A) Collides with Sprite1 (labelled B)
          +A.Value('Size') > B.Value('Size') 
          (Sub-event so it uses the objects picked in the main event)
           --------->> Add B.Value('Size') to A.Value('Size')
           --------->> B Destroy
[/code:16n117d2]

Jayjay: LABEL! Yes, that's the word that fits the purpose. Thanks for the term.

About multiple picking conditions: Lets have two Sprite1s, UID 2 with 'Size' 4 and UID 4 with 'Size' 7. that "Sprite1 (labelled A) Collides with Sprite1 (labelled B)" must work so that both A and B pick both UID 2 and UID 4... That's because if it picks directly one instance there is no way to test further differences between A and B in following events. So, after the collision condition A = (UID2, UID4) and B = (UID2, UID4), and after the "A.Value('Size') > B.Value('Size')" condition A = (UID4) and B = (UID2).

There's some problems if user wants to do so that whichever sprite destroys is chosen randomly... or something like that. If there's a "Pick randomly" condition to rule out other instance in A, how are we going to make so that the outruled instance is conserved in B and the other is ruled out?

My answer would be that there was an condition like "Exclude A from B". This would be useful tool in many other situations also, when it's easy to define what the other label consist of, and after that just make B to be "not A"...

I think i'm having a similar problem, i have multiple instances of the same object, each one has a different height value

if the player is overlapping more than one of them, even though i put an event in that picks the object by it's highest height value, it STILL picks the one that was created first, NOT the one with the highest value.

I dunno if it's related or not to your problem, to be honest i'm watching heroes and didn't read all the walls lol

I think i'm having a similar problem, i have multiple instances of the same object, each one has a different height value

if the player is overlapping more than one of them, even though i put an event in that picks the object by it's highest height value, it STILL picks the one that was created first, NOT the one with the highest value.

I dunno if it's related or not to your problem, to be honest i'm watching heroes and didn't read all the walls lol

That sounds like a bug (or a coding mistake)... My "problem" is just a feature request. Maybe you could show a cap?

i'm pretty sure it's not a coding problem, since it's like:

If player if overlapping obstacle

pick obstacle with highest Height value - change player value to some other value

and even if i take the pick event out, the exact same thing happens, basically it depends which object i put on the layout first, which makes me assume it's a UID problem

I'm pretty sure i uploaded a cap somewhere, either uploads or help, i've temporarily fixed my problem though by putting the obstacles with the higher values on the layout first, followed by the smaller ones