Suggestion: Virtual object

This forum is currently in read-only mode.
  • Just a thought. This would be basically your all around dummy object, except it would have no image attached. Instead you would attach it to another object, much like the drop shadow object works.

    Once it was attached it would then copy it's host's image data with out color for per pixel collisions, in fact it would still have zero opacity, but could be used as a collision mask. I think to do this though you would need an object as well as a behavior, so that you could attach a sprite to it, instead of the other way around.

    Thoughts, ideas?

  • Hmm, in what ways would it be useful? Like in a real world (game) scenario. What could it be used for?

  • Off the top of my head, Id say it would be useful for when you only want one collision mask. Plus its a much easier, and quicker way to get the mask where it needs to be. True you can just use a sprite as a dummy, but setting it up, and the fact that you use dummies for tons of different things should make it worth it.

  • Off the top of my head, Id say it would be useful for when you only want one collision mask. Plus its a much easier, and quicker way to get the mask where it needs to be. True you can just use a sprite as a dummy, but setting it up, and the fact that you use dummies for tons of different things should make it worth it.

    Ok I see what you mean now. Yep that would be pretty useful to have!

  • I support this.

  • Thirded. Fourthed. Whatever.

    Very useful idea.

    ~Sol

  • Try Construct 3

    Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • I still don't see the point to this. I need a better explanation or an example.

    Id say it would be useful for when you only want one collision mask.

    What do you mean by only want one? Why would you only want one? When is there two ?

  • I still don't see the point to this. I need a better explanation or an example.

    > Id say it would be useful for when you only want one collision mask.

    >

    What do you mean by only want one? Why would you only want one? When is there two ?

    I think he meant "want a collision mask."

  • I thought, it was about having only one collision mask while maintaining more than one frame?

  • I still don't see the point to this. I need a better explanation or an example.

    It saves you having to make a second sprite object or whatever, attach it to the original object using events (so it matches coordinates, angle, etc) and effectively using up more vram.

    It would create these "invisible objects" and "detectors" that everyone uses all the time for all kinds of stuff.

    I assume that's what newt means anyway. If so, I think it's a good idea and would find it particularly handy in many situations.

    ~Sol

  • As far as the collision mask goes, I would suggest a check box for either one frame of your choice, or have it make a mask for all frames.

    Any way yeah, just as Soldja said. Just seems like it would be a little cleaner to have an object/ behavior that does that for you instead of adding another sprite. Plus I think it would be a bit easier to use than the way collision masks are currently set up.

Jump to:
Active Users
There are 1 visitors browsing this topic (0 users and 1 guests)