brushfe's Forum Posts

• • brushfe
  • 
  • • Joined 21 Jul, 2013
    • 
    • 41 topics • 384 posts
  • 1

  • 1 May, 2020
  • Quote

  This is fantastic! What a great approach... so much simpler looking backwards. This has really helped me out.

  Never sure how to say a proper thanks, but thanks very much!

• • brushfe
  • 
  • • Joined 21 Jul, 2013
    • 
    • 41 topics • 384 posts
  • 1

  • 1 May, 2020
  • Quote

  I've been building a baseball game based off this great ball formula from rojohound, and I'm now building the AI that needs to chase the ball.

  https://www.construct.net/en/forum/construct-2/how-do-i-18/design-2d-baseball-physics-135768

  What I've been trying to figure out is a way to predict where the ball will end up, and have the AI move to that location (rather than needlessly chasing the ball's current location).

  I've tried making a second copy of the ball, and multiplying the values in the formula, but I'm getting lost in the math and can't get it to slow down properly.

  If anyone has any thoughts or insight, it's much appreciated!

• You do not have permission to view this post

• You do not have permission to view this post

• You do not have permission to view this post

• You do not have permission to view this post

• You do not have permission to view this post

• You do not have permission to view this post

• You do not have permission to view this post

• • brushfe
  • 
  • • Joined 21 Jul, 2013
    • 
    • 41 topics • 384 posts
  • 1

  • 1 Apr, 2020
  • Quote

  Hey, thanks everyone. And thanks for the example mekonbekon — personally I think that should replace the one included in C3, the instructions and example were super clear!

  I see why the maps were created, but it still just seems to complicate the code (and the event sheet) more than it used to. Wouldn't this all be a lot simpler if you could just call a function by name/string?

  For an approachable dev platform like C3, it feels like something as fundamental as functions shouldn't be getting more complicated over time. Not that function maps shouldn't exist, as there's some super cool uses of them here like dialogue, but in addition to the basics like calling by string.

• • brushfe
  • 
  • • Joined 21 Jul, 2013
    • 
    • 41 topics • 384 posts
  • 1

  • 31 Mar, 2020
  • Quote

  As a C2 user I've been trying to learn more about C3's new features. Maybe someone could help me see the value in Function Maps?

  I checked out the Function Map tutorial included in C3, but that only made things more puzzling. It seemed like it took 3x more work to do something you can make with one function and some if statements.

  For example: here's a picture of the C3 Function Map tutorial done without function maps. It's much less work and much simpler — but I'm sure I'm missing something valuable about these maps.

  
• • brushfe
  • 
  • • Joined 21 Jul, 2013
    • 
    • 41 topics • 384 posts
  • 1

  • 16 Mar, 2020
  • Quote

  Just on the topic of redundancy -- in my experience designing UI/UX, it's not always a good thing to remove it. There's a difference between where something should logically be found, and giving people access to the most frequently used tools.

  The removal of the ribbon, in my view, is a big mistake. While a lot of things are tucked away logically, it takes more time/clicks to do certain tasks (the grid is a great example). I've seen this most often when engineering is the focus of the UI, versus productivity. Simplicity is good, but reduction is bad.

  I think we'll see more of this conversation at C3 gets more popular. Logic in UI is good for learning, but redundancy is good for productivity. I know the UI/UX is the reason I'm still in C2, despite the features.

  Voice of one, but I'd heavily suggest including a ribbon that's either based on the most used tools (C2 is a great start) or even customizable.

• You do not have permission to view this post

• You do not have permission to view this post

• You do not have permission to view this post