R0J0hound's Recent Forum Activity

  • The easiest way to do it would be to create a family and put only the player sprites in it. That way you can pick two seperate instances independently. A side annoyance is you won't be able to access the instance variables from the family unless you recreate them as family variables, change over the events and remove the old ones.

    So for example if you called the family "other" then your events could look like this:

    Fighter: control = -1

    Other: control = 0

    Fighter: X < other.x

    --- fighter: simulate left pressed

    Another way to do it without a family would be to pick one fighter, save it's values to variables then pick the other fighters and compare with the variables. It's doable but is tedious.

  • delgado

    The behavior only does sorting when the game is run. For it to sort correctly the isometric size and z of the blocks need to be set correctly. If the blocks overlap in isometric space the sorting won't work right.

  • It looks like you need an action to set the audio volume from the variable. Volume is in decibels so you could convert a value 0-100 to decibels with this:

  • Try this topic:

  • This could help:

  • Do a forum search for it. There have been a few discussions about it, a plugin to help with that type of game, and even a few examples here and there.

  • If you're using the wrapping behavior, then you'll want to do it with events for better accuracy.

    Maybe these will help:

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • I was searching around and didn't you ask this before in a way?

    Anyway can't this problem be simplified further?

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/542 ... _push.capx

    Use a family to be able to pick two different instances and then just compare the distances between the two and then move them apart with the "move at angle" action if they're too close?

  • Not a bug, and actually your expected result is working correctly since +y is down, not up. Even that isn't a bug as that's a perfectly acceptable and is a very common convention used with computers.

  • megatronx

    I guess it doesn't then. The solution would be to move it with physics instead of letting the pathfinder movement do it. You'll have to use the Sprite.pathfinding.nodexAt and nodeyat expressions to get the points along the path and come up with a way to move along it with physics. That way physics will be in full control of the object's motion and can keep the objects from overlapping.

    That's the idea at least. I don't have any working example.

  • Ok cool.

    The simplest idea would be to save the initial angles and positions of each part of the ragdoll and rotate and move each piece toward those initials when you want it to reset. You may even be able to get away with only using the initial angle. Here's the idea. You can replace the "every tick" with a condition to reset the ragdoll.

    Start of layout:

    --- sprite: set initialAngle to self.angle

    Every tick:

    --- sprite: rotate 100*dt degrees toward self.initialAngle

    A slightly more deluxe idea would be to save the initial angle difference between each body part and the other part it's connected to. It would probably give a more natural motion I imagine.

  • megatronx

    Probably the same way as with the physics behavior. All physics objects will push out of each other. I haven't tried it so I don't know if there is any fighting between the behaviors that might make the objects jitter.