So the situation is this:
The Character.IgnoreWalkbehinds and Object.IgnoreWalkbehinds properties don't work properly with the Direct3D driver.
It may not be possible to get them to work due to the hardware acceleration that D3D uses.
My question is, then, if these properties were removed, what would be the impact on you guys? What do you use them for?
The most common use of these properties that I'm aware of, is for simply making something appear in front of a walk-behind ... but you could also do that by setting the object's baseline to 99999.
So are there any situations in which you use this property, but just setting the object/character's baseline wouldn't do the trick? Any situations where you want the object to appear in front of a walk-behind but behind a character with the same baseline?
Just bumping this thread to make sure everyone has a chance to see it -- I don't want to go ahead and remove these properties, only to have somebody complain that they never saw this announcement!
Could the properties just be used to override the current functionality with the baseline work around? That way you don't have to remove them but they no longer do what they currently are doing.
Heh bump this?
Why not make this sticky for a while before we move on?
(Hmmm. Making it sticky may actually make this even less noticeable. Let's see how it goes and unstick it if it's not a good idea.)
I can't think of any reason why a workaround wouldn't be good enough to void out the properties myself, but then I've never had any reason to use them at all.
(As far as making it sticky, I tend to never look at these threads, coz I already know 'bout the rules and things by now...and I'm using Windows. :P)
Edit: Only coz I knew it was here coz I just saw CJ bumped it a minute ago and I saw that you had posted in this thread (from the main board). Windows use is relevant coz the other (non-rules) stickies in this board...all involve non-Windows oriented topics. ;)
Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 27/10/2009 01:54:41
(As far as making it sticky, I tend to never look at these threads, coz I already know 'bout the rules and things by now...and I'm using Windows. :P)
But you did look at this :P and, how's it relevant with you using Windows?
I actually ran into this problem today :D
My situation was that I had a walkbehind, then an object hiding it, then a character who could walk in front of it.
So if I set the baseline to 9999, the player would appear behind the object, which I wouldn't want.
Quote from: Gilbet V7000a on Tue 27/10/2009 01:08:18
Why not make this sticky for a while before we move on?
(Hmmm. Making it sticky may actually make this even less noticeable. Let's see how it goes and unstick it if it's not a good idea.)
Yeah, I didn't sticky it because people usually don't see the sticky threads at all...
Quote from: Babar on Tue 27/10/2009 06:30:12
I actually ran into this problem today :D
My situation was that I had a walkbehind, then an object hiding it, then a character who could walk in front of it.
So if I set the baseline to 9999, the player would appear behind the object, which I wouldn't want.
So wait, you had an object in front of a walkbehind and you wanted the character to walk in front of both? Surely just normally set baselines would solve that, or am I missing something?
They were diagonal.
In your situation, would an alternate approach such as splitting the walk-behind area into two separate areas or anything else solve the problem?
Oh, I do recall using a lot of baselines to work with what should be in front or behind in HHGTG, but can't recall if indeed i do use ignore, but I think I dont..
Quote from: Pumaman on Wed 28/10/2009 22:10:11
In your situation, would an alternate approach such as splitting the walk-behind area into two separate areas or anything else solve the problem?
Yes, they would. And they did.
There was most definitely an alternate way of doing it. I just thought I might've mentioned my situation.
Sorry for the delay. Didn't see the reply.
Quote from: Babar on Fri 06/11/2009 10:10:19
Didn't see the reply.
Ah well. I think I'll unsticky it then.
Quote from: Babar on Fri 06/11/2009 10:10:19
Quote from: Pumaman on Wed 28/10/2009 22:10:11
In your situation, would an alternate approach such as splitting the walk-behind area into two separate areas or anything else solve the problem?
Yes, they would. And they did.
There was most definitely an alternate way of doing it. I just thought I might've mentioned my situation.
Thanks ... so is anyone using IgnoreWalkbehinds in a way where there is no alternate method?