Suggestion:Non-rectangular checks and GetPixelAt()

[SSH]

EDIT - The tough part is, I'll ALSO need these buttons:

Code: ags

--------
|  / |  /
| /  | /
|/   |/

   /|
  / |
/   |
----

...and the lower one is supposed to fit into the upper one... and this goes on in a grid of about 10x10 squares of dynamic dimensions.

Egad.

For example, if these 3 "sawteeth" are at screen locations 0, 190

x = mouse.x; y=mouse.y;
if ((y > 190) && (x < 200-y)) { /* sawtooth 1*/ }
if ((y > 190) && (x >= 200-y) && (x < 10)) { /*sawtooth 2*/ }
if ((y > 190) && (x >= 10) && (x < 210-y)) { /* sawtooth 3 */ }

Don't they teach algebra in schools these days?

[Kweepa]

Only took you 6 hours

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

I never had advanced math. Well, thanks anyway, but I'll just put the whole thing on hold until this oversight of AGS' is corrected (and an oversight it is, too).

[Kweepa]

Hey, I need 3d characters, but AGS doesn't support them.
I'm putting my game on hold until this oversight is corrected.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Look, I know what you mean, but,

1) 3d characters is an addition to the whole of the engine, in that it would be an immense overhaul, and click-through-in-trasparent-areas is only making the GUI buttons do what everything else already does;
2) it IS an oversight in the sense that, unlike many other features in AGS, it doesn't do exactly what is expected of it. When you activate pixel-perfect detection, you KNOW that every click will be taken at face vaule. It's only logical that this also happened with GUI buttons - so much so that, as you read the thread, you'll notice I even thought it was already in;
3) it's far too complicated for me, I know my limitations, plus the sheer amount of variability in the interface makes it very non-practical;
4) I don't want to invest a lot of time and energy to work around something that should be already in, and might one day (hopefully soon) be there. For instance, there's a lot of ugly now-unnecessary code in my LSL7 template which makes me cringe, and I sure wish I didn't have to resort to so many variables for getting the size of GUIs - something I can now do quite easily.

You were a wee bit on the extreem side there, Steve.

[SSH]

4) I don't want to invest a lot of time and energy to work around something that should be already in, and might one day (hopefully soon) be there. For instance, there's a lot of ugly now-unnecessary code in my LSL7 template which makes me cringe, and I sure wish I didn't have to resort to so many variables for getting the size of GUIs - something I can now do quite easily.

but, but, that's the whole FUN of AGS programming!

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

I disagree. The whole fun of AGS programming is getting stuff done, and sometimes working around obscure situations. The only reason I don't invest serious time on this - based on the example you have kindly supplied, SSH - is because, as I said, this is really a bit of an oversight. IMO, at least. Nevertheless, MO or no MO, it IS a behaviour that makes sense and isn't in. Yet.

Look at it this way - if I didn't care how better AGS could get, I wouldn't even bother to point out little bugs. When I don't care about the software, I crop my wishes to the limitations. AGS has practically no limitations and has a great community and an outstanding designer behind it, which allows me to point out ESPECIALLY the "little things". I don't really care much about the "big" things, because I don't even know I need them until they're there (but that's just me), but the "little" things that can hinder you... yikes.

[Snarky]

Jesus! Basic geometry and basic algebra. Did you go to highschool? Did you take any math classes there, at all? If so, you were once taught all you need to know to do these calculations. However, if the very idea of letters standing for numbers terrifies you, just ask someone here to do it for you.

That's not to say that it wouldn't be a good addition to AGS, but to let such a piddling limitation stop you?

[Pumaman]

I can see how this would be useful -- as strazer says, it's on the tracker and I will look into it for 2.71

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Snarky - I don't know what's the American or Uk equivalent of this, but I had math for the 12 years I spent in "regular" school - I then spent 3 years in a profissional acting course which had only the merest glimmer of math. That said, I consider myself to be quite good at math, and overly enjpy it, even. Or rather - the calculationsÃ,  and equations bit. I've always hated geometry, and I don't remember algebra at all. Letters stainding in for numbers is no problem - X, the variable, the incognito, the one that allows us to do a hundred and one miracles, is a thing I love. But, applied in a geometric problem in 2 very different GUIs, each with dynamic sizes (and one of which is actually 4 different GUIs), and said problem being one which is caused by an oversight (to use the "O" word again : )... well, let's just say it's not my idea of a good time.

CJ - Thankya! That's the reason we love ya!

EDIT - And, naturally, the OTHER reason I'll let this piddling limitation stop me is, I now have a reason to temporarily pause development enough to play some games which have been waiting for me.

[Gilbert]

* Gilbot V7000a even got a master degree on maths but he had lost all his understanding on basic geometry and algebra already...