Messages

That is indeed disturbing... but at the same time, that doll is so cute!

Dargh -_- Thanks gil.

EDIT: Well, as expected, I get the same result with this method.

[==region[0]]

I'm trying to write a script so that a certain sound plays as a character walks up stairs. I have a region set up to go on and off as you walk along, basically:



What I tried first is to put in the region interaction for when player steps onto region, simply PlaySound(9);
This didn't work very well, and the sound only went off every now and again and certainly not on every step. I tried thickening the lines, thinning them, and the result didn't vary much. I realise this is because the characters speed doesn't allow him to "walk" on every pixel, (his speed is 6, by the way) so I tried putting this code:

Code: ags

int reg=1;

if (((Region.GetAtRoomXY(player.x, player.y)) == region[2]) && (reg==1)) {
    reg=0;
    PlaySound(9);
}

if (((Region.GetAtRoomXY(player.x, player.y)) != region[2]) && (reg==0)) {
    reg=1;
}

in the room's repeatedly_execute section, and now if I stand on a region, the sound plays continuously. I also tried ==region[0] but it had the same result. I can understand why the first method didn't work, but what's going on with this code?

Does anyone have any other way I could do this?

Well, -someone- needs to go out and buy this book so we can all see.

I haven't seen it yet but I will soon.

I can't wait though and because I'm a BIG fan of Jeff Wayne's musical (much moreso than the book, which I actually found ratherr dull) I'm curious as to what they kept.

I've heard the ending's the same from someone... er, confirmation?

Can you see the heat rays? Because you're not supposed to (being just... heat). Are they even called heat rays or are they "lasers"?

And just a general sort of question, but how do they get over the fact that we can't kill them in these modern times with all out technology? In the original versions, the technology was FAR poorer and they still managed to bring them down occasionally. You'd think it'd be a cinch these days. Do they manage to convincingly portrey why this doesn't happen?

Also...

Spoiler

Do crows pick at them at the end when they're dead? That was always one of my favourite images

[close]

OH! Noone has answered me this one yet, do they still "UUULLLLLAAAAAA!" or some other cry?

I just like whoever seems, for whatever reason, the best to me. I don't go for teams/people who are cocky/assholes/yobbos... even when I'm watching a sport I've never seen before, I'll look at all the candidates and go for whichever one appeals to me, not the Australian necessarilly. Of course I can understand in cirtain circumstances going for your local team. In my case, both my local footy teams just happen to be the best (Broncos are on top of the ladder and the Lions, well, 4 premiership attendances in a row and it's looking likely for a fifth) but of course, there's a real lot of fun in being apart of the town's team. If I walk around wearing my Broncos gear, suddenly everyone's my friend.

In things like tennis or when your local team is clearly a bunch of dickheads, I really think you have to step back and think about who you're going for and why. Hewitt is my most hated sportperson right now. Not only is he a loser with an anger problem, but he's a little worm. He'ss not even a big, evil bad guy like some other people. He's like a little yappy dog that keeps biting people's ankles.

Man, I have to love you for doing a Dizzy style game. I LOVED those games, and there always needed to be other games in the same style. The bear is adorable, by the way ^_^ Very cute, I hope your brother liked it.

Why can't we like sports people/teams for who they are? Not the fact that they come from our country.

I'm not usually the kind of person that gives a toss about stars/sports players or anyone in the public eye apart from people who I have a real artistic respect for, or the players I really love in my rugby team, but my god... I love Roger Federer.

He's incredibly skilled, he's nice, he's not a dickhead, he doesn't loose his cool on the tennis court, he doesn't seem fake at all, he doesn't get engaged to a minor celebrity the day after losing a major tennis match to keep people talking about him and forget about what a loser he is (BAM, Lleyton!), and he's just freaking gorgeous.

I always think when most people talk about how "cute" stars or sportspeople are that they must have lowered their standards to some hideous level, because they all look ugly or just very average to me. I can never see what people are talking about. It's like, if I saw that person on the street, I wouldn't give them a second look but everyone drools over them when they're famous and suddenly, it's "Everyone Gets To Be a Sex Symbol" day (there are some exceptions like David Duchovny - I'm not mad about him but he's one of those few you can honestly say is better looking than the average person).

Federer though... he's got a goofy smile but he's the first -genuinely- good looking sportsperson I've seen in a long time. It makes me happy that there's at least one person out there in the tennis world like him. We need more Federers and fewer (read: "no") Lleyton Hewitts.

God, I hate that f*cker. Australians go nuts over him just because he's Australian. "That's not cockiness and a childish anger problem, that's AUSSIE SPIRIT!".

I'm pretty much with you on this one, Yak. I knew next to nothing about this whole deal until today when I saw a bit about it on the news, heard a bit about it on the radio as I changed to a different station (because the two live acts I listend to were the most AWFUL renditions of "Ordinary World" and "Seven Seconds" I've ever heard in my life) and the fact that it's on tv right now, and I've spend the night watching other channels to avoid it.

If this whole thing manages to make a few hundred/thousand people more aware of these issues, great. It's not doing anything really tangible though, and seems to be a lot more about wank than the original was.

I'm listening to Paul McCartney right now, and although I was never a Beatles fan (blech!), he really is boring the shit out of me. God, he sucks. I'm looking at it thinking, "THIS is supposed to be a huge concert? I've seen live acts in pubs that rock more than this".

The only thing that made me want to watch/listen was when I saw Stevie Wonder, but that was only for a couple of seconds on the news.

Noone could honestly think this is going to do anything to any government. What would be much more useful is if one of these guys got involved in politics and didn't go corrupt afterwards.

EDIT: Even worse than Paul's singing is this bit right now where they're all hugging while singing "nanana naa" and Mariah Carey is squeezing her boobs together and looking just altogether way too sexy for standing in amongst a bunch of little African children.

EDIT2: I just figured out what slightly annoys me about this (I can't say I'm really annoyed, I mean, every little bit helps so I don't dislike what they're doing outright). It's preaching to the converted. The whole thing stinks of tokenism and manufacturing emotions, and just isn't targetting the people that do need to change their thinking/behaviour.

I typically hate animating sprites but I really enjoy the whole process of game making overall. Sometimes it's hard to get sterted but once I'm going, I never want to stop. I have to force myself to bed every night lately because it's just so fun to see my game slowly blossom into reality ^_^

Thanks Babar!

Can anyone find me a direct link to the swf? I wanna download the thing but can only manage to find links to the menu which links off to the movie file from within itself.

AH! It works! Thanks so much, GG! ^_^ That was really stumping me, I hadn't realised screen coords might be involved, but it explains everything.

I don't know why I missed strazers comment up there. Sorry strazer! I think I read it and then read your reply right after and forgot about it. Yet again, I embarrass myself in the tech forum.

It's a scrolling room. Very scrolling.

Really? I think my code is pretty simple. It works and I'm happy with it, the only problem is this "bug" that makes absolutely no sense to me. If someone could shed some light on what it could be, I'd very much appreciate it.

No, well, I meant that I have to go to my written plans and count ^_^ I've only made a fraction of my game and I've made 50 rooms already. However, I -did- go away and count roughly how many I'll be using total and thankfully it's way under 1000. I was just a little scared seeing the number 50 already when I'm only a small percentage through the game.

Sorry to drag this up again, but regarding the 300+ (because my game will go many times over this limit), this condition of not having state saved could easily be countered with global ints and whatnot, right? Are there any other limits or is that it?

God, I'm actually scared I might go over 1000... I'm gonna have to go over my plans and start counting.

This is the general area



This is where the walkable areas are:



Basically above that, #1 eventually meets up with #4.

Below here (which is the screen above of the previous ones), in the red circles is basically where I'm having areas turn on and off (some of the places, anyway).

I'm gonna give Gilbot's code a try then.

EDIT: The verdict - If I start on walkable area #1, all is well, and walkable area #5 is off. If I then move onto walkable area #4 (inevitable to get to #5), walkable area #5 is off and I can't find any way to turn it back on.

If I start on walkable area #5, all the walkable areas are on at once, and I can't turn any of them off by moving anywhere. Also, after a minute or so of walking around, my character froze (the game was still running) seemingly because walkable area #1 was turned off (that's where I was currently standing, anyway).

I can't see how these things happened, but ... anyway, I shall do some more thorough testing and see what I can come up with.

EDIT2: Hmm.

I set up a couple of labels to tell me if and when each walkable area is on or off. All I can say is that there's either a bug at work, or I'm just insane. The areas are turning on and off when I walk over areas that are all VERY MUCH in the same walkable area, nowhere near the boundaries. Not only that, but they turn on at points that are about 50-100 pixels away from wherever they turn off. the strangest thing is that it seems random, but only a little random. At first, I thought there must be some other walkable area at play and I kept walking over it's boundaries, but the on/off positions kept changing and then staying the same as I moved between on and off, but not with much accuracy either.

This has to be a bug.

I think at this stage it might be better for me to wait for a function to detect walkable areas.

EDIT3: I'm now using this code

Code: ags

if (((GetWalkableAreaAt(player.x, player.y)) == 1) && (region[5].Enabled == true)) {
     RemoveWalkableArea(5);
     region[5].Enabled = false;
     SetLabelText(27,  0,  "5 is off");
     }
if (((GetWalkableAreaAt(player.x, player.y)) == 5) && (region[1].Enabled == true)) {
     RemoveWalkableArea(1);
     region[1].Enabled = false;
     SetLabelText(27,  1,  "1 is off");
     }
if (((GetWalkableAreaAt(player.x, player.y)) == 4) && ((region[1].Enabled == false) || (region[5].Enabled == false))) {
     RestoreWalkableArea(1);
     RestoreWalkableArea(5);
     region[1].Enabled = true; 
     region[5].Enabled = true; 
     SetLabelText(27,  0,  "5 is on");
     SetLabelText(27,  1,  "1 is on");
     }

With regions/walkable areas corresponding to each other and the same thing is happening, so it's not your code Gil. I'm rather clueless about what would cause this.

BAM! Thanks DG ^_^ I was -sure- it was the Kiss version but I didn't wanna make an assout of myself by assuming.

The difference is that the movie does have all sorts of sound effects and whatnot over the song. Which ruin the full listening experience!