Messages

Try is with this Character* ? That's how the example for extender functions is written in the manual.

Having the play time is a pretty standard thing so I tought there would be a built-in way. Isn't it best to count game loops and convert when making the game save, rather than counting seconds?

I'd also place the counter in repeatedly_execute_always(), otherwise it'll get screwed up.

Is there a built-in way to keep track of the time that was spent playing per game save? I can't find anything anywhere.

There's some pretty stuff on his website, actually, but maybe it's just screens and footage from TWEWY, I can't tell. Which makes me think that I've wanted to give this game a try for a while.

I'm trying to import a custom-made ttf font in AGS but the editor has another idea... The font works fine in Word. Do I have to pay attention to something special when making a font, like not include some characters, always include others... ? Is my font just doomed ?

By "pop up", you mean the "when mouse moves to the top of screen" setting?

Anyway, the repeatedly_execute function is the answer to your problem, this time. You'd put a condition on the cursor y coordinate and then do whatever you want.

Here's a basic example:

Code: ags

fuction repeatedly_execute {
  if ((mouse.y < 20) && (!gInventory.Visible)) {
    gInventory.Visible = True;
    ...
  }
  else if ((mouse.y >= 20) && (gInventory.Visible)) {
    gInventory.Visible = False;
    ...
  }
}

That should be in the repeatedly_execute function of the global script, or in a function called from there.

The game froze on me each time there was a little pause between two lines in the dialog. That includes the scene on the balcony, and the closing topic in each dialog with Giuseppe. The new version fixed that for me.

I've finished the game now. It feels like an interactive movie more than adventure game given that the puzzles are pretty straightforward. I'm not complaining though. The art is absolutely gorgeous and the music is quite good as well.

During the dialog with Guiseppe at the beginning, no matter in what order I pick the dialog options, once he gets to the "I'm deadly serious" part I get the same bug as the gentlemen above me. I re-loaded a save several times just to test that.

I'll skip the dialog and move on now.

Well, I copy pasted mokey's code as such to see if there was a problem, and apart from a typo (cChar2 instead of cChar1) it works fine. My guess is that you haven't assigned the two functions to the room events: room before fade-in and repeatedly execute, in order.

As for AGS being user-friendly... It requires you to learn a programming language, so it's not exactly destined to a broad audience. Multimedia Fusion 2 is a polyvalent tool that doesn't require "real" programming, I'd call that user-friendly.

The continued survival of our species for... ten years ? Till the next pandemic strikes ?

Keeping humans around for million of years. Yeah. lol
By that time, "human" will be the common ancestor between the snorxs and the cthulhus. Or just be plain extinct.

Oh, I'm all for exploring space. We fucked up the earth's ecosystem, it'd be sad to stop at just one planet. But "the Earth's days are numbered" and "the human race will survive into the far future"... The far future is further away than that.

P*V = N*R*T

That was like, the only thing to remember when dealing with gases, no?

P = pressure
V = volume
N = number of molesare = the gas constant
R = gas constant
T = temperature

Given that v,are and t are equal, the gas with the highest pressure is the one with more moles. To find that, you use the molar mass of the atoms and the mass given in the exercise, and do a division.

Something along these lines, at any rate. It's been a while since I last did physics / chemistry.

Edit : The hell ? And if I want to write "r" ? Well, capital letters it is, then.

Evolution hasn't stopped just because we started building stuff. The concept that the "human race" will stay anything like it is today or remain the dominant species for million of years is far, far from being obvious. But hey, let's just blow some space rocks, you're right, that'll have an impact on... somehting. Probably.

We need to realise that earths days are numbered. There are certain threats to the earth that there is simply nothing we could do about.

We need an alternative if we want the human race to survive into the far future.

I think by the time Earth is seriously threatened (and I mean the planet itself, not the ecosystem) by the Sun going supernova or some such, the "human race" will be a really outdated concept for the creatures with the blue tentacles and 12 eyes that will be dominant species by then.

Wouldn't you put it in the room repeatedly_execute if the character has to keep moving around?

And the argument that "They" will put all the same chemicals into it as cigarettes is a tad flawed ... because those opposed to marijuana seem to think it's already addicting.  So why would "they" need to put any more addictive chemicals in it?  Also, most potheads I know wouldn't accept altered weed ... weed is natural and requires no processing.

Tobacco is naturally addictive and cigarette manufacturers still felt it was a good idea to make it more so by adding all sorts of funny chemicals. The fact that weed doesn't cause physical addiction makes the adding chemicals part an even more logical move. Potheads wouldn't accept altered weed... Who says they'll be able to buy anything else? The "bio tobacco" movement never really got off the ground as far as I'm aware.

I giggle [quite] a bit at the "it's just as addicting as cigarettes" argument.

Who made that argument? Mental addiction exists for pot smokers, it's a fact. How easy is it to overcome? You're certainly more informed than me on the subject as all the ex-smokers I know did tobacco, so there was a part of physical addiction. So, how easy was it to quit weed, assuming you were a regular smoker and were indeed mentally addicted? Not compared to tobacco, but in its own right.

As for the "exacerbating" mental illnesses theory ... I don't know.  That sounds really far-fetched to me.  I would think any "altering" substance could have an affect on an existing condition.  I am going to need far more than simple conjecture before I'd believe that weed actually causes such ailments (or even just makes them worse (at least worse than any other altering substance))

I read that a couple years back in a magazine of the "popular science" genre (that's how it's called? science for a broader audience?). I don't pretend I'm totally up to date on the latest cannabis research but that seemed a bit more serious than a wild theory heard in a talk show, or something. I think it was in Science & Vie. Make of that what you want.

That sounds like lack of knowledge, fear-mongering and paranoia more than anything else.

And it seems to me like you just don't want to recognize that there could be a cost associated with legalizing cannabis. Besides, in the actual context of the government cracking down on tobacco (at least over here) because the medical costs outweigh any gain in tax revenue and employment, is it really a consistent policy to legalize another way of giving yourself lung cancer?

From what I remember, it was "to" 40% (bear in mind that this discussion was about 5 years ago, so although the data of course doesn't change, it might have been "by" 40% and me just not remembering it). This refers to the consumers only, not the whole population, so in either case it's from 100%. Sorry if that one was a bit unclear.

But the survey was still on the whole population, right? To take into account both consumers that stopped and non-consumers that started after the legalization? Anyway, assuming these are reliable stats, it's definitely weighing in favour of legalizing cannabis. Though we don't have the percentage of weed smokers in the population to know if that drop is actually significant as a whole. (How much money will be saved in absolute terms.)

That would be what I demand, just like I demand a legalization. The left-wing party in Germany for example wants to let people have up to four plants at their home

And there goes the tax revenue that would speak in favour of legalization. The thing about a state monopoly is that it's a monopoly. They won't let you grow your own cannabis.

That wouldn't be good. The drug should be controlled and sold by the state, not by companies. And/or there should be very hard restrictions (like no additives AT ALL).

Tobacco was sold by the state over here for a long time. That didn't stop additives in cigarettes. Crazy, uh?

I can understand your demands. They just seem incredibly naive in light of what happened with tobacco.

If their mental problems should increase, then they shouldn't smoke it, that's it.

Many people don't know they're likely to develop a mental illness. And when they do, they, in a majority of cases, don't notice it. Once the mental illness is developed and needs treatment, the cost is there. Stopping pot at that point does not make you mentally healthy again.
And you forgot "I have lungs therefore shouldn't smoke".

I'm a chain smoker myself, but the mental addiction is nothing compared to the physical addiction. As I said, I'm smoking weed for 10 years now, but I never got 'mentally' addicted to it though I really like it.

You're saying yourself you're not mentally addicted so how can you know whether it's difficult to overcome or not? Many smokers (tobacco) that want to stop say that a difficult part in stopping is fighting the urge to have a cigarette in your hand in a specific context, even if they don't need a nicotine fix: while having a coffee, after lunch... That's mental addiction.

Homeopathy is inherently unscientific, since the very theory behind it goes against both chemistry and common sense. If it works, it's purely placebo, or by way of the supernatural.

Damn, I hope it's supernatural.

As I was saying, you can't do a thing against viruses save treat the symptoms. A placebo is as good as anything in this case. And way better than stuffing yourself with antibiotics that would allow unrelated germs to develop a resistance, for example.

I'm not saying homeopathy can cure anything, but then we don't have a "real" cure for the common cold. It's better to stick to the placebo in such cases.

I'll answer to some points here and there.

Again, if we take Holland as example, the consumption rate actually went down to 40-ish %. And if you multiply something by 40%, or .4, the "potentially very high cost" actually decreases from the status quo.

Reminding,
/tbi

The consumption rate went down to 40% or went down by 40%? If it's "to", what was the starting percentage? If it's "by", from where to where?

I personally wouldn't jump to conclusions about getting high off of second hand smoke from potential research into getting high from main stream smoke.

... Are you honestly denying the existence of second-hand smoking?

Plus, dealers literally can't cut stuff into pot. Sure, they can lace it with some other drug, but no where near what big tobacco companies put into cigarettes. Not that I'm putting down big tobacco, but it's true that tobacco companies process their product with chemicals. People who GROW pot don't put any chemicals in their product, other than some healthy vitamins and minerals.

You really think if cannabis smoking is legalized, they'll let you grow your own pot? Really? And if companies put all that crap in cigarettes to make them more addictive, what will be stopping them from doing the same with joints, if the same commercial model is taken?

I've never heard of this, but I'm sure those people already have a predisposition to those types of mental illnesses. If you know your Grandma had schizophrenia, and you're concerned about also having a mental illness (which you should), then don't do drugs. It's not like smoking pot every once in a while will make you go ape shit crazy.

Damnit people! If you don't know what "exacerbate" means, just look it up in a dictionary! Let's not forget that many cases of mental illness are not diagnosed because the symptoms are too mild. Let these people become pot smokers and you have a problem. Also "ape shit crazy" is a very small proportion of mental illnesses. People can have depression, schizophrenia, bipolarity or psychosis without qualifying for "ape shit crazy".

You can form a habit out of everything, but marijuana isn't physically addictive.

But the mental addiction exists for regular smokers and it's difficult to overcome. No, really, it is.

But legalising cannabis would be a political and social disaster. It doesn't have the same history as alcohol or tobacco, and so equally cannot be treated purely from a scientific/medical basis.

A good point. So the social cost has to be taken into account in our cost/benefit analysis. How much of an outcry would be provoked by the legalization of cannabis? Tough one.

And I can't have my daily fix of heroin legally! So unfair! If you are for legalizing every substance then your position is coherent. Are you?

Basically, yes.

And I disagree. But you understood that.

Okay, if it was legalized then you would do it. So what? Does that mean, you become mentally ill, get unemployed and lazy? Why should it?

No, it means I become more likely to get lung cancer (for example) which is costly. It means I become more likely to develop schizophrenia (an incredibly common mental disorder, actually), which is costly as well. Will I necessarily become sick because I do pot? No. But my chances of doing so increase. Multiply these chances by the number of people that would become users thanks to the legalization, you have a potentially very high cost.

Is the potential benefit in terms of employment, tax revenues or lowering of crime higher than that? I don't have a clue. But that's what should be examined, not whether worse things are legal.

To be more general, we have a status quo. We have to analyze the costs and benefits of deviating from that status quo, whether it's about legalizing cannabis, banning tobacco or increasing the price of bus tickets. I honestly think that's the rational approach, not going "oh bummer, I can't do that, so unfair".

I say education should be the main goal, not prohibition.

I agree with that. But my faith in humanity is too low to believe that education is sufficient. On the topic on drugs, their addictive nature makes believing that people will use them responsibly quite a naive opinion. No?