Find the Collision Point: HOW?
-
@iTap-Development Argh, I see. So particles can be dragged into the world... and then.... oh... starting them after that is a nightmare.
I think I've figured this out.
Create a dummy (invisible) object. Move it to the point of the collision, activate a particle system on that dummy object. This is the collision point.
-
@iTap-Development btw, that collision info, from my testing, looks to be in world units already. I think. I have the ground object getting the collision information, putting the dummy object at that location, and then starting the particles "on" that dummy object.
-
@Deeeds but why not have one of the colliding objects play it, with an anchor of the the collide point? More efficient.
-
@iTap-Development How do you create an anchor at the collide point? The anchor point is in percentages, the collision point is in units.
-
@iTap-Development more to the point, why should I need to do such ridiculous maths to find and then USE a location of a collision? If collision points aren't the single most important piece of information a physics library ever produces, they're second.
-
@Deeeds I’m confused...what’s the difference between collide pout and collision point?
-
@iTap-Development Nothing. Where a collision happens is where some things have collided.
-
@Deeeds but before you said one was percentage and one was units?
-
@iTap-Development From memory, Chipmunk produces collision objects that report the location of collisions on the involved objects and world space. I'm not sure why something like this hasn't been surfaced in a welcoming, enjoyable, endearing and empowering way, regardless of how Chipmunk handles collisions.
-
@iTap-Development anchor points are in percentages.
-
@iTap-Development sorry, typo.
-
This post is deleted! -
@Deeeds just checked, it looks like output is world units. So you would have to convert for play particle. That sucks.
-
@iTap-Development I don't understand what you're saying. World Units are the useful ones, I thought. Given that, I can move an object to that point and do something with it.
Without the edge information and absolute coordinates on that edge (of an object) relative information is of little to no use. That I can think of. Polygon shapes in hyperPad have too many problems anyways... no way to snap lines to angles, etc.
-
@Deeeds ok...I guess I’m confuse too🤷♂️
-
@Deeeds For the long rectangle: Collided with object → spawn particle object (anywhere) + broadcast two messages, one with x value one with y value of the Collided output.
For the particle object: Receive broadcast messages → move to coordinates given → start particles → destroy object.
I wouldn’t even try to use a custom anchor lol.
-
@Aidan-Oxley why use broadcast/receive? Can't you just spawn the particle directly at the point with spawn on area?
-
@Jack8680 Yep. Heaps better idea.
-
@Aidan-Oxley Is this really the best way to create a particle system at a collision point?
CC @Jack8680
-
@Deeeds using spawn on area for a particle object at x and y of the collision points is the simplest to do I think. Converting the collision to an anchor and using the start particles behaviour at that anchor is probably more efficient since there's no spawning involved, but converting the anchors is annoying.
