Find the Collision Point: HOW?
-
@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.
-
@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?
-
@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?
-
@Deeeds I’m confused...what’s the difference between collide pout and collision point?
@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.
-
@Deeeds but before you said one was percentage and one was units?
@iTap-Development anchor points are in percentages.
-
@Deeeds but before you said one was percentage and one was units?
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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🤷♂️
-
@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 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.
-
@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?
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
@Jack8680 spawn a particle object and use destroy object attached to play particles.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login