|
Posted By
|
Message
|
Sketchy
Cornwall UK
Registered
06/11/2004
Points
1970
 
|
21st January, 2012 at 02:19:52 -
Sort of fixed, the way I described in the previous post:
https://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?cid=b1e7ee094271bbda&resid=B1E7EE094271BBDA!492&parid=B1E7EE094271BBDA!131
I'm starting to think this might not be the way forward though - it's going to be hard to stop units overlapping each other.
Maybe try moving them one at a time, in order of proximity to the destination, using ForEach loops?
n/a
|
SolarB
Registered
26/12/2011
Points
564
|
21st January, 2012 at 22:50:49 -
Here's my solution, yours is probably better but mine are spaced out more...
http://www.mediafire.com/?u5vbwplqt9aw7rt
Argh loops, well I had to do them anyway in my engine as I'm just using the base units as dummy objects (I need my actual units to keep their angle). Still weary of PF objects, my map is 6000x4000 so that might not be feasible just now 
My Open Source Examples: http://bit.ly/YyUFUh
|
Sketchy
Cornwall UK
Registered
06/11/2004
Points
1970
|
22nd January, 2012 at 00:18:54 -
There are a couple of issues with that:
* Units always turn to face East after moving.
* Even on a wide open map, the units stop a long way short of where you tell them to go.
* Sometimes units just become unresponsive, and you have to click three or four times to get them to move.
I hope by "dummy objects" you don't mean that they're invisible, and you have another object set to their position? That's not only incredibly inefficient, but it also makes the coding far more complicated than it needs to be.
Re: pathfinding extensions -
6000 x 4000 isn't huge. It just depends on the number of units and the level of precision you need. You could base your map on a 100 x 100 pixel grid, which would be a very manageable 60 x 40 squares - you'd use a pathfinding extension to navigate between squares (moving from the centre of one square to the centre of the next), and then when they reach the destination square, you give them precise destination coordinates within it.
n/a
|
SolarB
Registered
26/12/2011
Points
564
|
22nd January, 2012 at 02:30:59 -
Ok, since you say it's more efficient than the current option I may give pathfinding a go, but still not giving up on this quite yet.
What would be better than invisible dummies? I want directions instead of angles - units have separate direction animations. I'm going to try the 'convert angle to direction' option, hopefully it doesn't tamper with the collision detection...
My Open Source Examples: http://bit.ly/YyUFUh
|
Sketchy
Cornwall UK
Registered
06/11/2004
Points
1970
|
22nd January, 2012 at 19:09:18 -
I'm not saying it would be more efficient - it would probably be slower. But, it would just work reliably, whatever the map design.
Instead of invisible dummies, just use the same object for both, but store current heading in an alterable value - then you can set the angle to that while checking for collisions, and back to 0 afterwards.
n/a
|
SolarB
Registered
26/12/2011
Points
564
|
24th January, 2012 at 13:30:59 -
Thanks, will try it.
My Open Source Examples: http://bit.ly/YyUFUh
|
|
|
|
Advertisement
Post Reply