View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0001923 | FSSCP | physics | public | 2009-05-05 00:31 | 2009-07-14 23:11 |
| Reporter | Axem | Assigned To | Goober5000 | ||
| Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | always |
| Status | resolved | Resolution | no change required | ||
| Product Version | 3.6.11 | ||||
| Summary | 0001923: Relative arguments in get-object-[] are slighty borked | ||||
| Description | I wish to set an object to be exactly x m infront of the player (something like a warp effect). However when using the optional relative arguments, this doesn't quite work out. The object will appear infront, but it will not be dead on with the player. This seems to vary by the player's position and rotation. Staring straight ahead at 0,0,0 will make it appear dead on, but the more you move or rotate around, the more it drifts away. | ||||
| Additional Information | I dicussed this with kara, chat log link below. He suggested giving this to Wanderer. :) Chat log: http://pastebin.com/f3a559662 Also test mission uploaded. Press 1 to move the Nav Buoy to 200m in front of the player. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
|
2009-05-05 00:31
|
|
|
|
I'm wondering if this is related to the widescreen problem |
|
|
I don't think so. I only tested on my laptop but it looks like the coordinates are actually wrong. Wanderer seems to have a good handle on what's causing this one. |
|
|
I've been told this is a case of "UR DOIN IT RONG" And they're right. :'( (Maybe someone can clarify in the help text that the relative coordinate is to the original object? Saves stupid people like me from making mistakes. :P) |
|
|
Here's the other IRC log for clarification. <Goober5000> it should probably get fixed for 3.6.10 <Wanderer> yes... or so it seems... but actual issue is that iirc axem managed to bork the sexp with his syntax... it did do what he told the sexp to do... however it wasnt what he intended the sexp to do.... <Wanderer> for example this... <Wanderer> ( get-object-x <Wanderer> "Alpha 1" <Wanderer> "<none>" <Wanderer> ( get-object-x "Alpha 1" ) <Wanderer> ( get-object-y "Alpha 1" ) <Wanderer> ( + 200 ( get-object-z "Alpha 1" ) ) <Wanderer> ) <Wanderer> the use of 'get-object-x/y/z' in the relative arguments causes the higher get-object-x to give rather intriguing results... proper syntax would have been to use (0) (0) (200) as relative argument... but as said i need to verify the that the issue was resolved via axem <Goober5000> ok <Goober5000> cause I'm pretty sure I tested that sexp extensively when I first made it |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2009-05-05 00:31 | Axem | New Issue | |
| 2009-05-05 00:31 | Axem | File Added: axemwarp4.fs2 | |
| 2009-05-08 16:06 | portej05 | Note Added: 0010870 | |
| 2009-05-08 16:51 | karajorma | Note Added: 0010871 | |
| 2009-07-14 02:31 | Goober5000 | Status | new => assigned |
| 2009-07-14 02:31 | Goober5000 | Assigned To | => Goober5000 |
| 2009-07-14 23:05 | Axem | Note Added: 0011084 | |
| 2009-07-14 23:11 | chief1983 | Note Added: 0011085 | |
| 2009-07-14 23:11 | chief1983 | Status | assigned => resolved |
| 2009-07-14 23:11 | chief1983 | Resolution | open => no change required |
| 2009-07-14 23:11 | chief1983 | Product Version | => 3.6.11 |
