Challenge Threadᆦ ᆦ ᆦ

[Your Computer]

(05-01-2012 05:20 AM)Homicide13 Wrote:  Hm Wait a second, why are you using the "->" to reference the class' member functions?

Most likely a C++ habit he unconsciously let through.

[Homicide13]

Alright, that's what I thought, but I just wanted to make sure. ;_;

[nemesis567]

Huh? Maybe. I thought, array, pointer, pointer requires ->.

[Your Computer]

(05-01-2012 01:35 PM)nemesis567 Wrote:  Huh? Maybe. I thought, array, pointer, pointer requires ->.

You're confusing yourself with something else. Then again, even in C++ arrays or classes aren't always allocated with the new keyword (though, only classes can have methods).

[Apjjm]

My solution:

Code: (Select All)

void OnStart()
{
    //Attach some prop detectors to the bridges
    AddAttachedPropToProp("bridge_1","collider_1","bridgeCollider.ent",0,0,0,0,0,0);
    AddAttachedPropToProp("bridge_2","collider_2","bridgeCollider.ent",0,0,0,0,0,0);
    
    //Callbacks
    AddEntityCollideCallback("barrel01_*","collider_1","cbAddPropBridgeDown",false,0);
    AddEntityCollideCallback("Player","collider_1","cbAddPropBridgeDown",false,0);
    AddEntityCollideCallback("barrel01_*","collider_2","cbAddPropBridgeUp",false,0);
    AddEntityCollideCallback("Player","collider_2","cbAddPropBridgeUp",false,0);
    
}


//Add/Remove a prop to the bridge we need to pull down
void cbAddPropBridgeDown(string &in asParent, string &in asChild, int alState)
{    
    if(asParent == "Player")
        AddLocalVarInt("BridgeDown",3 * alState); //Player ways 3x more than a barrel...
    else
        AddLocalVarInt("BridgeDown",alState);
    moveBridges();
}

//Add/Remove a prop to the bridge we need to pull up
void cbAddPropBridgeUp(string &in asParent, string &in asChild, int alState)
{
    
    if(asParent == "Player")
        AddLocalVarInt("BridgeUp",3 * alState); //Player ways 3x more than a barrel...
    else
        AddLocalVarInt("BridgeUp",alState);
    moveBridges();
}

//Determine what levels the bridges should move to
void moveBridges()
{
    //Relative weights on bridges
    int up   = GetLocalVarInt("BridgeUp");
    int down = GetLocalVarInt("BridgeDown");
    int diff = up - down;
    AddDebugMessage("Up: " + up + " Down: " + down + " Diff: " + diff,false);
    
    //Work out relative weights & clamp (to stop bridges going through the floor).
    float state = diff * 0.1f;
    if(state>1.0f)       state = 1.0f;
    else if(state<-0.5f) state = -0.5;
    
    //Move based on relative weights
    SetMoveObjectStateExt("bridge_1",-state,0.65f,1.5f,0.125f,true);
    SetMoveObjectStateExt("bridge_2",state,0.65f,1.5f,0.125f,true);
}

I used the Bridge Collider entity which i provided as an addition file.

[nemesis567]

quite simpler than mine.

[Homicide13]

Hm I don't know much about physics, but wouldn't even one object's worth of imbalance cause the bridges move to their respective maximum/minimum positions?

[Apjjm]

(05-01-2012 06:01 PM)Homicide13 Wrote:  Hm I don't know much about physics, but wouldn't even one object's worth of imbalance cause the bridges move to their respective maximum/minimum positions?

Not always, but you are free to make that interpretation. The behaviour depends on the mechanics "behind the scenes" of the balancing on the bridges (Obviously if it is just bridge->pulley->pulley->bridge then yes). The specification I gave wanted a counterbalance puzzle, I am not too concerned how people interpreted that (and how the bridges should behave - assuming it isn't totally unintuitive) past the point of putting boxes onto bridge 1 effects bridge 2 in a proportional and opposite manner - so either is/was acceptable.

[Homicide13]

So what is the new challenge?

[Theforgot3n1]

First i was like: Yeah, there will be some guy solving everything instantly anyway. But I just noticed that you are answering most of the challenges. Which means that people don't know how to answer these.
If you could make the challenges slightly easier, maybe I can actually participate.

Or ah, don't mind me.