is there a way to hide the objects through which another object is passing in createjs. Also i have defined a path for the moving object but when it crosses other objects that come in the path; the objects are not hidden. It gives the view as if the moving object is cutting other objects. Is there a way in createjs through which i can handle this situation?
Sure, there is a way for that. You can calculate the area of the intersection between 2 objects, and if it's a number higher than 0, then you can hide the second object. It will look something like this:
var bounds1 = object1.nominalBounds; //or .getBounds();
var bounds2 = object2.nominalBounds;
var rectangle = bounds1.intersection(bounds2);
if (rectangle != null && rectangle.width * rectangle.height > 0){
object2.visible = false;
}
That's the gist of it, although depending on your objects and their containers, it might be a little more complicated than this, like needing to translate their coordinates to a global scope.
Related
hoping someone can help. I am creating an app whereby the user will touch a series of images to rotate them. What I am trying to do. Is highlight the image once the user has rotated to a particular position.
Is this possible? If, so any tips greatly appreciated.
edit - ok here's an example instead!
First, the simplest way, based off the code example you just posted:
r1c1.setOnClickListener {
r1c1.animate().apply{ duration = 100 rotationBy(270f) }.start()
}
So the issue here is that you want to highlight the view when it's rotated to, say 90 degrees, right? But it has an animation to complete first. You have three options really
do something like if (r1c1.rotation + 270f == 90) and highlight now, as the animation starts, which might look weird
do that check now, but use withEndAction to run the highlighting code if necessary
use withEndAction to do the checking and highlighting, after the anim has finished
the latter probably makes the most sense - after the animation finishes, check if its display state needs to change. That would be something like this:
r1c1.animate().setDuration(100).rotationBy(270f).withEndAction {
// need to do modulo so 720 == 360 == 0 etc
if (r1c1.rotation % 360 == TARGET_ROTATION) highlight(r1c1)
}.start()
I'm assuming you have some way of highlighting the ImageViews and you weren't asking for ways to do that!
Unfortunately, the problem here is that if the user taps the view in the middle of animating, it will cancel that animation and start a new one, including the rotationBy(270) from whatever rotation the view currently happens to be at. Double tap and you'll end up with a view at an angle, and it will almost never match a 90-degree value now! That's why it's easier to just hold the state, change it by fixed, valid amounts, and just tell the view what it should look like.
So instead, you'd have a value for the current rotation, update that, and use that for your highlighting checks:
# var stored outside the click listener - this is your source of truth
viewRotation += 270f
# using rotation instead of rotationBy - we're setting a specific value, not an offset
r1c1.animate().setDuration(100).rotation(viewRotation).withEndAction {
// checking our internal rotation state, not the view!
if (viewRotation % 360 == TARGET_ROTATION) highlight(r1c1)
}.start()
I'm not saying have a single rotation var hanging around like that - you could, but see the next bit - it's gonna get messy real quick if you have a lot of ImageViews to wrangle. But this is just to demonstrate the basic idea - you hold your own state value, you're in control of what it can be set to, and the View just reflects that state, not the other way around.
Ok, so organisation - I'm guessing from r1c1 that you have a grid of cells, all with the same general behaviour. That means a lot of repeat code, unless you try and generalise it and stick it in one place - like one click listener, that does the same thing, just on whichever view it was clicked on
(I know you said youre a beginner, and I don't like loading too many concepts on someone at once, but from what it sounds like you're doing this could get incredibly bloated and hard to work with real fast, so this is important!)
Basically, View.onClickListener's onClick function passes in the view that was clicked, as a parameter - basically so you can do what I've been saying, reuse the same click listener and just do different things depending on what was passed in. Instead of a lambda (the code in { }, basically a quick and dirty function you're using in one place) you could make a general click listener function that you set on all your ImageViews
fun spin(view: View) {
// we need to store and look up a rotation for each view, like in a Map
rotations[view] = rotations[view] + 270f
// no explicit references like r1c1 now, it's "whatever view was passed in"
view.animate().setDuration(100).rotation(rotations[view]).withEndAction {
// Probably need a different target rotation for each view too?
if (rotations[view] % 360 == targetRotations[view]) highlight(view)
}.start()
}
then your click listener setup would be like
r1c1.setOnClickListener { spin(it) }
or you can pass it as a function reference (this is already too long to explain, but this works in this situation, so you can use it if you want)
r1c1.setOnClickListener(::spin)
I'd recommend generating a list of all your ImageView cells when you look them up (there are a few ways to handle this kind of thing) but having a collection lets you do things like
allCells.forEach { it.setOnClickListener(::spin) }
and now that's all your click listeners set to the same function, and that function will handle whichever view was clicked and the state associated with it. Get the idea?
So your basic structure is something like
// maybe not vals depending on how you initialise things!
val rotations: MutableMap<View, Float>
val targetRotations: Map<View, Float>
val allCells: List<ImageView>
// or onCreateView or whatever
fun onCreate() {
...
allCells.forEach { it.setOnClickListener(::spin) }
}
fun spin(view: View) {
rotations[view] = rotations[view] + 270f
view.animate().setDuration(100).rotation(rotations[view]).withEndAction {
val highlightActive = rotations[view] % 360 == targetRotations[view]
highlight(view, highlightActive)
}.start()
}
fun highlight(view: View, enable: Boolean) {
// do highlighting on view if enable is true, otherwise turn it off
}
I didn't get into the whole "wrapper class for an ImageView holding all its state" thing, which would probably be a better way to go, but I didn't want to go too far and complicate things. This is already a silly length. I might do a quick answer on it just as a demonstration or whatever
The other answer is long enough as it is, but here's what I meant about encapsulating things
class RotatableImageView(val view: ImageView, startRotation: Rotation, val targetRotation: Rotation) {
private var rotation = startRotation.degrees
init {
view.rotation = rotation
view.setOnClickListener { spin() }
updateHighlight()
}
private fun spin() {
rotation += ROTATION_AMOUNT
view.animate().setDuration(100).rotation(rotation)
.withEndAction(::updateHighlight).start()
}
private fun updateHighlight() {
val highlightEnabled = (rotation % 360f) == targetRotation.degrees
// TODO: highlighting!
}
companion object {
const val ROTATION_AMOUNT = 90f
}
}
enum class Rotation(var degrees: Float) {
ROT_0(0f), ROT_90(90f), ROT_180(180f), ROT_270(270f);
companion object {
// just avoids creating a new array each time we call random()
private val rotations = values()
fun random() = rotations.random()
}
}
Basically instead of having a map of Views to current rotation values, a map of Views to target values etc, all that state for each View is just bundled up into an object instead. Everything's handled internally, all you need to do from the outside is find your ImageViews in the layout, and pass them into the RotatableImageView constructor. That sets up a click listener and handles highlighting its ImageView if necessary, you don't need to do anything else!
The enum is just an example of creating a type to represent valid values - when you create a RotatableImageView, you have to pass one of these in, and the only possible values are valid rotation amounts. You could give them default values too (which could be Rotation.random() if you wanted) so the constructor call can just be RotatableImageView(imageView)
(you could make more use of this kind of thing, like using it for the internal rotation amounts too, but in this case it's awkward because 0 is not the same as 360 when animating the view, and it might spin the wrong way - so you pretty much have to keep track of the actual rotation value you're setting on the view)
Just as a quick FYI (and this is why I was saying what you're doing could get unwieldy enough that it's worth learning some tricks), instead of doing findViewById on a ton of IDs, it can be easier to just find all the ImageViews - wrapping them in a layout with an ID (like maybe a GridLayout?) can make it easier to find the things you want
val cells = findViewById<ViewGroup>(R.id.grid).children.filterIsInstance<ImageView>()
then you can do things like
rotatables = cells.map { RotatableImageView(it) }
depends what you need to do, but that's one possible way. Basically if you find yourself repeating the same thing with minor changes, like the infomercials say, There Has To Be A Better Way!
I'm essentially making a Stardew Valley clone, using tile sets and tile layers to draw the background of each room. I have a 'Parent Depth Object'. Each child of this object (NPC's, crops) has its depth sorted relative to the player object to appear in front or behind the player. This works fine.
I have 'ground items' (barrels, rocks etc.) drawn to a single tile layer in each room. I want the player to be able to appear behind or in front of these too. Is there any way I can make this whole layer act as if it was a single object so I can add it to my Parent Depth Object, or do I have to create a separate object for each ground item?
My 'depthSorter' object creates a Data Structure, adds each instance to it and loops through, sorting the depth of each relative to the player.
/// #description DSGridGetInst/Add/Sort/Loop
// get number of instances of parentDepthObject, save in variable instNum / resize grid
var instNum = instance_number(parentDepthObject);
var dGrid = dsDepthGrid;
ds_grid_resize(dGrid, 2, instNum);
// add instances to grid / have all of them run this code
var yy = 0; with(parentDepthObject)
{
dGrid[# 0, yy] = id;
dGrid[# 1, yy] = y;
yy += 1;
}
// sort the grid in ascending order (lowest y value at top)
ds_grid_sort(dGrid, 1, true);
// loop through the grid and draw all the instances
var inst; yy = 0; repeat(instNum)
{
// pull out an ID
inst = dGrid[# 0, yy];
// draw yourself
with(inst)
{
event_perform(ev_draw, 0);
}
yy += 1;
}
I'd personally recommend to use these items you want to get behind as objects, rather than tiles. Tiles can't contain a script themselves. So that gets more tricky to use them the way you want.
However, you don't need to create a new object for each 'ground item'.
Instead, you can make an object called 'ground item', and change the sprite / related code to that object.
For example, when selecting an object in a room, you can use 'Creation Code' to add code that's unique for that object. That way, you can change the sprites of the ground item to it's unique id.
Another example is to make an object that's a child of the parent 'ground object'. So each object has it's own sprite, but reuses the object from 'ground object'
I implemented drag and drop of images and now i want to constrain proportions of images while resizing.
/**
* Variable: constrainChildrenOnResize
*
* Specifies if children should be constrained according to the <constrainChildren>
* switch if cells are resized (including via <foldCells>). Default is false for
* backwards compatiblity.
*/
mxGraph.prototype.constrainChildrenOnResize = false;
i set this to true but its not working :s
What API/property i need for this functionality..
constrainChildrenOnResize is responsible for positioning and size of the children of resized cell. It means that children should keep their position relatively to the parent-cell.
In your case I would suggest to extend mxVertexHandler using union method. In this example you can see how to implement min-width/min-height restrictions. Using this example you are able to write your own rules for constrain.
Here is my simple solution:
var vertexHandlerUnion = mxVertexHandler.prototype.union;
mxVertexHandler.prototype.union = function (bounds) {
var result = vertexHandlerUnion.apply(this, arguments);
var coff = bounds.width / bounds.height
result.width = result.height * coff;
return result;
};
So this function is called every time you move mouse during dragging the resizer.
bounds - object, always same and represent old geometry of the cell (before resizing)
result - object, represents new values, which are going to be applied. Between this line ad return statement you can place any code you need to modify result.
In my simple example I just get the initial relation between width and height of the cell (coff) and then set new width by multiplying coff and new height. It will work if you drag corner or top/bottom. In real project this logic should be slightly extended, or you should make visible only corner handlers.
By the way, this code will work for all resizable cells on your graph. If you want to apply it only to images or some other kind of cells - you can put condition and check the cell type before recalculating. You can get current cell or its state via this.state.cell or this.state inside of union function.
For example only for vertecies:
... ...
var result = vertexHandlerUnion.apply(this, arguments);
if (this.state.cell.isVertex()) {
//calculations here
}
return result;
I have a flyout that appears near the cursor when a particular user input is triggered.
According to the docs, the Flyout.Placement property is only a preference and does not necessarily reflect the position of the flyout.
I expect the framework to call GetFlyoutPlacement to determine the actual placement. I want to know what the actual placement is so that I can add a little arrow pointing at the cursor position, something like shown in the following:
Is my only option to make the call to GetFlyoutPlacement myself (triggered on the Flyout.Opening event), or is there some more convenient way to do this?
My calls on GetFlyoutPlacement and GetFlyoutPlacementTargetInfo resulted in Error HRESULT E_FAIL has been returned from a call to a COM component. which didn't leave me very much to go on, so I just ended up implementing what I imagine is the logic behind those functions:
public static FlyoutPlacementMode GetActualFlyoutPlacement(
Rect placementTarget,
Size flyoutSize,
FlyoutPlacementMode preferredPlacement )
{
Rect ViewArea = Window.Current.Bounds;
ViewArea.X = 0; // may have non-zero offset for multi-monitor setups
ViewArea.Y = 0; // but we are only interested in offset relative to app view area
switch (preferredPlacement)
{
case FlyoutPlacementMode.Right:
if (desiredSize.Width < ViewArea.Width - placementTarget.Right) return FlyoutPlacementMode.Right;
if (desiredSize.Width < placementTarget.Left) return FlyoutPlacementMode.Left;
if (desiredSize.Height < placementTarget.Top) return FlyoutPlacementMode.Top;
return FlyoutPlacementMode.Bottom;
case FlyoutPlacementMode.Left:
...
}
}
Checkout the approach I suggested here. I believe it is better, because instead of guessing the internal placement algorithm it just compares the absolute coordinates of the flyout and the target element.
Hey guys, I'm trying to make a 2D Platform style game similar to this game below:
http://www.gameshed.com/Puzzle-Games/Blockdude/play.html
I have finished making most of the graphic, and areas, and collision, but our character is still not able to carry things. I'm confused as to what code to use so that my character can carry the blocks. I need help as to how to make our character carry blocks that are in front of him, provided that the blocks that don't have anything on top of it. This has been confusing me for a week now, and any help would be highly appreciated. :D
I fondly remember my first AS2 game. The best approach is probably an object oriented approach, as I will explain.
In AS2, there is a hittest method automatically built into objects. There is a good tutorial on Kirupa here:
http://www.kirupa.com/developer/actionscript/hittest.htm
also
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/AS2LCR/Flash_10.0/help.html?content=00001314.html
First you'll want to generate your boxes using a Box class. Your class would need to look something like the following:
//Box.as pseudo-code
class Box {
var x_pos:Number;
var y_pos:Number;
var attachedToPlayer:Boolean;
function Box(_x:Number, _y:Number) {
this.x_pos = _x;
this.y_pos = _y;
}
//other code here
}
See this tutorial on how to attach a class to an object in the library:
http://www.articlesbase.com/videos/5min/86620312
To create a new Box, you'd then use something like
box1 = new Box(100,200);
// creates a box at position 100x,200y
However, you'll also want to store the blocks you want to pickup into some sort of array so you can loop through them. See http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/1383/flash-actionscript-create-an-array-of-objects-from-a-unique-class/
Example:
//somewhere near the top of your main method, or whereever your main game loop is running from - note Box.as would need to be in the same folder
import Box;
//...then, somewhere before your game loop
//create an array to hold the objects
var boxArray:Array = new Array();
//create loop with i as the counter
for (var i=0; i<4; i++)
{
var _x:Number = 100 + i;
var _y:Number = 100 + i;
//create Box object
var box:Box = new Box();
//assign text to the first variable.
//push the object into the array
boxArray.push(box);
}
Similarly, you would need a class for your player, and to create a new Player object at the start of your game, e.g.
var player = new Player(0,0);
You could then run a hittest method for your player against the blocks in your array for the main game loop (i.e. the loop that updates your player's position and other game properties). There are probably more efficient ways of doing this, e.g. only looping for the blocks that are currently on the screen.
Once your array has been created, use a foreach loop to run a hittest against your player in your game's main loop, e.g.
//assuming you have an array called 'boxArray' and player object called 'player'
for(var box in boxArray){
if (player.hittest(box)) {
player.attachObjectMethod(box);
}
}
This is basically pseudo-code for "for every box that we have entered into the array, check if the player is touching the box. If the box is touching, use the box as the argument for a method in the player class (which I have arbitrarily called attachObjectMethod)".
In attachObjectMethod, you could then define some sort of behavior for attaching the box to the player. For example, you could create a get and set method(s) for the x and y position of your boxes inside the box class, along with a boolean called something useful like attachedToPlayer. When attachObjectMethod was called, it would set the box's boolean, e.g. in the Player class
//include Box.as at the top of the file
import Box;
//other methods, e.g. constructor
//somewhere is the Player.as class/file
public function attachObjectMethod (box:Box) {
box.setattachedToPlayer(true);
//you could also update fields on the player, but for now this is all we need
}
Now the attachedToPlayer boolean of the box the player has collided with would be true. Back in our game loop, we would then modify our loop to update the position of the boxes:
//assuming you have an array called 'boxArray' and player object called 'player'
for(var box in boxArray){
if (player.hittest(box)) {
player.attachObjectMethod(box);
}
box.updatePosition(player.get_Xpos, player.get_Ypos);
}
In our Box class, we now need to define 'updatePosition':
//Box.as pseudo-code
class Box {
var x_pos:Number;
var y_pos:Number;
var attachedToPlayer:Boolean;
function Box(box_x:Number, box_y:Number) {
this.x_pos = box_x;
this.y_pos = box_y;
}
public function updatePosition(_x:Number, _y:Number) {
if (this.attachedToPlayer) {
this.x_pos = _x;
this.y_pos = _y;
}
}
//other code here
}
As you can see we can pass the player's position, and update the box's position if the attachedToPlayer boolean has been set. Finally, we add a move method to the box:
public function move() {
if (this.attachedToPlayer) {
this._x = x_pos;
this._y = y_pos;
}
}
Examples of updating position:
http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design/tutorials/P-flash/T-How-to-smoothly-slide-objects-around-in-Flash/ID-17/
Finally, to make it all work we need to call the move method in the game loop:
//assuming you have an array called 'boxArray' and player object called 'player'
for(var box in boxArray){
if (player.hittest(box)) {
player.attachObjectMethod(box);
}
box.updatePosition(player.get_Xpos, player.get_Ypos);
box.move();
}
You have also specified that the blocks should only move with the player if they have nothing on top of them. When you call your attachedToPlayer method, you would also need to run a foreach loop inside the method between the box and the objects that might sit on top of the box. You should now have a fair idea from the above code how to do this.
I appreciate that this is quite a lengthy answer, and I haven't had an opportunity to test all the code (in fact I'm fairly positive I made a mistake somewhere) - don't hesitate to ask questions. My other advice is to understand the concepts thoroughly, and then write your own code one bit at a time.
Good luck!
The way I would do this is to design an individual hit test for each block he will be picking up, then code for the hit test to play a frame within the sprite's timeline of him carrying a block, and to play a frame within the block to be picked up's timeline of the block no longer at rest (disappeared?).
Good Luck if you're confused about what I've said just ask a little more about it and I'll try to help you if I can.