I need to understand this DFA? I have failed to understand it, especially three dots in the diagram. I am getting a vague idea of why is a transition pointing to where it is pointing. But I am still very confused. So it will be great if somebody can tell what these dots mean:
1. When they appear on the name of a transition, like 1?
2. When they appear between two states which are not connected?
its simply mean there are many others instead of only this transition.you can see after q001 , q101 comes.and horizontal dots shows q00 , q01, q10 , q11 also connects with them which are not written here.
Related
I have been working on a simple game in Unreal Engine 4. I am trying to make it so when a player is hit by a cube they take damage. However, I am stuck on creating a condition. I have previously used:
to set up a condition where a player only takes damage if they are touched by the cube (In my cube pawn blueprints).
This doesn't work however - when trying to set-up my health bar:
This shows that I am now using entirely new variables to attempt to get a successful updating bar.
Without setting it up so when a cube hits the player, the player takes damage, the player will take damage from simply jumping at walking into other surfaces.
I have created a function that successfully updates my current health and max health so I don't need to show, or need help with the maths or updating the widget. Is there a way for me to use the branch to create an if statement that checks the contact is form a cube?
I am quite new to blueprints and have mostly developed through the use of tutorials. If you need clarity on my question or you don't understand what I am asking please leave a comment and I will try to update. I have looked long and hard for an answer, but I have found that Unreal Engine 4 hasn't got many questions that I can tailor the answer to my situation. If the answer is already in another post on this website, comment saying so and I will remove this post.
Thanks for any help you can give me :)
(This also has a itch.io page for me to quickly share to my friends so I will also credit the person who helped me there)
If I've understood your question correctly, I believe you are just asking how to check if the cube has hit the player character and not some other actor.
Instead of using an if statement as you suggested, you can just cast the Other Actor property to your first person character. If the cast is successful then it hit the character, if the cast fails, it hit something else. You can then call the damage function which you said you've already created. Below is a basic example you could use in your cube blueprint. You will also need to make sure you have a collision box surrounding your cube mesh (and your character, but I can already see that in your screenshot).
I'm trying to create a survey containing several slider-type questions, asking participants to select a point on a line to indicate their experience of different emotions. For example:
Not at all anxious -----------------------|---------------------Extremely anxious
These questions are meant to serve as visual analogue scales (VAS), often used in my field but typically administered via paper/pen. A digital VAS would be very useful for my research, but I have 2 problems with the Qualtrics format.
First, I need to hide the vertical slider until participants selects a point on the line (in effect removing any visual "starting point" that can influence responses). Second, I can't force participants to respond to every question, so I need a way to distinguish those who skip a question/don't answer (including code to check if the slider was displayed or not displayed when the participant chooses to continue to the next question might work, so that Qualtrics stores no response for that question if the slider is still hidden).
Thanks for the help! I'm not a coder, so I would really value any and all advice!
I currently have two nodes in use, one of which is a boat (polygon) and the other a straight vertical rectangle. The boat needs to be a polygon so that it can be hit via projectiles, however this causes me problems when it collides with the vertical rectangle due to the many sides it's coming into contact with. Hence a piece of code I want ran only once is instead ran multiple times.
Is there anyway to make the collision detection only function for the first contact so that it doesn't repeatedly call?
I'm aware of setting the categoryBitMask to 0 however doing so renders the boat unable to be hit by anything else- something I don't want. Additionally I considered using a boolean variable to only run the code once whilst the boat is passing through, however as previously mentioned, due to the different sides, the code think it's passed through when in fact it's just hitting another side of the boat.
I don't have much code to show here other than setting physics bodies so I don't think it's necessary, but inside didBeginContact() I'm using a categoryBitMask comparison to check for collisions.
I may have not explained this very well, in which case I apologize, my English is not the best!
If anyone can help, it'd be much appreciated, thanks.
You can combine the individual physics bodies of your ship into a single body with
+ (SKPhysicsBody *)bodyWithBodies:(NSArray *)bodies
and then test for contacts with the composite body instead of the individual components.
If you are subclassing your node then simply create a BOOL property for it.
BOOL alreadyHit;
If you are not subclassing, use the SKNode's userData dictionary and create an entry for the same.
Is it necessary to use a period for single sentence notification boxes? Even though its considered proper grammar to do so, it just looks ugly and feels too formal.
Here are two screenies for comparison (first includes period, second doesn't).
alt text http://wordofjohn.com/files/stack_alert_1.png
alt text http://wordofjohn.com/files/stack_alert_2.png
Can't go wrong with correct grammar
Good grammar shows to your customers that you took time to make a good software even where others might not took time.
This way they can expect the best out of you and your company.
If you are using a full sentence to tell the user what to do, then I think proper grammar is important, although I always stay away from exclamation points, I find them annoying.
It is more preference that anything, but I like to maintain the best grammar possible in any situation.
In both instances you capitalized the first word in the sentence so I would say go with proper grammar
but it really is a preference
I'd vote No.
These alerts are like signposts or roadsigns, they need to present a brief but important message as succinctly as possible.
My reasoning extended - I think it's subjective, and so I doubt anyone's going to have a bad user experience because of the presense or absence of a full stop (period). A question mark might be confusing if it was left out, but a full stop is kind of implicit.
If you use periods at the end of your sentences, then users will know that the string hasn't been truncated (well OK, they won't know that it hasn't been truncated, but it's a good indicator. Plus, as others have said, it shows you went to the trouble to get it right.
I can't remember - what do MS/Apple do?
Let me explain my preference with an analogy.
I used to work at a bookstore where they sold Bibles. Some of them were Cambridge calfskin leather bound deluxe editions that came in special boxes for over US$100.00 each. Some of them were mass market paperback throw-away versions for US$1.99 each. The cheap ones often had glaring grammatical and spelling errors. I don't think this was a coincidence.
Regardless of where my software is going to be used or what it is for, I try to do my best to make sure it gets put (metaphorically) on the high-quality, expensive rack. Every time. Even at the risk of sounding "too formal".
If you are using the string as a normal resource, you (or someone else in your project) could use the text in another context, which would mean you need to keep track of which resources contain a period or not.
I am trying to get my head around how to design the following system, which I think can be defined as a finite state machine:
Say we have a pile of 16 building blocks (towers, walls, gates) together forming a castle. The player can drag the blocks to 16 places on a floorplan and if done right they will see the whole castle. All towers (there's four of them) are equal so they can go on any of the four corners. Same goes for some of the walls.
All in all there are 16 spots on the floorplan where you can put a building block and each of the spots can have 17 "states": empty + either one of the 16 building blocks. Doing some maths this leads to 17^16=a LOT of combinations.
The program starts with an empty floorplan and a pile of building blocks. It should then show a message like "build your own castle, start with the tower". When the user places a tower correctly, it should say "well done, now build all four towers". You get the idea.
Problem is: there are so many things a player can do. Put a block at the wrong place, remove a block, correctly put walls or towers all over the floorplan ignoring the directions given to them, etc.
It would be awesome if I could avoid having to use thousands of if-then statements to decide wether I should take the next step, show an error message or go back to the previous step based on what the player is doing.
How would you describe the NEXT, PREVIOUS and ERROR conditions for every step of the building sequence? Are there any design methods for this? Thanks a lot for your input.
Try to do this declaratively. Define an enum (or possibly classes) describing the kinds of blocks. Define and construct a 4x4 2D array describing the sets of permissible kinds of blocks in each position (implement the sets as lists, bitfields, whatever suits you best). Whenever a player tries to place a block in a position, check whether it is permissible against the 2D array. If you want to have particular messages for a position being correctly filled in, also put those in the same an array.
I don't know if a FSM is really what you are after: what kinds of sequencing constraints are you looking to verify? Does it matter whether towers are built first? From the rest of your description, it sounds like the above goal state description would be more suitable.