Turn (super)patrons/githubfriends into arrays & move them to new file
So, originally, I wanted to keep them on Game, but it turns out that if
I initialize it in Game.cpp, the compiler will complain that other files
won't know what's actually inside the array. To do that, I'd have to
initialize it in Game.h. But I don't want to initialize it in Game.h
because that'd mean recompiling a lot of unnecessary files whenever
someone gets added to the credits.
So, I moved all the patrons, superpatrons, and GitHub contributors to a
new file, Credits.h, which only contains the list (and the credits max
position calculation). That way, whenever someone gets added, only the
minimal amount of files need to be recompiled.
2020-07-03 12:13:15 +02:00
|
|
|
#include "Credits.h"
|
2020-07-19 21:05:41 +02:00
|
|
|
#include "editor.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "Entity.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "Enums.h"
|
2020-07-19 21:43:29 +02:00
|
|
|
#include "FileSystemUtils.h"
|
2020-07-19 21:05:41 +02:00
|
|
|
#include "Game.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "Graphics.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "Map.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "Music.h"
|
2020-07-19 21:43:29 +02:00
|
|
|
#include "Network.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "Script.h"
|
2020-07-19 21:05:41 +02:00
|
|
|
#include "UtilityClass.h"
|
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 01:41:07 +02:00
|
|
|
void titleupdatetextcol()
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
graphics.col_tr = map.r - (help.glow / 4) - int(fRandom() * 4);
|
|
|
|
graphics.col_tg = map.g - (help.glow / 4) - int(fRandom() * 4);
|
|
|
|
graphics.col_tb = map.b - (help.glow / 4) - int(fRandom() * 4);
|
|
|
|
if (graphics.col_tr < 0) graphics.col_tr = 0;
|
|
|
|
if(graphics.col_tr>255) graphics.col_tr=255;
|
|
|
|
if (graphics.col_tg < 0) graphics.col_tg = 0;
|
|
|
|
if(graphics.col_tg>255) graphics.col_tg=255;
|
|
|
|
if (graphics.col_tb < 0) graphics.col_tb = 0;
|
|
|
|
if(graphics.col_tb>255) graphics.col_tb=255;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
void titlelogic()
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
//Misc
|
2020-11-03 00:23:53 +01:00
|
|
|
//map.updatetowerglow(graphics.titlebg);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
help.updateglow();
|
|
|
|
|
2020-11-03 00:23:53 +01:00
|
|
|
graphics.titlebg.bypos -= 2;
|
|
|
|
graphics.titlebg.bscroll = -2;
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2020-04-30 00:25:01 +02:00
|
|
|
if (!game.colourblindmode)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-11-03 00:23:53 +01:00
|
|
|
graphics.updatetowerbackground(graphics.titlebg);
|
2020-04-30 00:25:01 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-05-02 01:40:35 +02:00
|
|
|
if (!game.menustart)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
graphics.col_tr = (int)(164 - (help.glow / 2) - int(fRandom() * 4));
|
|
|
|
graphics.col_tg = 164 - (help.glow / 2) - int(fRandom() * 4);
|
|
|
|
graphics.col_tb = 164 - (help.glow / 2) - int(fRandom() * 4);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-06-23 01:41:07 +02:00
|
|
|
titleupdatetextcol();
|
2020-05-02 01:40:35 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
graphics.updatetitlecolours();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-30 02:09:51 +02:00
|
|
|
graphics.crewframedelay--;
|
|
|
|
if (graphics.crewframedelay <= 0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
graphics.crewframedelay = 8;
|
|
|
|
graphics.crewframe = (graphics.crewframe + 1) % 2;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
if (game.menucountdown > 0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.menucountdown--;
|
|
|
|
if (game.menucountdown == 0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-16 06:53:36 +02:00
|
|
|
if (game.menudest == Menu::mainmenu)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
music.play(6);
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-16 06:53:36 +02:00
|
|
|
else if (game.menudest == Menu::gameover2)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-02 01:36:35 +02:00
|
|
|
music.playef(11);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-16 06:53:36 +02:00
|
|
|
else if (game.menudest == Menu::timetrialcomplete3)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-02 01:36:35 +02:00
|
|
|
music.playef(3);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-17 06:25:30 +02:00
|
|
|
game.createmenu(game.menudest, true);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
void maplogic()
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
//Misc
|
|
|
|
help.updateglow();
|
2020-04-29 03:38:43 +02:00
|
|
|
graphics.updatetextboxes();
|
2020-05-02 01:40:35 +02:00
|
|
|
graphics.updatetitlecolours();
|
2020-04-29 05:28:41 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2020-04-30 02:09:51 +02:00
|
|
|
graphics.crewframedelay--;
|
|
|
|
if (graphics.crewframedelay <= 0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
graphics.crewframedelay = 8;
|
|
|
|
graphics.crewframe = (graphics.crewframe + 1) % 2;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-29 05:46:33 +02:00
|
|
|
graphics.oldmenuoffset = graphics.menuoffset;
|
2020-04-29 05:28:41 +02:00
|
|
|
if (graphics.resumegamemode)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
graphics.menuoffset += 25;
|
2020-04-29 05:31:29 +02:00
|
|
|
int threshold = map.extrarow ? 230 : 240;
|
|
|
|
if (graphics.menuoffset >= threshold)
|
2020-04-29 05:28:41 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-29 05:31:29 +02:00
|
|
|
graphics.menuoffset = threshold;
|
|
|
|
//go back to gamemode!
|
|
|
|
game.mapheld = true;
|
|
|
|
game.gamestate = GAMEMODE;
|
2020-04-29 05:28:41 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (graphics.menuoffset > 0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
graphics.menuoffset -= 25;
|
|
|
|
if (graphics.menuoffset < 0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
graphics.menuoffset = 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-29 06:32:53 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (map.cursorstate == 0){
|
|
|
|
map.cursordelay++;
|
|
|
|
if (map.cursordelay > 10){
|
|
|
|
map.cursorstate = 1;
|
|
|
|
map.cursordelay = 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}else if (map.cursorstate == 1){
|
|
|
|
map.cursordelay++;
|
|
|
|
if (map.cursordelay > 30) map.cursorstate = 2;
|
|
|
|
}else if (map.cursorstate == 2){
|
|
|
|
map.cursordelay++;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-05-02 19:31:48 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (map.finalmode)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
map.glitchname = map.getglitchname(game.roomx, game.roomy);
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
void gamecompletelogic()
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
//Misc
|
2020-11-03 00:23:53 +01:00
|
|
|
map.updatetowerglow(graphics.titlebg);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
help.updateglow();
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
graphics.crewframe = 0;
|
2020-11-03 00:23:53 +01:00
|
|
|
graphics.titlebg.scrolldir = 1;
|
2020-05-02 01:40:35 +02:00
|
|
|
graphics.updatetitlecolours();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
graphics.col_tr = map.r - (help.glow / 4) - fRandom() * 4;
|
|
|
|
graphics.col_tg = map.g - (help.glow / 4) - fRandom() * 4;
|
|
|
|
graphics.col_tb = map.b - (help.glow / 4) - fRandom() * 4;
|
|
|
|
if (graphics.col_tr < 0) graphics.col_tr = 0;
|
|
|
|
if(graphics.col_tr>255) graphics.col_tr=255;
|
|
|
|
if (graphics.col_tg < 0) graphics.col_tg = 0;
|
|
|
|
if(graphics.col_tg>255) graphics.col_tg=255;
|
|
|
|
if (graphics.col_tb < 0) graphics.col_tb = 0;
|
|
|
|
if(graphics.col_tb>255) graphics.col_tb=255;
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
game.creditposition--;
|
Turn (super)patrons/githubfriends into arrays & move them to new file
So, originally, I wanted to keep them on Game, but it turns out that if
I initialize it in Game.cpp, the compiler will complain that other files
won't know what's actually inside the array. To do that, I'd have to
initialize it in Game.h. But I don't want to initialize it in Game.h
because that'd mean recompiling a lot of unnecessary files whenever
someone gets added to the credits.
So, I moved all the patrons, superpatrons, and GitHub contributors to a
new file, Credits.h, which only contains the list (and the credits max
position calculation). That way, whenever someone gets added, only the
minimal amount of files need to be recompiled.
2020-07-03 12:13:15 +02:00
|
|
|
if (game.creditposition <= -Credits::creditmaxposition)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
Turn (super)patrons/githubfriends into arrays & move them to new file
So, originally, I wanted to keep them on Game, but it turns out that if
I initialize it in Game.cpp, the compiler will complain that other files
won't know what's actually inside the array. To do that, I'd have to
initialize it in Game.h. But I don't want to initialize it in Game.h
because that'd mean recompiling a lot of unnecessary files whenever
someone gets added to the credits.
So, I moved all the patrons, superpatrons, and GitHub contributors to a
new file, Credits.h, which only contains the list (and the credits max
position calculation). That way, whenever someone gets added, only the
minimal amount of files need to be recompiled.
2020-07-03 12:13:15 +02:00
|
|
|
game.creditposition = -Credits::creditmaxposition;
|
2020-11-03 00:23:53 +01:00
|
|
|
graphics.titlebg.bscroll = 0;
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
Don't re-draw credits scroll background every frame
While I was working on my over-30-FPS patch, I found out that the tower
background in the credits scroll was being completely re-drawn every
single frame, which was a bit wasteful and expensive. It's also harder
to interpolate for my over-30-FPS patch. I'm guessing this constant
re-draw was done because the math to get the surface scroll properly
working is a bit subtle, but I've figured the precise math out!
The first changes of this patch is just removing the unconditional
`map.tdrawback = true;`, and having to set `map.scrolldir` everywhere to
get the credits scrolling in the right direction but make sure the title
screen doesn't start scrolling like a descending tower, too.
After that, the first problem is that it looks like the ACTION press to
speed up the credits scrolling doesn't speed up the background, too. No
problem, just shove a `!game.press_action` check in
`gamecompletelogic()`.
However, this introduces a mini-problem, which is that NOW when you hold
down ACTION, the background appears to be slowly getting out of sync
with the credits text by a one-pixel-per-second difference. This is
actually due to the fact that, as a result of me adding the conditional,
`map.bscroll` is no longer always unconditionally getting set to 1,
while `game.creditposition` IS always unconditionally getting
decremented by 1. And when you hold down ACTION, `game.creditposition`
gets decremented by 6.
Thus, I need to set `map.bscroll` when holding down ACTION to be 7,
which is 6 plus 1.
Then we have another problem, which is that the incoming textures desync
when you press ACTION, and when you release ACTION. They desync by
precisely 6 pixels, which should be a familiar number. I (eventually)
tracked this down to `map.bypos` being updated at the same time
`map.bscroll` is, even though `map.bypos` should be updated a frame
later AFTER updating `map.bscroll`.
So I had to change the `map.bypos` update in `gamecompleteinput()` and
`gamecompletelogic()` to be `map.bypos += map.bscroll;` and then place
it before any `map.bscroll` update, thus ensuring that `map.bscroll`
updates exactly one frame before `map.ypos` does. I had to move the
`map.bypos += map.bscroll;` to be in `gamecompleteinput()`, because
`gamecompleteinput()` comes first before `gamecompletelogic()` in the
`main.cpp` game loop, otherwise the `map.bypos` update won't be delayed
by one frame for when you press ACTION to make it go faster, and thus
cause a desync when you press ACTION.
Oh and then after that, I had to make the descending tower background
draw a THIRD row of incoming tiles, otherwise you could see some black
flickering at the bottom of the screen when you held down ACTION.
All of this took me way too long to figure out, but now the credits
scroll works perfectly while being more optimized.
2020-04-30 05:52:33 +02:00
|
|
|
else if (!game.press_action)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-11-03 00:23:53 +01:00
|
|
|
graphics.titlebg.bscroll = +1;
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
if (graphics.fademode == 1)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
//Fix some graphical things
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
graphics.showcutscenebars = false;
|
|
|
|
graphics.cutscenebarspos = 0;
|
2020-04-29 02:16:24 +02:00
|
|
|
graphics.oldcutscenebarspos = 0;
|
2020-11-03 00:23:53 +01:00
|
|
|
graphics.titlebg.scrolldir = 0;
|
|
|
|
graphics.titlebg.bypos = 0;
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
//Return to game
|
2020-04-17 05:15:53 +02:00
|
|
|
game.gamestate = GAMECOMPLETE2;
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
graphics.fademode = 4;
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
void gamecompletelogic2()
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
//Misc
|
2020-11-03 00:23:53 +01:00
|
|
|
map.updatetowerglow(graphics.titlebg);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
help.updateglow();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
game.creditposdelay--;
|
|
|
|
if (game.creditposdelay <= 0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.creditposdelay = 1;
|
|
|
|
game.creditposx++;
|
|
|
|
if (game.creditposx > 40)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.creditposy++;
|
|
|
|
game.creditposx = 0;
|
|
|
|
if (game.creditposy > 30) game.creditposy = 30;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
if (graphics.fademode == 1)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
//Fix some graphical things
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
graphics.showcutscenebars = false;
|
|
|
|
graphics.cutscenebarspos = 0;
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
//Fix the save thingy
|
|
|
|
game.deletequick();
|
|
|
|
int tmp=music.currentsong;
|
|
|
|
music.currentsong=4;
|
Fix flag 67 turning on too early
Flag 67 seems to be a general-purpose Game Complete flag. It's used to
replace the CREW option with the SHIP option on the pause screen.
Unfortunately, it gets turned on too early during Game Complete. Right
when Viridian starts to teleport, you can bring up the pause screen and
select the SHIP option.
It will teleport you to the ship coordinates, but still keep you in
finalmode, and since the ship coordinates are at 102,111 (finalmode is
only around 46,54), you'll still be stuck in Outside Dimension VVVVVV,
and you've interrupted the Game Complete gamestate by switching to the
teleporting gamestate. Oh, and your checkpoint is set, too, so you can't
even press R. Oh and since there's no teleporter, and checkpoint setting
doesn't check the sentinel value, this results in Undefined Behavior,
too.
So this results in an in-game softlock. The only option you can do is
quit the game at this point.
To fix this issue, just move turning on flag 67 before the savetele() in
gamecompletelogic2().
2020-05-09 20:41:54 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.flags[67] = true;
|
2020-03-31 02:16:02 +02:00
|
|
|
game.savetele();
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
music.currentsong=tmp;
|
|
|
|
//Return to game
|
2020-11-03 00:23:53 +01:00
|
|
|
graphics.titlebg.colstate = 10;
|
2020-04-17 05:15:53 +02:00
|
|
|
game.gamestate = TITLEMODE;
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
graphics.fademode = 4;
|
2020-06-17 09:48:10 +02:00
|
|
|
FILESYSTEM_unmountassets(); // should be before music.playef(18)
|
2020-04-02 01:36:35 +02:00
|
|
|
music.playef(18);
|
2020-05-03 05:38:06 +02:00
|
|
|
game.returntomenu(Menu::play);
|
2020-04-16 06:53:36 +02:00
|
|
|
game.createmenu(Menu::gamecompletecontinue);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
map.nexttowercolour();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
void gamelogic()
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-29 01:25:03 +02:00
|
|
|
if (!game.blackout && !game.completestop)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
for (size_t i = 0; i < obj.entities.size(); i++)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
//Is this entity on the ground? (needed for jumping)
|
|
|
|
if (obj.entitycollidefloor(i))
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].onground = 2;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].onground--;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (obj.entitycollideroof(i))
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].onroof = 2;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].onroof--;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
//Animate the entities
|
|
|
|
obj.animateentities(i);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
//Misc
|
|
|
|
if (map.towermode)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-11-03 00:05:24 +01:00
|
|
|
map.updatetowerglow(graphics.towerbg);
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
help.updateglow();
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
if (game.alarmon)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
game.alarmdelay--;
|
|
|
|
if (game.alarmdelay <= 0)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
music.playef(19);
|
|
|
|
game.alarmdelay = 20;
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
if (obj.nearelephant)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.upset++;
|
|
|
|
if (obj.upset == 300)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.upsetmode = true;
|
|
|
|
//change player to sad
|
|
|
|
int i = obj.getplayer();
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities))
|
2020-06-13 05:36:08 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].tile = 144;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
music.playef(2);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (obj.upset > 301) obj.upset = 301;
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
else if (obj.upsetmode)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.upset--;
|
|
|
|
if (obj.upset <= 0)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.upset = 0;
|
|
|
|
obj.upsetmode = false;
|
|
|
|
//change player to happy
|
|
|
|
int i = obj.getplayer();
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities))
|
2020-06-13 05:36:08 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].tile = 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
else
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.upset = 0;
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-30 01:54:36 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.oldtrophytext = obj.trophytext;
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
if (map.towermode)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-30 20:52:21 +02:00
|
|
|
map.oldypos = map.ypos;
|
2020-04-30 21:58:08 +02:00
|
|
|
map.oldspikeleveltop = map.spikeleveltop;
|
|
|
|
map.oldspikelevelbottom = map.spikelevelbottom;
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
if(!game.completestop)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
if (map.cameramode == 0)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
//do nothing!
|
|
|
|
//a trigger will set this off in the game
|
|
|
|
map.cameramode = 1;
|
2020-11-03 00:05:24 +01:00
|
|
|
graphics.towerbg.bscroll = 0;
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
else if (map.cameramode == 1)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
//move normally
|
2020-11-03 00:05:24 +01:00
|
|
|
if(graphics.towerbg.scrolldir==0)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
map.ypos -= 2;
|
2020-11-03 00:05:24 +01:00
|
|
|
graphics.towerbg.bypos -= 1;
|
|
|
|
graphics.towerbg.bscroll = -1;
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
else
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
map.ypos += 2;
|
2020-11-03 00:05:24 +01:00
|
|
|
graphics.towerbg.bypos += 1;
|
|
|
|
graphics.towerbg.bscroll = 1;
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
else if (map.cameramode == 2)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
//do nothing, but cycle colours (for taking damage)
|
2020-11-03 00:05:24 +01:00
|
|
|
graphics.towerbg.bscroll = 0;
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
else if (map.cameramode == 4)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
int i = obj.getplayer();
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities))
|
2020-06-13 05:36:08 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
map.cameraseek = map.ypos - (obj.entities[i].yp - 120);
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
map.cameraseek = map.cameraseek / 10;
|
|
|
|
map.cameraseekframe = 10;
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
map.cameramode = 5;
|
|
|
|
|
2020-11-03 00:05:24 +01:00
|
|
|
graphics.towerbg.bscroll = map.cameraseek/2;
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (map.cameramode == 5)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
//actually do it
|
|
|
|
if (map.spikeleveltop > 0) map.spikeleveltop-=2;
|
|
|
|
if (map.spikelevelbottom > 0) map.spikelevelbottom-=2;
|
|
|
|
if (map.cameraseekframe > 0)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
int i = obj.getplayer();
|
|
|
|
map.ypos -= map.cameraseek;
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (map.cameraseek > 0 && INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities))
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
if (map.ypos < obj.entities[i].yp - 120)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
map.ypos = obj.entities[i].yp - 120;
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
else if (INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities))
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
if (map.ypos > obj.entities[i].yp - 120)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
map.ypos = obj.entities[i].yp - 120;
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
map.cameraseekframe--;
|
2020-11-03 00:05:24 +01:00
|
|
|
graphics.towerbg.bypos = map.ypos / 2;
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
int i = obj.getplayer();
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities))
|
2020-06-13 05:36:08 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
map.ypos = obj.entities[i].yp - 120;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-11-03 00:05:24 +01:00
|
|
|
graphics.towerbg.bypos = map.ypos / 2;
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
map.cameramode = 0;
|
|
|
|
map.colsuperstate = 0;
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-11-03 00:05:24 +01:00
|
|
|
graphics.towerbg.bscroll = 0;
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
if (map.ypos <= 0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
map.ypos = 0;
|
2020-11-03 00:05:24 +01:00
|
|
|
graphics.towerbg.bypos = 0;
|
|
|
|
graphics.towerbg.bscroll = 0;
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
2020-05-05 20:26:26 +02:00
|
|
|
if (map.towermode && map.minitowermode)
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (map.ypos >= 568)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
map.ypos = 568;
|
2020-11-03 00:05:24 +01:00
|
|
|
graphics.towerbg.bypos = map.ypos / 2;
|
|
|
|
graphics.towerbg.bscroll = 0;
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
} //100-29 * 8 = 568
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (map.ypos >= 5368)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
map.ypos = 5368; //700-29 * 8 = 5368
|
2020-11-03 00:05:24 +01:00
|
|
|
graphics.towerbg.bypos = map.ypos / 2.0;
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
if (game.lifeseq > 0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (map.cameramode == 2)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
map.cameraseekframe = 20;
|
|
|
|
map.cameramode = 4;
|
|
|
|
map.resumedelay = 4;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
if (map.cameraseekframe <= 0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (map.resumedelay <= 0)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
game.lifesequence();
|
|
|
|
if (game.lifeseq == 0) map.cameramode = 1;
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
map.resumedelay--;
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
game.lifesequence();
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-05-02 21:06:40 +02:00
|
|
|
graphics.kludgeswnlinewidth = false;
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (game.deathseq != -1)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
if (map.towermode)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
map.colsuperstate = 1;
|
|
|
|
map.cameramode = 2;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-03 22:50:16 +02:00
|
|
|
for (size_t i = 0; i < obj.entities.size(); i++)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-02-04 03:53:30 +01:00
|
|
|
if (game.roomx == 111 && game.roomy == 107 && !map.custommode)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (obj.entities[i].type == 1)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (obj.entities[i].xp < 152)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].xp = 152;
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].newxp = 152;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (obj.entities[i].type == 2 && obj.entities[i].state == 3)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
//Ok! super magical exception for the room with the intention death for the shiny trinket
|
|
|
|
//fix this when the maps are finalised
|
Fix Prize for the Reckless quicksand fix kludge
If you died in Prize for the Reckless, which is at (11,7), and respawned
in the same room, tile 59 (a solid invisible tile) would be placed at
[18,9] to prevent the moving platform from going back through the
quicksand.
Unfortunately, the way that this kludge was added is poor.
First, the conditional makes it so that it doesn't happen in ONLY
(11,7). Instead of being behind a positive conditional, the tile is
placed in the else-branch of an if-conditional that checks for the
normal case, i.e. if the current room is NOT (11,7), thus being a
negative conditional.
In other words, the positive conditional is "game.roomx == 111 &&
game.roomy == 107". To negate it, all you would have to do is
"!(game.roomx == 111 && game.roomy == 107)".
However, whoever wrote this decided to go one step further, and actually
DISTRIBUTE the negative into both statements. This would be fine, except
if they actually got it right. You see, according to De Morgan's laws,
when you distribute a negative across multiple statements you not only
have to negate the statements themselves, but you have to negate all the
CONJUNCTIONS, too. In other words, you have to change all "and"s into
"or"s and all "or"s into "and"s.
Instead of making the conditional "game.roomx != 111 || game.roomy !=
107", the person who wrote this forgot to replace the "and" with an
"or". Thus, it is "game.roomx != 111 && game.roomy != 107" instead. As a
result, if we re-negate this and take a look at the positive
conditional, i.e. the conditional that results in the else-branch
executing, it turns out to be "game.roomx == 111 || game.roomy == 107".
This ends up forming a cross-shape of rooms where this kludge happens.
As long as your room is either on the line x=11 or on the line y=7, this
kludge will execute.
You can see this if you go to Boldly To Go, since it is (11,13), which
is on the line x=11. Checkpoint in that room, then touch a disappearing
platform, wait for it to fully disappear, then die. Then an invisible
tile will be placed to the left of the spikes on the ceiling.
Anyway, to fix this, it's simple. Just change the "and" in the negative
conditional to an "or".
The second problem was that this kludge was happening in custom levels.
So I've added a map.custommode check to it. I made sure not to make the
same mistake originally made, i.e. I made sure to use an "or" instead of
an "and". Thus, when you re-negate the negative conditional and turn it
into the positive conditional, it reads: "game.roomx == 111 &&
game.roomy == 107 && !map.custommode".
2020-02-02 11:26:49 +01:00
|
|
|
if (game.roomx != 111 || game.roomy != 107 || map.custommode)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].state = 4;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].state = 4;
|
|
|
|
map.settile(18, 9, 59);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (obj.entities[i].type == 2 && obj.entities[i].state == 2)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
//ok, unfortunate case where the disappearing platform hasn't fully disappeared. Accept a little
|
|
|
|
//graphical uglyness to avoid breaking the room!
|
Prevent updating an entity if updateentities() removed it
Otherwise, this would result in the game updating an entity twice, which
isn't good. This is most noticeable in the Gravitron, where many
Gravitron squares are created and destroyed at a time, and it's
especially noticeable during the part near the end of the Gravitron
where the pattern is two Gravitron squares, one at the top and bottom,
and then two Gravitron squares in the middle afterwards. The timing is
just right such that the top one of the two middle ones would be
misaligned with the bottom one of the two when a Gravitron square gets
outside the screen.
To do this, I changed entityclass::updateentities() into a bool, and
made every single caller check its return value. I only needed to do
this for the ones preceding updateentitylogic() and
entitymapcollision(), but I wanted to play it safe and be defensive, so
I did it for the disappearing platform kludge, as well as the
updateentities() within the updateentities() function.
2020-05-05 22:49:12 +02:00
|
|
|
bool entitygone = false;
|
|
|
|
while (obj.entities[i].state == 2)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
entitygone = obj.updateentities(i);
|
|
|
|
if (entitygone)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
i--;
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (!entitygone) obj.entities[i].state = 4;
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (map.finalstretch && obj.entities[i].type == 2)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
//for the final level. probably something 99% of players won't see.
|
Prevent updating an entity if updateentities() removed it
Otherwise, this would result in the game updating an entity twice, which
isn't good. This is most noticeable in the Gravitron, where many
Gravitron squares are created and destroyed at a time, and it's
especially noticeable during the part near the end of the Gravitron
where the pattern is two Gravitron squares, one at the top and bottom,
and then two Gravitron squares in the middle afterwards. The timing is
just right such that the top one of the two middle ones would be
misaligned with the bottom one of the two when a Gravitron square gets
outside the screen.
To do this, I changed entityclass::updateentities() into a bool, and
made every single caller check its return value. I only needed to do
this for the ones preceding updateentitylogic() and
entitymapcollision(), but I wanted to play it safe and be defensive, so
I did it for the disappearing platform kludge, as well as the
updateentities() within the updateentities() function.
2020-05-05 22:49:12 +02:00
|
|
|
bool entitygone = false;
|
|
|
|
while (obj.entities[i].state == 2)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
entitygone = obj.updateentities(i);
|
|
|
|
if (entitygone)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
i--;
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (!entitygone) obj.entities[i].state = 4;
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (obj.entities[i].type == 23 && game.swnmode && game.deathseq<15)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
//if playing SWN, get the enemies offscreen.
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].xp += obj.entities[i].vx*5;
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].yp += obj.entities[i].vy*5;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (game.swnmode)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
//if playing SWN game a, push the clock back to the nearest 10 second interval
|
|
|
|
if (game.swngame == 0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.swnpenalty();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (game.swngame == 1)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.swnstate = 0;
|
|
|
|
game.swnstate2 = 0;
|
|
|
|
game.swnstate3 = 0;
|
|
|
|
game.swnstate4 = 0;
|
|
|
|
game.swndelay = 0;
|
|
|
|
if (game.swntimer >= game.swnrecord)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.swnrecord = game.swntimer;
|
2020-07-28 00:50:51 +02:00
|
|
|
if (game.swnmessage == 0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
music.playef(25);
|
|
|
|
game.savestats();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
game.swnmessage = 1;
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-03-31 02:16:02 +02:00
|
|
|
game.deathsequence();
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
game.deathseq--;
|
|
|
|
if (game.deathseq <= 0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (game.nodeathmode)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.deathseq = 1;
|
2020-03-31 02:16:02 +02:00
|
|
|
game.gethardestroom();
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
//start depressing sequence here...
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
if (game.gameoverdelay <= -10 && graphics.fademode==0) graphics.fademode = 2;
|
|
|
|
if (graphics.fademode == 1) script.resetgametomenu();
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (game.swnmode)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
//if playing SWN game b, reset the clock
|
|
|
|
if (game.swngame == 1)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.swntimer = 0;
|
|
|
|
game.swnmessage = 0;
|
|
|
|
game.swnrank = 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-03-31 02:16:02 +02:00
|
|
|
game.gethardestroom();
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
game.hascontrol = true;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
game.gravitycontrol = game.savegc;
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
graphics.textboxremove();
|
2020-03-31 10:09:42 +02:00
|
|
|
map.resetplayer();
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
//Update colour thingy
|
|
|
|
if (map.finalmode)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (map.final_colormode)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (map.final_colorframe > 0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
map.final_colorframedelay--;
|
|
|
|
if (map.final_colorframedelay <= 0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (map.final_colorframe == 1)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
map.final_colorframedelay = 40;
|
2020-04-03 03:50:37 +02:00
|
|
|
int temp = 1+int(fRandom() * 6);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
if (temp == map.final_mapcol) temp = (temp + 1) % 6;
|
|
|
|
if (temp == 0) temp = 6;
|
2020-03-31 10:09:42 +02:00
|
|
|
map.changefinalcol(temp);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (map.final_colorframe == 2)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
map.final_colorframedelay = 15;
|
2020-04-03 03:50:37 +02:00
|
|
|
int temp = 1+int(fRandom() * 6);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
if (temp == map.final_mapcol) temp = (temp + 1) % 6;
|
|
|
|
if (temp == 0) temp = 6;
|
2020-03-31 10:09:42 +02:00
|
|
|
map.changefinalcol(temp);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
//State machine for game logic
|
2020-03-31 02:16:02 +02:00
|
|
|
game.updatestate();
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
if (game.startscript)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
script.load(game.newscript);
|
|
|
|
game.startscript = false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
//Intermission 1 Logic
|
|
|
|
//Player can't walk off a screen with SCM on it until they've left
|
|
|
|
if (game.supercrewmate)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (game.roomx == 41 + game.scmprogress) //he's in the same room
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
int i = obj.getplayer();
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) && obj.entities[i].ax > 0 && obj.entities[i].xp > 280)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].ax = 0;
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].dir = 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
//SWN Minigame Logic
|
|
|
|
if (game.swnmode) //which game?
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if(game.swngame==0) //intermission, survive 60 seconds game
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.swntimer -= 1;
|
|
|
|
if (game.swntimer <= 0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
music.niceplay(8);
|
|
|
|
game.swngame = 5;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-03-31 02:46:36 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.generateswnwave(0);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if(game.swngame==1) //super gravitron game
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.swntimer += 1;
|
|
|
|
if (game.swntimer > game.swnrecord) game.swnrecord = game.swntimer;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (game.swntimer >= 150 && game.swnrank == 0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.swnrank = 1;
|
|
|
|
if (game.swnbestrank < 1)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-08-01 21:49:07 +02:00
|
|
|
game.unlockAchievement("vvvvvvsupgrav5");
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
game.swnbestrank = 1;
|
|
|
|
game.swnmessage = 2+30;
|
2020-04-02 01:36:35 +02:00
|
|
|
music.playef(26);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (game.swntimer >= 300 && game.swnrank == 1)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.swnrank = 2;
|
|
|
|
if (game.swnbestrank < 2)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-08-01 21:49:07 +02:00
|
|
|
game.unlockAchievement("vvvvvvsupgrav10");
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
game.swnbestrank = 2;
|
|
|
|
game.swnmessage = 2+30;
|
2020-04-02 01:36:35 +02:00
|
|
|
music.playef(26);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (game.swntimer >= 450 && game.swnrank == 2)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.swnrank = 3;
|
|
|
|
if (game.swnbestrank < 3)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-08-01 21:49:07 +02:00
|
|
|
game.unlockAchievement("vvvvvvsupgrav15");
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
game.swnbestrank = 3;
|
|
|
|
game.swnmessage = 2+30;
|
2020-04-02 01:36:35 +02:00
|
|
|
music.playef(26);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (game.swntimer >= 600 && game.swnrank == 3)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.swnrank = 4;
|
|
|
|
if (game.swnbestrank < 4)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-08-01 21:49:07 +02:00
|
|
|
game.unlockAchievement("vvvvvvsupgrav20");
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
game.swnbestrank = 4;
|
|
|
|
game.swnmessage = 2+30;
|
2020-04-02 01:36:35 +02:00
|
|
|
music.playef(26);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (game.swntimer >= 900 && game.swnrank == 4)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.swnrank = 5;
|
|
|
|
if (game.swnbestrank < 5)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-08-01 21:49:07 +02:00
|
|
|
game.unlockAchievement("vvvvvvsupgrav30");
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
game.swnbestrank = 5;
|
|
|
|
game.swnmessage = 2+30;
|
2020-04-02 01:36:35 +02:00
|
|
|
music.playef(26);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (game.swntimer >= 1800 && game.swnrank == 5)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.swnrank = 6;
|
|
|
|
if (game.swnbestrank < 6)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-08-01 21:49:07 +02:00
|
|
|
game.unlockAchievement("vvvvvvsupgrav60");
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
game.swnbestrank = 6;
|
|
|
|
game.swnmessage = 2+30;
|
2020-04-02 01:36:35 +02:00
|
|
|
music.playef(26);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-03-31 02:46:36 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.generateswnwave(1);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
game.swncoldelay--;
|
|
|
|
if(game.swncoldelay<=0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.swncolstate = (game.swncolstate+1)%6;
|
|
|
|
game.swncoldelay = 30;
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
graphics.rcol = game.swncolstate;
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
obj.swnenemiescol(game.swncolstate);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (game.swngame == 2) //introduce game a
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.swndelay--;
|
|
|
|
if (game.swndelay <= 0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.swngame = 0;
|
|
|
|
game.swndelay = 0;
|
|
|
|
game.swntimer = (60 * 30) - 1;
|
|
|
|
//game.swntimer = 15;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (game.swngame == 3) //extend line
|
|
|
|
{
|
Bounds check all entity getters that can return 0
The entity getters I'm referring to are entityclass::getscm(),
entityclass::getlineat(), entityclass::getcrewman(), and
entityclass::getcustomcrewman().
Even though the player should always exist, and the player should always
be indice 0, I wouldn't want to make that assumption. I've been wrong
before.
Also, these functions returning 0 lull you into a false sense of
security. If you assume that commands using these functions are fine,
you'll forget about the fact that `i` in those commands could be
potentially anything, given an invalid argument. In fact, it's possible
to index createactivityzone(), flipgravity(), and customposition()
out-of-bounds by setting `i` to anything! Well, WAS possible. I fixed it
so now they can't.
Furthermore, in the game.scmmoveme block in gamelogic(), obj.getplayer()
wasn't even checked, even though it's been checked in all other places.
I only caught it just now because I wanted to bounds-check all usages of
obj.getscm(), too, and that game.scmmove block also used obj.getscm()
without bounds-checking it as well.
2020-09-10 07:31:09 +02:00
|
|
|
int line = obj.getlineat(84 - 32);
|
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(line, obj.entities))
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
Bounds check all entity getters that can return 0
The entity getters I'm referring to are entityclass::getscm(),
entityclass::getlineat(), entityclass::getcrewman(), and
entityclass::getcustomcrewman().
Even though the player should always exist, and the player should always
be indice 0, I wouldn't want to make that assumption. I've been wrong
before.
Also, these functions returning 0 lull you into a false sense of
security. If you assume that commands using these functions are fine,
you'll forget about the fact that `i` in those commands could be
potentially anything, given an invalid argument. In fact, it's possible
to index createactivityzone(), flipgravity(), and customposition()
out-of-bounds by setting `i` to anything! Well, WAS possible. I fixed it
so now they can't.
Furthermore, in the game.scmmoveme block in gamelogic(), obj.getplayer()
wasn't even checked, even though it's been checked in all other places.
I only caught it just now because I wanted to bounds-check all usages of
obj.getscm(), too, and that game.scmmove block also used obj.getscm()
without bounds-checking it as well.
2020-09-10 07:31:09 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.entities[line].w += 24;
|
|
|
|
if (obj.entities[line].w > 332)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[line].w = 332;
|
|
|
|
game.swngame = 2;
|
|
|
|
graphics.kludgeswnlinewidth = true;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (game.swngame == 4) //create top line
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.swngame = 3;
|
2020-03-31 02:46:36 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.createentity(-8, 84 - 32, 11, 8); // (horizontal gravity line)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
music.niceplay(2);
|
|
|
|
game.swndeaths = game.deathcounts;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (game.swngame == 5) //remove line
|
|
|
|
{
|
Bounds check all entity getters that can return 0
The entity getters I'm referring to are entityclass::getscm(),
entityclass::getlineat(), entityclass::getcrewman(), and
entityclass::getcustomcrewman().
Even though the player should always exist, and the player should always
be indice 0, I wouldn't want to make that assumption. I've been wrong
before.
Also, these functions returning 0 lull you into a false sense of
security. If you assume that commands using these functions are fine,
you'll forget about the fact that `i` in those commands could be
potentially anything, given an invalid argument. In fact, it's possible
to index createactivityzone(), flipgravity(), and customposition()
out-of-bounds by setting `i` to anything! Well, WAS possible. I fixed it
so now they can't.
Furthermore, in the game.scmmoveme block in gamelogic(), obj.getplayer()
wasn't even checked, even though it's been checked in all other places.
I only caught it just now because I wanted to bounds-check all usages of
obj.getscm(), too, and that game.scmmove block also used obj.getscm()
without bounds-checking it as well.
2020-09-10 07:31:09 +02:00
|
|
|
int line = obj.getlineat(148 + 32);
|
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(line, obj.entities))
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
Bounds check all entity getters that can return 0
The entity getters I'm referring to are entityclass::getscm(),
entityclass::getlineat(), entityclass::getcrewman(), and
entityclass::getcustomcrewman().
Even though the player should always exist, and the player should always
be indice 0, I wouldn't want to make that assumption. I've been wrong
before.
Also, these functions returning 0 lull you into a false sense of
security. If you assume that commands using these functions are fine,
you'll forget about the fact that `i` in those commands could be
potentially anything, given an invalid argument. In fact, it's possible
to index createactivityzone(), flipgravity(), and customposition()
out-of-bounds by setting `i` to anything! Well, WAS possible. I fixed it
so now they can't.
Furthermore, in the game.scmmoveme block in gamelogic(), obj.getplayer()
wasn't even checked, even though it's been checked in all other places.
I only caught it just now because I wanted to bounds-check all usages of
obj.getscm(), too, and that game.scmmove block also used obj.getscm()
without bounds-checking it as well.
2020-09-10 07:31:09 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.entities[line].xp += 24;
|
|
|
|
if (obj.entities[line].xp > 320)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.removeentity(line);
|
|
|
|
game.swnmode = false;
|
|
|
|
game.swngame = 6;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (game.swngame == 6) //Init the super gravitron
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.swngame = 7;
|
|
|
|
music.niceplay(3);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (game.swngame == 7) //introduce game b
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.swndelay--;
|
|
|
|
if (game.swndelay <= 0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.swngame = 1;
|
|
|
|
game.swndelay = 0;
|
|
|
|
game.swntimer = 0;
|
|
|
|
game.swncolstate = 3;
|
|
|
|
game.swncoldelay = 30;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
//Time trial stuff
|
|
|
|
if (game.intimetrial)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (game.timetrialcountdown > 0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.timetrialparlost = false;
|
|
|
|
game.hascontrol = true;
|
|
|
|
game.timetrialcountdown--;
|
|
|
|
if (game.timetrialcountdown > 30)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.hascontrol = false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-02 01:36:35 +02:00
|
|
|
if(game.timetrialcountdown == 120) music.playef(21);
|
|
|
|
if(game.timetrialcountdown == 90) music.playef(21);
|
|
|
|
if(game.timetrialcountdown == 60) music.playef(21);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
if (game.timetrialcountdown == 30)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
switch(game.timetriallevel)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
case 0:
|
|
|
|
music.play(1);
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case 1:
|
|
|
|
music.play(3);
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case 2:
|
|
|
|
music.play(2);
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case 3:
|
|
|
|
music.play(1);
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case 4:
|
|
|
|
music.play(12);
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case 5:
|
|
|
|
music.play(15);
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-02 01:36:35 +02:00
|
|
|
music.playef(22);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
//Have we lost the par?
|
|
|
|
if (!game.timetrialparlost)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if ((game.minutes * 60) + game.seconds > game.timetrialpar)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.timetrialparlost = true;
|
|
|
|
int i = obj.getplayer();
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities))
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].tile = 144;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-02 01:36:35 +02:00
|
|
|
music.playef(2);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
//Update entities
|
|
|
|
//Ok, moving platform fuckers
|
|
|
|
if(!game.completestop)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if(obj.vertplatforms)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-03 22:50:16 +02:00
|
|
|
for (int i = obj.entities.size() - 1; i >= 0; i--)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-10-07 01:15:44 +02:00
|
|
|
if (!obj.entities[i].isplatform
|
|
|
|
|| SDL_abs(obj.entities[i].vx) >= 0.000001f)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-10-07 01:15:44 +02:00
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Restore platform evaluation order to 2.2
This commit restores the evaluation order of moving platforms and conveyors to
be what it was in 2.2. The evaluation order changed in 2.3 after the patchset
to improve the handling of the `obj.entities` and `obj.blocks` vectors (#191).
By evaluation order, I'm talking about the order in which platforms and
conveyors will be evaluated (and thus will take priority) if Viridian stands
on both a conveyor or platform at once, and they either have different speeds
or are pointing in different directions. Nowhere in the main game is there a
place where you can stand on two different conveyors/platforms at once, so
this is solely within the territory of custom levels, which is my specialty.
So what caused this evaluation order to change? Well, every moving platform
and conveyor in the game is actually made up of two objects: an entity, and a
block. The entity is the part that moves around, and the block is the part
that actually has the collision.
But if the entity is the part that moves around, and entities and blocks are
in entirely separate vectors, how is the block part going to move along with
it? Well, maybe you'd guess some sort of unique ID system, but spend some time
digging around the code and you won't find any trace of any (there's no
attribute on an entity to store such an ID, for starters).
Instead, what the game does is actually remove all blocks that coincide with
the exact top-left corner of the entity, and then create a new one. Destroying
and creating blocks like this all the time is hugely wasteful, but hey, it
worked.
So why did the evaluation order change in 2.3? Well, to understand that,
you'll need to understand 2.2's `active` system. Instead of having an object
be real simply by virtue of it existing, 2.2 had this system where the object
was only real if it had its `active` attribute set to true. In other words,
you would be looking at a fake object that didn't actually exist if its
`active` attribute was false.
On the surface, this doesn't seem that bad. But this can lead to "holes" in a
given vector of objects. A hole is simply an inactive object neighbored by
active objects (or the inactive object could be the first one in the vector,
but then have an active object immediately following it).
If you have a vector of 3 objects, all of them active, then removing the
second one will result in the vector containing an active object, followed by
an inactive object, followed by an active one. However, since the switch to
more properly use vectors instead of relying on this `active` system, there's
no longer any way for holes to exist in a vector. Properly removing an object
from a vector will just shift the rest of the objects down, so if we remove
the second object after the vector fix, then this will simply move the third
object into the slot of where the second object used to be.
So, what happens if you destroy a block and then create a new one in the
`active` system? Let's say that your `obj.blocks` looks like this, and here
I'm denoting each block by writing out its coordinates:
[30,60] [70,90] [80,100]
and that you want to update the position of the second one, because the entity
that that blocks belongs to has been updated. Okay, so, you delete that block,
which then makes things look like this:
[30,60] [-] [80,100]
and then afterwards, you create a new block with the updated position,
resulting in this:
[30,60] [74,90] [80,100]
Since `entityclass::createblock()` will find the first block slot that has a
false `active` attribute, it puts the new object in the same slot as the old
one. What has been essentially done here is that the slot of the block has
basically been reserved for the new block with the new position. Here, the
evaluation order of each block will stay the same.
But then 2.3 comes along and changes things up. So we start with an
`obj.blocks` like this again:
[30,60] [70,90] [80,100]
and we want to update the second block, like before. So we remove the second
block, resulting in this:
[30,60] [80,100]
It should be obvious that unlike before, where the third block stayed in the
third slot, the third block has now been moved to the second slot. But
continuing on; we are now going to create the new block with its updated
position, resulting in this:
[30,60] [80,100] [70,90]
At this point, we can see that the evaluation order of these blocks has been
changed due to the fact that the third block has now been moved to the slot
that was previously the slot of the second block.
So what can we do about this? Well, we can basically emulate what VVVVVV did
in 2.2, which is disable a block without actually removing it - except I'm not
going to reintroduce an `active` attribute or anything. I'll disable the
collision of all blocks at a certain position by setting their widths and
heights to 0, and then re-enable them later by finding the first block at that
same position, updating its position, and re-assigning its width and height
again.
The former is what `entityclass::nocollisionat()` does; the latter is what
`entityclass::moveblockto()` does. The former mimicks turning off the `active`
attribute of all blocks sharing a certain top-left corner; the latter mimicks
creating a new block - and it will only do this for one block, because
`entityclass::createblock()` in 2.2 only looked for the first block with a
false `active` attribute.
Now, some quirks relied on the previous behavior of destroying and creating
blocks, but all of these quirks have been preserved with the way I implemented
this fix.
The first quirk is that platforms passing through 0,0 will destroy all spike
hitboxes, script boxes, activity zones, and one-way hitboxes in the room. The
hitboxes of moving platforms, disappearing platforms, 1x1 quicksand, and
conveyors will not be affected.
This is a consequence of the fact that the former group uses the `x` and `y`
of their `rect`, while the latter group uses the `xp` and `yp` attributes. So
the `xp` and `yp` of the former are both 0. Meaning, a platform passing
through 0,0 destroys them all.
Having these separate coordinates seems like an artifact from the Flash days.
(And furthermore, there's an unused `x` and `y` attribute on all blocks,
making for technically three separate sets of coordinates! This should
probably be cleaned up, except for what I'm about to say...) But actually, if
you merge both sets of coordinates into one, this lets moving platforms
destroy script boxes and activity zones if it passes through the top-left
corner of them, which is probably far worse than the destruction being
localized to a specific coordinate that would never likely be reached
normally.
This quirk is preserved just fine without any special-casing, because instead
of destroying all blocks at 0,0, they just get disabled, which does the same
job. This quirk seems trivial to fix if I made it so that the position of a
platform's block was updated instantaneously instead of having one step to
disable it and another step to re-enable it, but I aim to preserve as much
quirks as possible.
The second quirk is that a moving platform passing through the top-left corner
of a disappearing platform or 1x1 quicksand will destroy the block of that
disappearing platform. This is because, again, when a moving platform updates,
it destroys all blocks at its previous position, not just only one block. This
is automatically preserved because this commit just disables the block of the
disappearing platform instead of removing it. Just like the last one, this
quirk seems extremely trivial to fix, and this time by simply making it so
`entityclass::nocollisionat()` would have a `break` statement, i.e. only
disabling the first block it finds instead of all blocks it finds, but I want
to keep all quirks that are possible to keep.
The last quirk is that, apparently, in order to prevent pushing the player
vertically out of a moving platform if they get inside of one, the game
destroys the block of the moving platform. If I had missed this edge case,
then the block would've been destroyed, leaving the moving platform with no
collision. But I caught it in my testing, so the block gets disabled instead
of destroyed. Also, it seems obtuse for those who don't understand why a
platform's block gets destroyed or disabled whenever the player collides with
it in `entityclass::collisioncheck()`, so I've put up a comment documenting it
as well.
The different platform evaluation order desyncs my Nova TAS, but after
applying this patchset and #504, my TAS syncs fine (save for the different
walkingframe from starting immediately on the ground instead of in the air
(#502), but that's minor and can be easily fixed).
I've attached a test level to the pull request for this commit (#503) to
demonstrate that this patchset not only fixes platform evaluation order, but
preserves some bugs and quirks with the existing block system.
The first room demonstrates the fixed platform evaluation order, by stepping
on the conveyors that both point into each other. In 2.2, Viridian will move
to the right of the background pillar, but in 2.3, Viridian will move to the
left of the pillar. However, after applying this patch, Viridian will now move
to the right of the pillar once again.
The second room demonstrates that the platform-passing-through-0,0 trick still
works (as explained above).
The last room demonstrates that platforms passing through the top-left corners
of disappearing platforms or 1x1 quicksand will remove the blocks of those
entities, causing Viridian to immediately pass through them. This trick is
still preserved after my patchset is applied.
2020-10-10 02:09:11 +02:00
|
|
|
int prevx = obj.entities[i].xp;
|
|
|
|
int prevy = obj.entities[i].yp;
|
|
|
|
obj.nocollisionat(prevx, prevy);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2020-10-07 01:16:48 +02:00
|
|
|
bool entitygone = obj.updateentities(i); // Behavioral logic
|
|
|
|
if (entitygone) continue;
|
|
|
|
obj.updateentitylogic(i); // Basic Physics
|
|
|
|
obj.entitymapcollision(i); // Collisions with walls
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
|
Restore platform evaluation order to 2.2
This commit restores the evaluation order of moving platforms and conveyors to
be what it was in 2.2. The evaluation order changed in 2.3 after the patchset
to improve the handling of the `obj.entities` and `obj.blocks` vectors (#191).
By evaluation order, I'm talking about the order in which platforms and
conveyors will be evaluated (and thus will take priority) if Viridian stands
on both a conveyor or platform at once, and they either have different speeds
or are pointing in different directions. Nowhere in the main game is there a
place where you can stand on two different conveyors/platforms at once, so
this is solely within the territory of custom levels, which is my specialty.
So what caused this evaluation order to change? Well, every moving platform
and conveyor in the game is actually made up of two objects: an entity, and a
block. The entity is the part that moves around, and the block is the part
that actually has the collision.
But if the entity is the part that moves around, and entities and blocks are
in entirely separate vectors, how is the block part going to move along with
it? Well, maybe you'd guess some sort of unique ID system, but spend some time
digging around the code and you won't find any trace of any (there's no
attribute on an entity to store such an ID, for starters).
Instead, what the game does is actually remove all blocks that coincide with
the exact top-left corner of the entity, and then create a new one. Destroying
and creating blocks like this all the time is hugely wasteful, but hey, it
worked.
So why did the evaluation order change in 2.3? Well, to understand that,
you'll need to understand 2.2's `active` system. Instead of having an object
be real simply by virtue of it existing, 2.2 had this system where the object
was only real if it had its `active` attribute set to true. In other words,
you would be looking at a fake object that didn't actually exist if its
`active` attribute was false.
On the surface, this doesn't seem that bad. But this can lead to "holes" in a
given vector of objects. A hole is simply an inactive object neighbored by
active objects (or the inactive object could be the first one in the vector,
but then have an active object immediately following it).
If you have a vector of 3 objects, all of them active, then removing the
second one will result in the vector containing an active object, followed by
an inactive object, followed by an active one. However, since the switch to
more properly use vectors instead of relying on this `active` system, there's
no longer any way for holes to exist in a vector. Properly removing an object
from a vector will just shift the rest of the objects down, so if we remove
the second object after the vector fix, then this will simply move the third
object into the slot of where the second object used to be.
So, what happens if you destroy a block and then create a new one in the
`active` system? Let's say that your `obj.blocks` looks like this, and here
I'm denoting each block by writing out its coordinates:
[30,60] [70,90] [80,100]
and that you want to update the position of the second one, because the entity
that that blocks belongs to has been updated. Okay, so, you delete that block,
which then makes things look like this:
[30,60] [-] [80,100]
and then afterwards, you create a new block with the updated position,
resulting in this:
[30,60] [74,90] [80,100]
Since `entityclass::createblock()` will find the first block slot that has a
false `active` attribute, it puts the new object in the same slot as the old
one. What has been essentially done here is that the slot of the block has
basically been reserved for the new block with the new position. Here, the
evaluation order of each block will stay the same.
But then 2.3 comes along and changes things up. So we start with an
`obj.blocks` like this again:
[30,60] [70,90] [80,100]
and we want to update the second block, like before. So we remove the second
block, resulting in this:
[30,60] [80,100]
It should be obvious that unlike before, where the third block stayed in the
third slot, the third block has now been moved to the second slot. But
continuing on; we are now going to create the new block with its updated
position, resulting in this:
[30,60] [80,100] [70,90]
At this point, we can see that the evaluation order of these blocks has been
changed due to the fact that the third block has now been moved to the slot
that was previously the slot of the second block.
So what can we do about this? Well, we can basically emulate what VVVVVV did
in 2.2, which is disable a block without actually removing it - except I'm not
going to reintroduce an `active` attribute or anything. I'll disable the
collision of all blocks at a certain position by setting their widths and
heights to 0, and then re-enable them later by finding the first block at that
same position, updating its position, and re-assigning its width and height
again.
The former is what `entityclass::nocollisionat()` does; the latter is what
`entityclass::moveblockto()` does. The former mimicks turning off the `active`
attribute of all blocks sharing a certain top-left corner; the latter mimicks
creating a new block - and it will only do this for one block, because
`entityclass::createblock()` in 2.2 only looked for the first block with a
false `active` attribute.
Now, some quirks relied on the previous behavior of destroying and creating
blocks, but all of these quirks have been preserved with the way I implemented
this fix.
The first quirk is that platforms passing through 0,0 will destroy all spike
hitboxes, script boxes, activity zones, and one-way hitboxes in the room. The
hitboxes of moving platforms, disappearing platforms, 1x1 quicksand, and
conveyors will not be affected.
This is a consequence of the fact that the former group uses the `x` and `y`
of their `rect`, while the latter group uses the `xp` and `yp` attributes. So
the `xp` and `yp` of the former are both 0. Meaning, a platform passing
through 0,0 destroys them all.
Having these separate coordinates seems like an artifact from the Flash days.
(And furthermore, there's an unused `x` and `y` attribute on all blocks,
making for technically three separate sets of coordinates! This should
probably be cleaned up, except for what I'm about to say...) But actually, if
you merge both sets of coordinates into one, this lets moving platforms
destroy script boxes and activity zones if it passes through the top-left
corner of them, which is probably far worse than the destruction being
localized to a specific coordinate that would never likely be reached
normally.
This quirk is preserved just fine without any special-casing, because instead
of destroying all blocks at 0,0, they just get disabled, which does the same
job. This quirk seems trivial to fix if I made it so that the position of a
platform's block was updated instantaneously instead of having one step to
disable it and another step to re-enable it, but I aim to preserve as much
quirks as possible.
The second quirk is that a moving platform passing through the top-left corner
of a disappearing platform or 1x1 quicksand will destroy the block of that
disappearing platform. This is because, again, when a moving platform updates,
it destroys all blocks at its previous position, not just only one block. This
is automatically preserved because this commit just disables the block of the
disappearing platform instead of removing it. Just like the last one, this
quirk seems extremely trivial to fix, and this time by simply making it so
`entityclass::nocollisionat()` would have a `break` statement, i.e. only
disabling the first block it finds instead of all blocks it finds, but I want
to keep all quirks that are possible to keep.
The last quirk is that, apparently, in order to prevent pushing the player
vertically out of a moving platform if they get inside of one, the game
destroys the block of the moving platform. If I had missed this edge case,
then the block would've been destroyed, leaving the moving platform with no
collision. But I caught it in my testing, so the block gets disabled instead
of destroyed. Also, it seems obtuse for those who don't understand why a
platform's block gets destroyed or disabled whenever the player collides with
it in `entityclass::collisioncheck()`, so I've put up a comment documenting it
as well.
The different platform evaluation order desyncs my Nova TAS, but after
applying this patchset and #504, my TAS syncs fine (save for the different
walkingframe from starting immediately on the ground instead of in the air
(#502), but that's minor and can be easily fixed).
I've attached a test level to the pull request for this commit (#503) to
demonstrate that this patchset not only fixes platform evaluation order, but
preserves some bugs and quirks with the existing block system.
The first room demonstrates the fixed platform evaluation order, by stepping
on the conveyors that both point into each other. In 2.2, Viridian will move
to the right of the background pillar, but in 2.3, Viridian will move to the
left of the pillar. However, after applying this patch, Viridian will now move
to the right of the pillar once again.
The second room demonstrates that the platform-passing-through-0,0 trick still
works (as explained above).
The last room demonstrates that platforms passing through the top-left corners
of disappearing platforms or 1x1 quicksand will remove the blocks of those
entities, causing Viridian to immediately pass through them. This trick is
still preserved after my patchset is applied.
2020-10-10 02:09:11 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.moveblockto(prevx, prevy, obj.entities[i].xp, obj.entities[i].yp, obj.entities[i].w, obj.entities[i].h);
|
2020-10-07 01:16:48 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.movingplatformfix(i, obj.getplayer());
|
|
|
|
if (game.supercrewmate)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.movingplatformfix(i, obj.getscm());
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if(obj.horplatforms)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-03 22:50:16 +02:00
|
|
|
for (int ie = obj.entities.size() - 1; ie >= 0; ie--)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-10-07 01:15:44 +02:00
|
|
|
if (!obj.entities[ie].isplatform
|
|
|
|
|| SDL_abs(obj.entities[ie].vy) >= 0.000001f)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-10-07 01:15:44 +02:00
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Restore platform evaluation order to 2.2
This commit restores the evaluation order of moving platforms and conveyors to
be what it was in 2.2. The evaluation order changed in 2.3 after the patchset
to improve the handling of the `obj.entities` and `obj.blocks` vectors (#191).
By evaluation order, I'm talking about the order in which platforms and
conveyors will be evaluated (and thus will take priority) if Viridian stands
on both a conveyor or platform at once, and they either have different speeds
or are pointing in different directions. Nowhere in the main game is there a
place where you can stand on two different conveyors/platforms at once, so
this is solely within the territory of custom levels, which is my specialty.
So what caused this evaluation order to change? Well, every moving platform
and conveyor in the game is actually made up of two objects: an entity, and a
block. The entity is the part that moves around, and the block is the part
that actually has the collision.
But if the entity is the part that moves around, and entities and blocks are
in entirely separate vectors, how is the block part going to move along with
it? Well, maybe you'd guess some sort of unique ID system, but spend some time
digging around the code and you won't find any trace of any (there's no
attribute on an entity to store such an ID, for starters).
Instead, what the game does is actually remove all blocks that coincide with
the exact top-left corner of the entity, and then create a new one. Destroying
and creating blocks like this all the time is hugely wasteful, but hey, it
worked.
So why did the evaluation order change in 2.3? Well, to understand that,
you'll need to understand 2.2's `active` system. Instead of having an object
be real simply by virtue of it existing, 2.2 had this system where the object
was only real if it had its `active` attribute set to true. In other words,
you would be looking at a fake object that didn't actually exist if its
`active` attribute was false.
On the surface, this doesn't seem that bad. But this can lead to "holes" in a
given vector of objects. A hole is simply an inactive object neighbored by
active objects (or the inactive object could be the first one in the vector,
but then have an active object immediately following it).
If you have a vector of 3 objects, all of them active, then removing the
second one will result in the vector containing an active object, followed by
an inactive object, followed by an active one. However, since the switch to
more properly use vectors instead of relying on this `active` system, there's
no longer any way for holes to exist in a vector. Properly removing an object
from a vector will just shift the rest of the objects down, so if we remove
the second object after the vector fix, then this will simply move the third
object into the slot of where the second object used to be.
So, what happens if you destroy a block and then create a new one in the
`active` system? Let's say that your `obj.blocks` looks like this, and here
I'm denoting each block by writing out its coordinates:
[30,60] [70,90] [80,100]
and that you want to update the position of the second one, because the entity
that that blocks belongs to has been updated. Okay, so, you delete that block,
which then makes things look like this:
[30,60] [-] [80,100]
and then afterwards, you create a new block with the updated position,
resulting in this:
[30,60] [74,90] [80,100]
Since `entityclass::createblock()` will find the first block slot that has a
false `active` attribute, it puts the new object in the same slot as the old
one. What has been essentially done here is that the slot of the block has
basically been reserved for the new block with the new position. Here, the
evaluation order of each block will stay the same.
But then 2.3 comes along and changes things up. So we start with an
`obj.blocks` like this again:
[30,60] [70,90] [80,100]
and we want to update the second block, like before. So we remove the second
block, resulting in this:
[30,60] [80,100]
It should be obvious that unlike before, where the third block stayed in the
third slot, the third block has now been moved to the second slot. But
continuing on; we are now going to create the new block with its updated
position, resulting in this:
[30,60] [80,100] [70,90]
At this point, we can see that the evaluation order of these blocks has been
changed due to the fact that the third block has now been moved to the slot
that was previously the slot of the second block.
So what can we do about this? Well, we can basically emulate what VVVVVV did
in 2.2, which is disable a block without actually removing it - except I'm not
going to reintroduce an `active` attribute or anything. I'll disable the
collision of all blocks at a certain position by setting their widths and
heights to 0, and then re-enable them later by finding the first block at that
same position, updating its position, and re-assigning its width and height
again.
The former is what `entityclass::nocollisionat()` does; the latter is what
`entityclass::moveblockto()` does. The former mimicks turning off the `active`
attribute of all blocks sharing a certain top-left corner; the latter mimicks
creating a new block - and it will only do this for one block, because
`entityclass::createblock()` in 2.2 only looked for the first block with a
false `active` attribute.
Now, some quirks relied on the previous behavior of destroying and creating
blocks, but all of these quirks have been preserved with the way I implemented
this fix.
The first quirk is that platforms passing through 0,0 will destroy all spike
hitboxes, script boxes, activity zones, and one-way hitboxes in the room. The
hitboxes of moving platforms, disappearing platforms, 1x1 quicksand, and
conveyors will not be affected.
This is a consequence of the fact that the former group uses the `x` and `y`
of their `rect`, while the latter group uses the `xp` and `yp` attributes. So
the `xp` and `yp` of the former are both 0. Meaning, a platform passing
through 0,0 destroys them all.
Having these separate coordinates seems like an artifact from the Flash days.
(And furthermore, there's an unused `x` and `y` attribute on all blocks,
making for technically three separate sets of coordinates! This should
probably be cleaned up, except for what I'm about to say...) But actually, if
you merge both sets of coordinates into one, this lets moving platforms
destroy script boxes and activity zones if it passes through the top-left
corner of them, which is probably far worse than the destruction being
localized to a specific coordinate that would never likely be reached
normally.
This quirk is preserved just fine without any special-casing, because instead
of destroying all blocks at 0,0, they just get disabled, which does the same
job. This quirk seems trivial to fix if I made it so that the position of a
platform's block was updated instantaneously instead of having one step to
disable it and another step to re-enable it, but I aim to preserve as much
quirks as possible.
The second quirk is that a moving platform passing through the top-left corner
of a disappearing platform or 1x1 quicksand will destroy the block of that
disappearing platform. This is because, again, when a moving platform updates,
it destroys all blocks at its previous position, not just only one block. This
is automatically preserved because this commit just disables the block of the
disappearing platform instead of removing it. Just like the last one, this
quirk seems extremely trivial to fix, and this time by simply making it so
`entityclass::nocollisionat()` would have a `break` statement, i.e. only
disabling the first block it finds instead of all blocks it finds, but I want
to keep all quirks that are possible to keep.
The last quirk is that, apparently, in order to prevent pushing the player
vertically out of a moving platform if they get inside of one, the game
destroys the block of the moving platform. If I had missed this edge case,
then the block would've been destroyed, leaving the moving platform with no
collision. But I caught it in my testing, so the block gets disabled instead
of destroyed. Also, it seems obtuse for those who don't understand why a
platform's block gets destroyed or disabled whenever the player collides with
it in `entityclass::collisioncheck()`, so I've put up a comment documenting it
as well.
The different platform evaluation order desyncs my Nova TAS, but after
applying this patchset and #504, my TAS syncs fine (save for the different
walkingframe from starting immediately on the ground instead of in the air
(#502), but that's minor and can be easily fixed).
I've attached a test level to the pull request for this commit (#503) to
demonstrate that this patchset not only fixes platform evaluation order, but
preserves some bugs and quirks with the existing block system.
The first room demonstrates the fixed platform evaluation order, by stepping
on the conveyors that both point into each other. In 2.2, Viridian will move
to the right of the background pillar, but in 2.3, Viridian will move to the
left of the pillar. However, after applying this patch, Viridian will now move
to the right of the pillar once again.
The second room demonstrates that the platform-passing-through-0,0 trick still
works (as explained above).
The last room demonstrates that platforms passing through the top-left corners
of disappearing platforms or 1x1 quicksand will remove the blocks of those
entities, causing Viridian to immediately pass through them. This trick is
still preserved after my patchset is applied.
2020-10-10 02:09:11 +02:00
|
|
|
int prevx = obj.entities[ie].xp;
|
|
|
|
int prevy = obj.entities[ie].yp;
|
|
|
|
obj.nocollisionat(prevx, prevy);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2020-10-07 01:16:48 +02:00
|
|
|
bool entitygone = obj.updateentities(ie); // Behavioral logic
|
|
|
|
if (entitygone) continue;
|
|
|
|
obj.updateentitylogic(ie); // Basic Physics
|
|
|
|
obj.entitymapcollision(ie); // Collisions with walls
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
|
Restore platform evaluation order to 2.2
This commit restores the evaluation order of moving platforms and conveyors to
be what it was in 2.2. The evaluation order changed in 2.3 after the patchset
to improve the handling of the `obj.entities` and `obj.blocks` vectors (#191).
By evaluation order, I'm talking about the order in which platforms and
conveyors will be evaluated (and thus will take priority) if Viridian stands
on both a conveyor or platform at once, and they either have different speeds
or are pointing in different directions. Nowhere in the main game is there a
place where you can stand on two different conveyors/platforms at once, so
this is solely within the territory of custom levels, which is my specialty.
So what caused this evaluation order to change? Well, every moving platform
and conveyor in the game is actually made up of two objects: an entity, and a
block. The entity is the part that moves around, and the block is the part
that actually has the collision.
But if the entity is the part that moves around, and entities and blocks are
in entirely separate vectors, how is the block part going to move along with
it? Well, maybe you'd guess some sort of unique ID system, but spend some time
digging around the code and you won't find any trace of any (there's no
attribute on an entity to store such an ID, for starters).
Instead, what the game does is actually remove all blocks that coincide with
the exact top-left corner of the entity, and then create a new one. Destroying
and creating blocks like this all the time is hugely wasteful, but hey, it
worked.
So why did the evaluation order change in 2.3? Well, to understand that,
you'll need to understand 2.2's `active` system. Instead of having an object
be real simply by virtue of it existing, 2.2 had this system where the object
was only real if it had its `active` attribute set to true. In other words,
you would be looking at a fake object that didn't actually exist if its
`active` attribute was false.
On the surface, this doesn't seem that bad. But this can lead to "holes" in a
given vector of objects. A hole is simply an inactive object neighbored by
active objects (or the inactive object could be the first one in the vector,
but then have an active object immediately following it).
If you have a vector of 3 objects, all of them active, then removing the
second one will result in the vector containing an active object, followed by
an inactive object, followed by an active one. However, since the switch to
more properly use vectors instead of relying on this `active` system, there's
no longer any way for holes to exist in a vector. Properly removing an object
from a vector will just shift the rest of the objects down, so if we remove
the second object after the vector fix, then this will simply move the third
object into the slot of where the second object used to be.
So, what happens if you destroy a block and then create a new one in the
`active` system? Let's say that your `obj.blocks` looks like this, and here
I'm denoting each block by writing out its coordinates:
[30,60] [70,90] [80,100]
and that you want to update the position of the second one, because the entity
that that blocks belongs to has been updated. Okay, so, you delete that block,
which then makes things look like this:
[30,60] [-] [80,100]
and then afterwards, you create a new block with the updated position,
resulting in this:
[30,60] [74,90] [80,100]
Since `entityclass::createblock()` will find the first block slot that has a
false `active` attribute, it puts the new object in the same slot as the old
one. What has been essentially done here is that the slot of the block has
basically been reserved for the new block with the new position. Here, the
evaluation order of each block will stay the same.
But then 2.3 comes along and changes things up. So we start with an
`obj.blocks` like this again:
[30,60] [70,90] [80,100]
and we want to update the second block, like before. So we remove the second
block, resulting in this:
[30,60] [80,100]
It should be obvious that unlike before, where the third block stayed in the
third slot, the third block has now been moved to the second slot. But
continuing on; we are now going to create the new block with its updated
position, resulting in this:
[30,60] [80,100] [70,90]
At this point, we can see that the evaluation order of these blocks has been
changed due to the fact that the third block has now been moved to the slot
that was previously the slot of the second block.
So what can we do about this? Well, we can basically emulate what VVVVVV did
in 2.2, which is disable a block without actually removing it - except I'm not
going to reintroduce an `active` attribute or anything. I'll disable the
collision of all blocks at a certain position by setting their widths and
heights to 0, and then re-enable them later by finding the first block at that
same position, updating its position, and re-assigning its width and height
again.
The former is what `entityclass::nocollisionat()` does; the latter is what
`entityclass::moveblockto()` does. The former mimicks turning off the `active`
attribute of all blocks sharing a certain top-left corner; the latter mimicks
creating a new block - and it will only do this for one block, because
`entityclass::createblock()` in 2.2 only looked for the first block with a
false `active` attribute.
Now, some quirks relied on the previous behavior of destroying and creating
blocks, but all of these quirks have been preserved with the way I implemented
this fix.
The first quirk is that platforms passing through 0,0 will destroy all spike
hitboxes, script boxes, activity zones, and one-way hitboxes in the room. The
hitboxes of moving platforms, disappearing platforms, 1x1 quicksand, and
conveyors will not be affected.
This is a consequence of the fact that the former group uses the `x` and `y`
of their `rect`, while the latter group uses the `xp` and `yp` attributes. So
the `xp` and `yp` of the former are both 0. Meaning, a platform passing
through 0,0 destroys them all.
Having these separate coordinates seems like an artifact from the Flash days.
(And furthermore, there's an unused `x` and `y` attribute on all blocks,
making for technically three separate sets of coordinates! This should
probably be cleaned up, except for what I'm about to say...) But actually, if
you merge both sets of coordinates into one, this lets moving platforms
destroy script boxes and activity zones if it passes through the top-left
corner of them, which is probably far worse than the destruction being
localized to a specific coordinate that would never likely be reached
normally.
This quirk is preserved just fine without any special-casing, because instead
of destroying all blocks at 0,0, they just get disabled, which does the same
job. This quirk seems trivial to fix if I made it so that the position of a
platform's block was updated instantaneously instead of having one step to
disable it and another step to re-enable it, but I aim to preserve as much
quirks as possible.
The second quirk is that a moving platform passing through the top-left corner
of a disappearing platform or 1x1 quicksand will destroy the block of that
disappearing platform. This is because, again, when a moving platform updates,
it destroys all blocks at its previous position, not just only one block. This
is automatically preserved because this commit just disables the block of the
disappearing platform instead of removing it. Just like the last one, this
quirk seems extremely trivial to fix, and this time by simply making it so
`entityclass::nocollisionat()` would have a `break` statement, i.e. only
disabling the first block it finds instead of all blocks it finds, but I want
to keep all quirks that are possible to keep.
The last quirk is that, apparently, in order to prevent pushing the player
vertically out of a moving platform if they get inside of one, the game
destroys the block of the moving platform. If I had missed this edge case,
then the block would've been destroyed, leaving the moving platform with no
collision. But I caught it in my testing, so the block gets disabled instead
of destroyed. Also, it seems obtuse for those who don't understand why a
platform's block gets destroyed or disabled whenever the player collides with
it in `entityclass::collisioncheck()`, so I've put up a comment documenting it
as well.
The different platform evaluation order desyncs my Nova TAS, but after
applying this patchset and #504, my TAS syncs fine (save for the different
walkingframe from starting immediately on the ground instead of in the air
(#502), but that's minor and can be easily fixed).
I've attached a test level to the pull request for this commit (#503) to
demonstrate that this patchset not only fixes platform evaluation order, but
preserves some bugs and quirks with the existing block system.
The first room demonstrates the fixed platform evaluation order, by stepping
on the conveyors that both point into each other. In 2.2, Viridian will move
to the right of the background pillar, but in 2.3, Viridian will move to the
left of the pillar. However, after applying this patch, Viridian will now move
to the right of the pillar once again.
The second room demonstrates that the platform-passing-through-0,0 trick still
works (as explained above).
The last room demonstrates that platforms passing through the top-left corners
of disappearing platforms or 1x1 quicksand will remove the blocks of those
entities, causing Viridian to immediately pass through them. This trick is
still preserved after my patchset is applied.
2020-10-10 02:09:11 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.moveblockto(prevx, prevy, obj.entities[ie].xp, obj.entities[ie].yp, obj.entities[ie].w, obj.entities[ie].h);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
//is the player standing on a moving platform?
|
|
|
|
int i = obj.getplayer();
|
2020-03-31 02:46:36 +02:00
|
|
|
float j = obj.entitycollideplatformfloor(i);
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) && j > -1000)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].newxp = obj.entities[i].xp + j;
|
Fix glitchy y-position when colliding with a conveyor
There is this issue with conveyors where if you collide with them, your
intended next y-position doesn't get updated to the position of the
conveyor, and then your y-position gets set to your intended next
y-position. This also applies to horizontally moving platforms.
This bug used to not produce any problems, if at all, until #502 got
merged. Since then, respawning from checkpoints that are on conveyors
would sometimes not update your y-position at all, making it possible to
get stuck inside a death loop that would require you to exit the game
and re-enter it.
But you can always reliably create this bug simply by going into the
editor and placing down a conveyor and checkpoint on top of each other.
Then enter and exit playtesting a bunch of times, and you'll notice the
glitchy y-position Viridian keeps taking on.
The root cause of this is how the game moves the player whenever they
stand on the top or bottom of a conveyor (or a horizontally moving
platform). The game sets their intended next x-position (newxp), then
calls obj.entitymapcollision() on them. This would be okay, except their
intended next y-position (newyp) doesn't get set along with their newxp,
so entitymapcollision() will use the wrong newyp, then find that there
is nothing that will collide with the player at that given newyp, then
update the yp of the player to the wrong newyp.
So, the platform logic simply doesn't set the player's newyp. Why does
the player have the wrong newyp? It's because moving platforms (and
conveyors) are updated first before all other entities are, and this
includes the code that checks the player for collisions with moving
platforms. That's right: the moving platform collision code gets ran
before the player properly gets updated. This means that the game will
use the newyp of the previous frame, which could be anything, really,
but it most likely just means the intended next y-position of the player
gets canceled, leaving the player with the same y-position they had
before.
Okay, but this bug only seems to happen when you put a checkpoint inside
a conveyor (or a moving platform that hasn't started moving yet) and
start playtesting from it, so why doesn't this bug happen more often,
then? Well, it's probably because of luck and coincidence. Most of the
time, if you're colliding with a conveyor or horizontally moving
platform, you probably have a correct newyp from the previous frame of
the game, so there'd be no problems. And before #502 got merged, this
previous frame would be provided by the player having to fall to the
surface due to the y-offset of their savepoint. However, if you make it
so that you immediately teleport on to a conveyor (because you died),
then this bug will rear its ugly head.
2020-10-31 19:52:06 +01:00
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].newyp = obj.entities[i].yp;
|
2020-03-31 02:46:36 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.entitymapcollision(i);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-03-31 02:46:36 +02:00
|
|
|
j = obj.entitycollideplatformroof(i);
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) && j > -1000)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].newxp = obj.entities[i].xp + j;
|
Fix glitchy y-position when colliding with a conveyor
There is this issue with conveyors where if you collide with them, your
intended next y-position doesn't get updated to the position of the
conveyor, and then your y-position gets set to your intended next
y-position. This also applies to horizontally moving platforms.
This bug used to not produce any problems, if at all, until #502 got
merged. Since then, respawning from checkpoints that are on conveyors
would sometimes not update your y-position at all, making it possible to
get stuck inside a death loop that would require you to exit the game
and re-enter it.
But you can always reliably create this bug simply by going into the
editor and placing down a conveyor and checkpoint on top of each other.
Then enter and exit playtesting a bunch of times, and you'll notice the
glitchy y-position Viridian keeps taking on.
The root cause of this is how the game moves the player whenever they
stand on the top or bottom of a conveyor (or a horizontally moving
platform). The game sets their intended next x-position (newxp), then
calls obj.entitymapcollision() on them. This would be okay, except their
intended next y-position (newyp) doesn't get set along with their newxp,
so entitymapcollision() will use the wrong newyp, then find that there
is nothing that will collide with the player at that given newyp, then
update the yp of the player to the wrong newyp.
So, the platform logic simply doesn't set the player's newyp. Why does
the player have the wrong newyp? It's because moving platforms (and
conveyors) are updated first before all other entities are, and this
includes the code that checks the player for collisions with moving
platforms. That's right: the moving platform collision code gets ran
before the player properly gets updated. This means that the game will
use the newyp of the previous frame, which could be anything, really,
but it most likely just means the intended next y-position of the player
gets canceled, leaving the player with the same y-position they had
before.
Okay, but this bug only seems to happen when you put a checkpoint inside
a conveyor (or a moving platform that hasn't started moving yet) and
start playtesting from it, so why doesn't this bug happen more often,
then? Well, it's probably because of luck and coincidence. Most of the
time, if you're colliding with a conveyor or horizontally moving
platform, you probably have a correct newyp from the previous frame of
the game, so there'd be no problems. And before #502 got merged, this
previous frame would be provided by the player having to fall to the
surface due to the y-offset of their savepoint. However, if you make it
so that you immediately teleport on to a conveyor (because you died),
then this bug will rear its ugly head.
2020-10-31 19:52:06 +01:00
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].newyp = obj.entities[i].yp;
|
2020-03-31 02:46:36 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.entitymapcollision(i);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-03 22:50:16 +02:00
|
|
|
for (int ie = obj.entities.size() - 1; ie >= 0; ie--)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-10-07 01:15:44 +02:00
|
|
|
if (obj.entities[ie].isplatform)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-10-07 01:15:44 +02:00
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-10-07 01:16:48 +02:00
|
|
|
bool entitygone = obj.updateentities(ie); // Behavioral logic
|
|
|
|
if (entitygone) continue;
|
|
|
|
obj.updateentitylogic(ie); // Basic Physics
|
|
|
|
obj.entitymapcollision(ie); // Collisions with walls
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-03-31 02:46:36 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.entitycollisioncheck(); // Check ent v ent collisions, update states
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (map.towermode)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
//special for tower: is the player touching any spike blocks?
|
|
|
|
int player = obj.getplayer();
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if(INBOUNDS_VEC(player, obj.entities) && obj.checktowerspikes(player) && graphics.fademode==0)
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.deathseq = 30;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if(map.towermode && game.lifeseq==0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
int player = obj.getplayer();
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if(!map.invincibility && INBOUNDS_VEC(player, obj.entities))
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (obj.entities[player].yp-map.ypos <= 0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.deathseq = 30;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (obj.entities[player].yp-map.ypos >= 208)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.deathseq = 30;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
else if (INBOUNDS_VEC(player, obj.entities))
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (obj.entities[player].yp-map.ypos <= 0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
map.ypos-=10;
|
2020-11-03 00:05:24 +01:00
|
|
|
graphics.towerbg.bypos = map.ypos / 2;
|
|
|
|
graphics.towerbg.bscroll = 0;
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (obj.entities[player].yp-map.ypos >= 208)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
map.ypos+=2;
|
2020-11-03 00:05:24 +01:00
|
|
|
graphics.towerbg.bypos = map.ypos / 2;
|
|
|
|
graphics.towerbg.bscroll = 0;
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(player, obj.entities) && obj.entities[player].yp - map.ypos <= 40)
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
map.spikeleveltop++;
|
|
|
|
if (map.spikeleveltop >= 8) map.spikeleveltop = 8;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (map.spikeleveltop > 0) map.spikeleveltop--;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(player, obj.entities) && obj.entities[player].yp - map.ypos >= 164)
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
map.spikelevelbottom++;
|
|
|
|
if (map.spikelevelbottom >= 8) map.spikelevelbottom = 8;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (map.spikelevelbottom > 0) map.spikelevelbottom--;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
//Using warplines?
|
2020-04-02 22:44:45 +02:00
|
|
|
if (obj.customwarpmode) {
|
Restore pre-2.1 warp bypass glitch in glitchrunner mode
So, I was staring at VVVVVV code one day, as I usually do, and I noticed
that warp lines had this curious code in entityclass::updateentities()
that set their statedelay to 2, and I thought, hm, maybe the pre-2.1
warp line bypass is caused by this statedelay. And, it doesn't seem like
this is the primary code used to detect if the player collides with warp
lines, the actual code is commented with "Rewritten system for mobile
update" and bolted-on in gamelogic() instead of properly being in
entityclass::entitycollisioncheck().
So, after getting tripped up on the misleading indentation of that
"Rewritten system" block, I removed the rewritten system, re-added
collision detection for rule 7 (horizontal warp lines), and after
checking the resulting behavior, it appears to be nearly identical to
that of warp lines in 2.0.
You see, if you use warp lines to flip up from the top of the screen
onto the bottom of the screen, close to the edge of the bottom of the
screen, Viridian's head will display on the top of the screen in 2.0. In
2.1 and later, this doesn't happen, confirming that my theory is
correct. I also performed warp line bypass multiple times in 2.0 and
with my restored code, and it is pretty much the exact same behavior.
So now, the pre-2.1 warp line bypass glitch has been re-enabled in
glitchrunner mode.
2020-09-10 01:10:16 +02:00
|
|
|
if (!game.glitchrunnermode) {
|
|
|
|
//Rewritten system for mobile update: basically, the new logic is to
|
|
|
|
//check if the player is leaving the map, and if so do a special check against
|
|
|
|
//warp lines for collision
|
|
|
|
obj.customwarpmodehon = false;
|
|
|
|
obj.customwarpmodevon = false;
|
2020-04-02 22:44:45 +02:00
|
|
|
|
Restore pre-2.1 warp bypass glitch in glitchrunner mode
So, I was staring at VVVVVV code one day, as I usually do, and I noticed
that warp lines had this curious code in entityclass::updateentities()
that set their statedelay to 2, and I thought, hm, maybe the pre-2.1
warp line bypass is caused by this statedelay. And, it doesn't seem like
this is the primary code used to detect if the player collides with warp
lines, the actual code is commented with "Rewritten system for mobile
update" and bolted-on in gamelogic() instead of properly being in
entityclass::entitycollisioncheck().
So, after getting tripped up on the misleading indentation of that
"Rewritten system" block, I removed the rewritten system, re-added
collision detection for rule 7 (horizontal warp lines), and after
checking the resulting behavior, it appears to be nearly identical to
that of warp lines in 2.0.
You see, if you use warp lines to flip up from the top of the screen
onto the bottom of the screen, close to the edge of the bottom of the
screen, Viridian's head will display on the top of the screen in 2.0. In
2.1 and later, this doesn't happen, confirming that my theory is
correct. I also performed warp line bypass multiple times in 2.0 and
with my restored code, and it is pretty much the exact same behavior.
So now, the pre-2.1 warp line bypass glitch has been re-enabled in
glitchrunner mode.
2020-09-10 01:10:16 +02:00
|
|
|
int i = obj.getplayer();
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) && ((game.door_down > -2 && obj.entities[i].yp >= 226-16) || (game.door_up > -2 && obj.entities[i].yp < -2+16) || (game.door_left > -2 && obj.entities[i].xp < -14+16) || (game.door_right > -2 && obj.entities[i].xp >= 308-16))){
|
Restore pre-2.1 warp bypass glitch in glitchrunner mode
So, I was staring at VVVVVV code one day, as I usually do, and I noticed
that warp lines had this curious code in entityclass::updateentities()
that set their statedelay to 2, and I thought, hm, maybe the pre-2.1
warp line bypass is caused by this statedelay. And, it doesn't seem like
this is the primary code used to detect if the player collides with warp
lines, the actual code is commented with "Rewritten system for mobile
update" and bolted-on in gamelogic() instead of properly being in
entityclass::entitycollisioncheck().
So, after getting tripped up on the misleading indentation of that
"Rewritten system" block, I removed the rewritten system, re-added
collision detection for rule 7 (horizontal warp lines), and after
checking the resulting behavior, it appears to be nearly identical to
that of warp lines in 2.0.
You see, if you use warp lines to flip up from the top of the screen
onto the bottom of the screen, close to the edge of the bottom of the
screen, Viridian's head will display on the top of the screen in 2.0. In
2.1 and later, this doesn't happen, confirming that my theory is
correct. I also performed warp line bypass multiple times in 2.0 and
with my restored code, and it is pretty much the exact same behavior.
So now, the pre-2.1 warp line bypass glitch has been re-enabled in
glitchrunner mode.
2020-09-10 01:10:16 +02:00
|
|
|
//Player is leaving room
|
|
|
|
obj.customwarplinecheck(i);
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-09-10 00:45:03 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-02 22:44:45 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2020-09-10 00:45:03 +02:00
|
|
|
if(obj.customwarpmodehon){ map.warpy=true;
|
|
|
|
}else{ map.warpy=false; }
|
|
|
|
if(obj.customwarpmodevon){ map.warpx=true;
|
|
|
|
}else{ map.warpx=false; }
|
2020-04-02 22:44:45 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
//Finally: Are we changing room?
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
if (map.warpx && !map.towermode)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-03 22:50:16 +02:00
|
|
|
for (size_t i = 0; i < obj.entities.size(); i++)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-04 21:16:16 +02:00
|
|
|
if(obj.entities[i].type<50 //Don't warp warp lines
|
|
|
|
&& obj.entities[i].size < 12) //Don't wrap SWN enemies
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (game.roomx == 118 && game.roomy == 102 && obj.entities[i].rule==1 && !map.custommode)
|
2020-04-04 21:13:24 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-04 21:16:16 +02:00
|
|
|
//ascii snakes
|
|
|
|
if (obj.entities[i].xp <= -80)
|
2020-04-04 21:13:24 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
Restore platform evaluation order to 2.2
This commit restores the evaluation order of moving platforms and conveyors to
be what it was in 2.2. The evaluation order changed in 2.3 after the patchset
to improve the handling of the `obj.entities` and `obj.blocks` vectors (#191).
By evaluation order, I'm talking about the order in which platforms and
conveyors will be evaluated (and thus will take priority) if Viridian stands
on both a conveyor or platform at once, and they either have different speeds
or are pointing in different directions. Nowhere in the main game is there a
place where you can stand on two different conveyors/platforms at once, so
this is solely within the territory of custom levels, which is my specialty.
So what caused this evaluation order to change? Well, every moving platform
and conveyor in the game is actually made up of two objects: an entity, and a
block. The entity is the part that moves around, and the block is the part
that actually has the collision.
But if the entity is the part that moves around, and entities and blocks are
in entirely separate vectors, how is the block part going to move along with
it? Well, maybe you'd guess some sort of unique ID system, but spend some time
digging around the code and you won't find any trace of any (there's no
attribute on an entity to store such an ID, for starters).
Instead, what the game does is actually remove all blocks that coincide with
the exact top-left corner of the entity, and then create a new one. Destroying
and creating blocks like this all the time is hugely wasteful, but hey, it
worked.
So why did the evaluation order change in 2.3? Well, to understand that,
you'll need to understand 2.2's `active` system. Instead of having an object
be real simply by virtue of it existing, 2.2 had this system where the object
was only real if it had its `active` attribute set to true. In other words,
you would be looking at a fake object that didn't actually exist if its
`active` attribute was false.
On the surface, this doesn't seem that bad. But this can lead to "holes" in a
given vector of objects. A hole is simply an inactive object neighbored by
active objects (or the inactive object could be the first one in the vector,
but then have an active object immediately following it).
If you have a vector of 3 objects, all of them active, then removing the
second one will result in the vector containing an active object, followed by
an inactive object, followed by an active one. However, since the switch to
more properly use vectors instead of relying on this `active` system, there's
no longer any way for holes to exist in a vector. Properly removing an object
from a vector will just shift the rest of the objects down, so if we remove
the second object after the vector fix, then this will simply move the third
object into the slot of where the second object used to be.
So, what happens if you destroy a block and then create a new one in the
`active` system? Let's say that your `obj.blocks` looks like this, and here
I'm denoting each block by writing out its coordinates:
[30,60] [70,90] [80,100]
and that you want to update the position of the second one, because the entity
that that blocks belongs to has been updated. Okay, so, you delete that block,
which then makes things look like this:
[30,60] [-] [80,100]
and then afterwards, you create a new block with the updated position,
resulting in this:
[30,60] [74,90] [80,100]
Since `entityclass::createblock()` will find the first block slot that has a
false `active` attribute, it puts the new object in the same slot as the old
one. What has been essentially done here is that the slot of the block has
basically been reserved for the new block with the new position. Here, the
evaluation order of each block will stay the same.
But then 2.3 comes along and changes things up. So we start with an
`obj.blocks` like this again:
[30,60] [70,90] [80,100]
and we want to update the second block, like before. So we remove the second
block, resulting in this:
[30,60] [80,100]
It should be obvious that unlike before, where the third block stayed in the
third slot, the third block has now been moved to the second slot. But
continuing on; we are now going to create the new block with its updated
position, resulting in this:
[30,60] [80,100] [70,90]
At this point, we can see that the evaluation order of these blocks has been
changed due to the fact that the third block has now been moved to the slot
that was previously the slot of the second block.
So what can we do about this? Well, we can basically emulate what VVVVVV did
in 2.2, which is disable a block without actually removing it - except I'm not
going to reintroduce an `active` attribute or anything. I'll disable the
collision of all blocks at a certain position by setting their widths and
heights to 0, and then re-enable them later by finding the first block at that
same position, updating its position, and re-assigning its width and height
again.
The former is what `entityclass::nocollisionat()` does; the latter is what
`entityclass::moveblockto()` does. The former mimicks turning off the `active`
attribute of all blocks sharing a certain top-left corner; the latter mimicks
creating a new block - and it will only do this for one block, because
`entityclass::createblock()` in 2.2 only looked for the first block with a
false `active` attribute.
Now, some quirks relied on the previous behavior of destroying and creating
blocks, but all of these quirks have been preserved with the way I implemented
this fix.
The first quirk is that platforms passing through 0,0 will destroy all spike
hitboxes, script boxes, activity zones, and one-way hitboxes in the room. The
hitboxes of moving platforms, disappearing platforms, 1x1 quicksand, and
conveyors will not be affected.
This is a consequence of the fact that the former group uses the `x` and `y`
of their `rect`, while the latter group uses the `xp` and `yp` attributes. So
the `xp` and `yp` of the former are both 0. Meaning, a platform passing
through 0,0 destroys them all.
Having these separate coordinates seems like an artifact from the Flash days.
(And furthermore, there's an unused `x` and `y` attribute on all blocks,
making for technically three separate sets of coordinates! This should
probably be cleaned up, except for what I'm about to say...) But actually, if
you merge both sets of coordinates into one, this lets moving platforms
destroy script boxes and activity zones if it passes through the top-left
corner of them, which is probably far worse than the destruction being
localized to a specific coordinate that would never likely be reached
normally.
This quirk is preserved just fine without any special-casing, because instead
of destroying all blocks at 0,0, they just get disabled, which does the same
job. This quirk seems trivial to fix if I made it so that the position of a
platform's block was updated instantaneously instead of having one step to
disable it and another step to re-enable it, but I aim to preserve as much
quirks as possible.
The second quirk is that a moving platform passing through the top-left corner
of a disappearing platform or 1x1 quicksand will destroy the block of that
disappearing platform. This is because, again, when a moving platform updates,
it destroys all blocks at its previous position, not just only one block. This
is automatically preserved because this commit just disables the block of the
disappearing platform instead of removing it. Just like the last one, this
quirk seems extremely trivial to fix, and this time by simply making it so
`entityclass::nocollisionat()` would have a `break` statement, i.e. only
disabling the first block it finds instead of all blocks it finds, but I want
to keep all quirks that are possible to keep.
The last quirk is that, apparently, in order to prevent pushing the player
vertically out of a moving platform if they get inside of one, the game
destroys the block of the moving platform. If I had missed this edge case,
then the block would've been destroyed, leaving the moving platform with no
collision. But I caught it in my testing, so the block gets disabled instead
of destroyed. Also, it seems obtuse for those who don't understand why a
platform's block gets destroyed or disabled whenever the player collides with
it in `entityclass::collisioncheck()`, so I've put up a comment documenting it
as well.
The different platform evaluation order desyncs my Nova TAS, but after
applying this patchset and #504, my TAS syncs fine (save for the different
walkingframe from starting immediately on the ground instead of in the air
(#502), but that's minor and can be easily fixed).
I've attached a test level to the pull request for this commit (#503) to
demonstrate that this patchset not only fixes platform evaluation order, but
preserves some bugs and quirks with the existing block system.
The first room demonstrates the fixed platform evaluation order, by stepping
on the conveyors that both point into each other. In 2.2, Viridian will move
to the right of the background pillar, but in 2.3, Viridian will move to the
left of the pillar. However, after applying this patch, Viridian will now move
to the right of the pillar once again.
The second room demonstrates that the platform-passing-through-0,0 trick still
works (as explained above).
The last room demonstrates that platforms passing through the top-left corners
of disappearing platforms or 1x1 quicksand will remove the blocks of those
entities, causing Viridian to immediately pass through them. This trick is
still preserved after my patchset is applied.
2020-10-10 02:09:11 +02:00
|
|
|
if (obj.entities[i].isplatform)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.moveblockto(obj.entities[i].xp, obj.entities[i].yp, obj.entities[i].xp + 400, obj.entities[i].yp, obj.entities[i].w, obj.entities[i].h);
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-04 21:16:16 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].xp += 400;
|
Restore previous oldxp/oldyp variables in favor of lerpoldxp/lerpoldyp
I was investigating a desync in my Nova TAS, and it turns out that
the gravity line collision functions check for the `oldxp` and `oldyp`
of the player, i.e. their position on the previous frame, along with
their position on the current frame. So, if the player either collided
with the gravity line last frame or this frame, then the player collided
with the gravity line this frame.
Except, that's not actually true. It turns out that `oldxp` and `oldyp`
don't necessarily always correspond to the `xp` and `yp` of the player
on the previous frame. It turns out that your `oldyp` will be updated if
you stand on a vertically moving platform, before the gravity line
collision function gets ran. So, if you were colliding with a gravity
line on the previous frame, but you got moved out of there by a
vertically moving platform, then you just don't collide with the gravity
line at all.
However, this behavior changed in 2.3 after my over-30-FPS patch got
merged (#220). That patch took advantage of the existing `oldxp` and
`oldyp` entity attributes, and uses them to interpolate their positions
during rendering to make everything look real smooth.
Previously, `oldxp` and `oldyp` would both be updated in
`entityclass::updateentitylogic()`. However, I moved it in that patch to
update right before `gameinput()` in `main.cpp`.
As a result, `oldyp` no longer gets updated whenever the player stands
on a vertically moving platform. This ends up desyncing my TAS.
As expected, updating `oldyp` in `entityclass::movingplatformfix()` (the
function responsible for moving the player whenever they stand on a
vertically moving platform) makes it so that my TAS syncs, but the
visuals are glitchy when standing on a vertically moving platform. And
as much as I'd like to get rid of gravity lines checking for whether
you've collided with them on the previous frame, doing that desyncs my
TAS, too.
In the end, it seems like I should just leave `oldxp` and `oldyp` alone,
and switch to using dedicated variables that are never used in the
physics of the game. So I'm introducing `lerpoldxp` and `lerpoldyp`, and
replacing all instances of using `oldxp` and `oldyp` that my over-30-FPS
patch added, with `lerpoldxp` and `lerpoldyp` instead.
After doing this, and applying #503 as well, my Nova TAS syncs after
some minor but acceptable fixes with Viridian's walkingframe.
2020-10-10 05:58:58 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].lerpoldxp += 400;
|
2020-04-04 21:13:24 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-04 21:19:18 +02:00
|
|
|
else if (obj.entities[i].xp > 320)
|
2020-04-04 21:13:24 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
Restore platform evaluation order to 2.2
This commit restores the evaluation order of moving platforms and conveyors to
be what it was in 2.2. The evaluation order changed in 2.3 after the patchset
to improve the handling of the `obj.entities` and `obj.blocks` vectors (#191).
By evaluation order, I'm talking about the order in which platforms and
conveyors will be evaluated (and thus will take priority) if Viridian stands
on both a conveyor or platform at once, and they either have different speeds
or are pointing in different directions. Nowhere in the main game is there a
place where you can stand on two different conveyors/platforms at once, so
this is solely within the territory of custom levels, which is my specialty.
So what caused this evaluation order to change? Well, every moving platform
and conveyor in the game is actually made up of two objects: an entity, and a
block. The entity is the part that moves around, and the block is the part
that actually has the collision.
But if the entity is the part that moves around, and entities and blocks are
in entirely separate vectors, how is the block part going to move along with
it? Well, maybe you'd guess some sort of unique ID system, but spend some time
digging around the code and you won't find any trace of any (there's no
attribute on an entity to store such an ID, for starters).
Instead, what the game does is actually remove all blocks that coincide with
the exact top-left corner of the entity, and then create a new one. Destroying
and creating blocks like this all the time is hugely wasteful, but hey, it
worked.
So why did the evaluation order change in 2.3? Well, to understand that,
you'll need to understand 2.2's `active` system. Instead of having an object
be real simply by virtue of it existing, 2.2 had this system where the object
was only real if it had its `active` attribute set to true. In other words,
you would be looking at a fake object that didn't actually exist if its
`active` attribute was false.
On the surface, this doesn't seem that bad. But this can lead to "holes" in a
given vector of objects. A hole is simply an inactive object neighbored by
active objects (or the inactive object could be the first one in the vector,
but then have an active object immediately following it).
If you have a vector of 3 objects, all of them active, then removing the
second one will result in the vector containing an active object, followed by
an inactive object, followed by an active one. However, since the switch to
more properly use vectors instead of relying on this `active` system, there's
no longer any way for holes to exist in a vector. Properly removing an object
from a vector will just shift the rest of the objects down, so if we remove
the second object after the vector fix, then this will simply move the third
object into the slot of where the second object used to be.
So, what happens if you destroy a block and then create a new one in the
`active` system? Let's say that your `obj.blocks` looks like this, and here
I'm denoting each block by writing out its coordinates:
[30,60] [70,90] [80,100]
and that you want to update the position of the second one, because the entity
that that blocks belongs to has been updated. Okay, so, you delete that block,
which then makes things look like this:
[30,60] [-] [80,100]
and then afterwards, you create a new block with the updated position,
resulting in this:
[30,60] [74,90] [80,100]
Since `entityclass::createblock()` will find the first block slot that has a
false `active` attribute, it puts the new object in the same slot as the old
one. What has been essentially done here is that the slot of the block has
basically been reserved for the new block with the new position. Here, the
evaluation order of each block will stay the same.
But then 2.3 comes along and changes things up. So we start with an
`obj.blocks` like this again:
[30,60] [70,90] [80,100]
and we want to update the second block, like before. So we remove the second
block, resulting in this:
[30,60] [80,100]
It should be obvious that unlike before, where the third block stayed in the
third slot, the third block has now been moved to the second slot. But
continuing on; we are now going to create the new block with its updated
position, resulting in this:
[30,60] [80,100] [70,90]
At this point, we can see that the evaluation order of these blocks has been
changed due to the fact that the third block has now been moved to the slot
that was previously the slot of the second block.
So what can we do about this? Well, we can basically emulate what VVVVVV did
in 2.2, which is disable a block without actually removing it - except I'm not
going to reintroduce an `active` attribute or anything. I'll disable the
collision of all blocks at a certain position by setting their widths and
heights to 0, and then re-enable them later by finding the first block at that
same position, updating its position, and re-assigning its width and height
again.
The former is what `entityclass::nocollisionat()` does; the latter is what
`entityclass::moveblockto()` does. The former mimicks turning off the `active`
attribute of all blocks sharing a certain top-left corner; the latter mimicks
creating a new block - and it will only do this for one block, because
`entityclass::createblock()` in 2.2 only looked for the first block with a
false `active` attribute.
Now, some quirks relied on the previous behavior of destroying and creating
blocks, but all of these quirks have been preserved with the way I implemented
this fix.
The first quirk is that platforms passing through 0,0 will destroy all spike
hitboxes, script boxes, activity zones, and one-way hitboxes in the room. The
hitboxes of moving platforms, disappearing platforms, 1x1 quicksand, and
conveyors will not be affected.
This is a consequence of the fact that the former group uses the `x` and `y`
of their `rect`, while the latter group uses the `xp` and `yp` attributes. So
the `xp` and `yp` of the former are both 0. Meaning, a platform passing
through 0,0 destroys them all.
Having these separate coordinates seems like an artifact from the Flash days.
(And furthermore, there's an unused `x` and `y` attribute on all blocks,
making for technically three separate sets of coordinates! This should
probably be cleaned up, except for what I'm about to say...) But actually, if
you merge both sets of coordinates into one, this lets moving platforms
destroy script boxes and activity zones if it passes through the top-left
corner of them, which is probably far worse than the destruction being
localized to a specific coordinate that would never likely be reached
normally.
This quirk is preserved just fine without any special-casing, because instead
of destroying all blocks at 0,0, they just get disabled, which does the same
job. This quirk seems trivial to fix if I made it so that the position of a
platform's block was updated instantaneously instead of having one step to
disable it and another step to re-enable it, but I aim to preserve as much
quirks as possible.
The second quirk is that a moving platform passing through the top-left corner
of a disappearing platform or 1x1 quicksand will destroy the block of that
disappearing platform. This is because, again, when a moving platform updates,
it destroys all blocks at its previous position, not just only one block. This
is automatically preserved because this commit just disables the block of the
disappearing platform instead of removing it. Just like the last one, this
quirk seems extremely trivial to fix, and this time by simply making it so
`entityclass::nocollisionat()` would have a `break` statement, i.e. only
disabling the first block it finds instead of all blocks it finds, but I want
to keep all quirks that are possible to keep.
The last quirk is that, apparently, in order to prevent pushing the player
vertically out of a moving platform if they get inside of one, the game
destroys the block of the moving platform. If I had missed this edge case,
then the block would've been destroyed, leaving the moving platform with no
collision. But I caught it in my testing, so the block gets disabled instead
of destroyed. Also, it seems obtuse for those who don't understand why a
platform's block gets destroyed or disabled whenever the player collides with
it in `entityclass::collisioncheck()`, so I've put up a comment documenting it
as well.
The different platform evaluation order desyncs my Nova TAS, but after
applying this patchset and #504, my TAS syncs fine (save for the different
walkingframe from starting immediately on the ground instead of in the air
(#502), but that's minor and can be easily fixed).
I've attached a test level to the pull request for this commit (#503) to
demonstrate that this patchset not only fixes platform evaluation order, but
preserves some bugs and quirks with the existing block system.
The first room demonstrates the fixed platform evaluation order, by stepping
on the conveyors that both point into each other. In 2.2, Viridian will move
to the right of the background pillar, but in 2.3, Viridian will move to the
left of the pillar. However, after applying this patch, Viridian will now move
to the right of the pillar once again.
The second room demonstrates that the platform-passing-through-0,0 trick still
works (as explained above).
The last room demonstrates that platforms passing through the top-left corners
of disappearing platforms or 1x1 quicksand will remove the blocks of those
entities, causing Viridian to immediately pass through them. This trick is
still preserved after my patchset is applied.
2020-10-10 02:09:11 +02:00
|
|
|
if (obj.entities[i].isplatform)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.moveblockto(obj.entities[i].xp, obj.entities[i].yp, obj.entities[i].xp - 400, obj.entities[i].yp, obj.entities[i].w, obj.entities[i].h);
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-04 21:19:18 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].xp -= 400;
|
Restore previous oldxp/oldyp variables in favor of lerpoldxp/lerpoldyp
I was investigating a desync in my Nova TAS, and it turns out that
the gravity line collision functions check for the `oldxp` and `oldyp`
of the player, i.e. their position on the previous frame, along with
their position on the current frame. So, if the player either collided
with the gravity line last frame or this frame, then the player collided
with the gravity line this frame.
Except, that's not actually true. It turns out that `oldxp` and `oldyp`
don't necessarily always correspond to the `xp` and `yp` of the player
on the previous frame. It turns out that your `oldyp` will be updated if
you stand on a vertically moving platform, before the gravity line
collision function gets ran. So, if you were colliding with a gravity
line on the previous frame, but you got moved out of there by a
vertically moving platform, then you just don't collide with the gravity
line at all.
However, this behavior changed in 2.3 after my over-30-FPS patch got
merged (#220). That patch took advantage of the existing `oldxp` and
`oldyp` entity attributes, and uses them to interpolate their positions
during rendering to make everything look real smooth.
Previously, `oldxp` and `oldyp` would both be updated in
`entityclass::updateentitylogic()`. However, I moved it in that patch to
update right before `gameinput()` in `main.cpp`.
As a result, `oldyp` no longer gets updated whenever the player stands
on a vertically moving platform. This ends up desyncing my TAS.
As expected, updating `oldyp` in `entityclass::movingplatformfix()` (the
function responsible for moving the player whenever they stand on a
vertically moving platform) makes it so that my TAS syncs, but the
visuals are glitchy when standing on a vertically moving platform. And
as much as I'd like to get rid of gravity lines checking for whether
you've collided with them on the previous frame, doing that desyncs my
TAS, too.
In the end, it seems like I should just leave `oldxp` and `oldyp` alone,
and switch to using dedicated variables that are never used in the
physics of the game. So I'm introducing `lerpoldxp` and `lerpoldyp`, and
replacing all instances of using `oldxp` and `oldyp` that my over-30-FPS
patch added, with `lerpoldxp` and `lerpoldyp` instead.
After doing this, and applying #503 as well, my Nova TAS syncs after
some minor but acceptable fixes with Viridian's walkingframe.
2020-10-10 05:58:58 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].lerpoldxp -= 400;
|
2020-04-04 21:16:16 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (obj.entities[i].xp <= -10)
|
|
|
|
{
|
Restore platform evaluation order to 2.2
This commit restores the evaluation order of moving platforms and conveyors to
be what it was in 2.2. The evaluation order changed in 2.3 after the patchset
to improve the handling of the `obj.entities` and `obj.blocks` vectors (#191).
By evaluation order, I'm talking about the order in which platforms and
conveyors will be evaluated (and thus will take priority) if Viridian stands
on both a conveyor or platform at once, and they either have different speeds
or are pointing in different directions. Nowhere in the main game is there a
place where you can stand on two different conveyors/platforms at once, so
this is solely within the territory of custom levels, which is my specialty.
So what caused this evaluation order to change? Well, every moving platform
and conveyor in the game is actually made up of two objects: an entity, and a
block. The entity is the part that moves around, and the block is the part
that actually has the collision.
But if the entity is the part that moves around, and entities and blocks are
in entirely separate vectors, how is the block part going to move along with
it? Well, maybe you'd guess some sort of unique ID system, but spend some time
digging around the code and you won't find any trace of any (there's no
attribute on an entity to store such an ID, for starters).
Instead, what the game does is actually remove all blocks that coincide with
the exact top-left corner of the entity, and then create a new one. Destroying
and creating blocks like this all the time is hugely wasteful, but hey, it
worked.
So why did the evaluation order change in 2.3? Well, to understand that,
you'll need to understand 2.2's `active` system. Instead of having an object
be real simply by virtue of it existing, 2.2 had this system where the object
was only real if it had its `active` attribute set to true. In other words,
you would be looking at a fake object that didn't actually exist if its
`active` attribute was false.
On the surface, this doesn't seem that bad. But this can lead to "holes" in a
given vector of objects. A hole is simply an inactive object neighbored by
active objects (or the inactive object could be the first one in the vector,
but then have an active object immediately following it).
If you have a vector of 3 objects, all of them active, then removing the
second one will result in the vector containing an active object, followed by
an inactive object, followed by an active one. However, since the switch to
more properly use vectors instead of relying on this `active` system, there's
no longer any way for holes to exist in a vector. Properly removing an object
from a vector will just shift the rest of the objects down, so if we remove
the second object after the vector fix, then this will simply move the third
object into the slot of where the second object used to be.
So, what happens if you destroy a block and then create a new one in the
`active` system? Let's say that your `obj.blocks` looks like this, and here
I'm denoting each block by writing out its coordinates:
[30,60] [70,90] [80,100]
and that you want to update the position of the second one, because the entity
that that blocks belongs to has been updated. Okay, so, you delete that block,
which then makes things look like this:
[30,60] [-] [80,100]
and then afterwards, you create a new block with the updated position,
resulting in this:
[30,60] [74,90] [80,100]
Since `entityclass::createblock()` will find the first block slot that has a
false `active` attribute, it puts the new object in the same slot as the old
one. What has been essentially done here is that the slot of the block has
basically been reserved for the new block with the new position. Here, the
evaluation order of each block will stay the same.
But then 2.3 comes along and changes things up. So we start with an
`obj.blocks` like this again:
[30,60] [70,90] [80,100]
and we want to update the second block, like before. So we remove the second
block, resulting in this:
[30,60] [80,100]
It should be obvious that unlike before, where the third block stayed in the
third slot, the third block has now been moved to the second slot. But
continuing on; we are now going to create the new block with its updated
position, resulting in this:
[30,60] [80,100] [70,90]
At this point, we can see that the evaluation order of these blocks has been
changed due to the fact that the third block has now been moved to the slot
that was previously the slot of the second block.
So what can we do about this? Well, we can basically emulate what VVVVVV did
in 2.2, which is disable a block without actually removing it - except I'm not
going to reintroduce an `active` attribute or anything. I'll disable the
collision of all blocks at a certain position by setting their widths and
heights to 0, and then re-enable them later by finding the first block at that
same position, updating its position, and re-assigning its width and height
again.
The former is what `entityclass::nocollisionat()` does; the latter is what
`entityclass::moveblockto()` does. The former mimicks turning off the `active`
attribute of all blocks sharing a certain top-left corner; the latter mimicks
creating a new block - and it will only do this for one block, because
`entityclass::createblock()` in 2.2 only looked for the first block with a
false `active` attribute.
Now, some quirks relied on the previous behavior of destroying and creating
blocks, but all of these quirks have been preserved with the way I implemented
this fix.
The first quirk is that platforms passing through 0,0 will destroy all spike
hitboxes, script boxes, activity zones, and one-way hitboxes in the room. The
hitboxes of moving platforms, disappearing platforms, 1x1 quicksand, and
conveyors will not be affected.
This is a consequence of the fact that the former group uses the `x` and `y`
of their `rect`, while the latter group uses the `xp` and `yp` attributes. So
the `xp` and `yp` of the former are both 0. Meaning, a platform passing
through 0,0 destroys them all.
Having these separate coordinates seems like an artifact from the Flash days.
(And furthermore, there's an unused `x` and `y` attribute on all blocks,
making for technically three separate sets of coordinates! This should
probably be cleaned up, except for what I'm about to say...) But actually, if
you merge both sets of coordinates into one, this lets moving platforms
destroy script boxes and activity zones if it passes through the top-left
corner of them, which is probably far worse than the destruction being
localized to a specific coordinate that would never likely be reached
normally.
This quirk is preserved just fine without any special-casing, because instead
of destroying all blocks at 0,0, they just get disabled, which does the same
job. This quirk seems trivial to fix if I made it so that the position of a
platform's block was updated instantaneously instead of having one step to
disable it and another step to re-enable it, but I aim to preserve as much
quirks as possible.
The second quirk is that a moving platform passing through the top-left corner
of a disappearing platform or 1x1 quicksand will destroy the block of that
disappearing platform. This is because, again, when a moving platform updates,
it destroys all blocks at its previous position, not just only one block. This
is automatically preserved because this commit just disables the block of the
disappearing platform instead of removing it. Just like the last one, this
quirk seems extremely trivial to fix, and this time by simply making it so
`entityclass::nocollisionat()` would have a `break` statement, i.e. only
disabling the first block it finds instead of all blocks it finds, but I want
to keep all quirks that are possible to keep.
The last quirk is that, apparently, in order to prevent pushing the player
vertically out of a moving platform if they get inside of one, the game
destroys the block of the moving platform. If I had missed this edge case,
then the block would've been destroyed, leaving the moving platform with no
collision. But I caught it in my testing, so the block gets disabled instead
of destroyed. Also, it seems obtuse for those who don't understand why a
platform's block gets destroyed or disabled whenever the player collides with
it in `entityclass::collisioncheck()`, so I've put up a comment documenting it
as well.
The different platform evaluation order desyncs my Nova TAS, but after
applying this patchset and #504, my TAS syncs fine (save for the different
walkingframe from starting immediately on the ground instead of in the air
(#502), but that's minor and can be easily fixed).
I've attached a test level to the pull request for this commit (#503) to
demonstrate that this patchset not only fixes platform evaluation order, but
preserves some bugs and quirks with the existing block system.
The first room demonstrates the fixed platform evaluation order, by stepping
on the conveyors that both point into each other. In 2.2, Viridian will move
to the right of the background pillar, but in 2.3, Viridian will move to the
left of the pillar. However, after applying this patch, Viridian will now move
to the right of the pillar once again.
The second room demonstrates that the platform-passing-through-0,0 trick still
works (as explained above).
The last room demonstrates that platforms passing through the top-left corners
of disappearing platforms or 1x1 quicksand will remove the blocks of those
entities, causing Viridian to immediately pass through them. This trick is
still preserved after my patchset is applied.
2020-10-10 02:09:11 +02:00
|
|
|
if (obj.entities[i].isplatform)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.moveblockto(obj.entities[i].xp, obj.entities[i].yp, obj.entities[i].xp + 320, obj.entities[i].yp, obj.entities[i].w, obj.entities[i].h);
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-04 21:16:16 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].xp += 320;
|
Restore previous oldxp/oldyp variables in favor of lerpoldxp/lerpoldyp
I was investigating a desync in my Nova TAS, and it turns out that
the gravity line collision functions check for the `oldxp` and `oldyp`
of the player, i.e. their position on the previous frame, along with
their position on the current frame. So, if the player either collided
with the gravity line last frame or this frame, then the player collided
with the gravity line this frame.
Except, that's not actually true. It turns out that `oldxp` and `oldyp`
don't necessarily always correspond to the `xp` and `yp` of the player
on the previous frame. It turns out that your `oldyp` will be updated if
you stand on a vertically moving platform, before the gravity line
collision function gets ran. So, if you were colliding with a gravity
line on the previous frame, but you got moved out of there by a
vertically moving platform, then you just don't collide with the gravity
line at all.
However, this behavior changed in 2.3 after my over-30-FPS patch got
merged (#220). That patch took advantage of the existing `oldxp` and
`oldyp` entity attributes, and uses them to interpolate their positions
during rendering to make everything look real smooth.
Previously, `oldxp` and `oldyp` would both be updated in
`entityclass::updateentitylogic()`. However, I moved it in that patch to
update right before `gameinput()` in `main.cpp`.
As a result, `oldyp` no longer gets updated whenever the player stands
on a vertically moving platform. This ends up desyncing my TAS.
As expected, updating `oldyp` in `entityclass::movingplatformfix()` (the
function responsible for moving the player whenever they stand on a
vertically moving platform) makes it so that my TAS syncs, but the
visuals are glitchy when standing on a vertically moving platform. And
as much as I'd like to get rid of gravity lines checking for whether
you've collided with them on the previous frame, doing that desyncs my
TAS, too.
In the end, it seems like I should just leave `oldxp` and `oldyp` alone,
and switch to using dedicated variables that are never used in the
physics of the game. So I'm introducing `lerpoldxp` and `lerpoldyp`, and
replacing all instances of using `oldxp` and `oldyp` that my over-30-FPS
patch added, with `lerpoldxp` and `lerpoldyp` instead.
After doing this, and applying #503 as well, my Nova TAS syncs after
some minor but acceptable fixes with Viridian's walkingframe.
2020-10-10 05:58:58 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].lerpoldxp += 320;
|
2020-04-04 21:16:16 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-04 21:19:18 +02:00
|
|
|
else if (obj.entities[i].xp > 310)
|
2020-04-04 21:16:16 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
Restore platform evaluation order to 2.2
This commit restores the evaluation order of moving platforms and conveyors to
be what it was in 2.2. The evaluation order changed in 2.3 after the patchset
to improve the handling of the `obj.entities` and `obj.blocks` vectors (#191).
By evaluation order, I'm talking about the order in which platforms and
conveyors will be evaluated (and thus will take priority) if Viridian stands
on both a conveyor or platform at once, and they either have different speeds
or are pointing in different directions. Nowhere in the main game is there a
place where you can stand on two different conveyors/platforms at once, so
this is solely within the territory of custom levels, which is my specialty.
So what caused this evaluation order to change? Well, every moving platform
and conveyor in the game is actually made up of two objects: an entity, and a
block. The entity is the part that moves around, and the block is the part
that actually has the collision.
But if the entity is the part that moves around, and entities and blocks are
in entirely separate vectors, how is the block part going to move along with
it? Well, maybe you'd guess some sort of unique ID system, but spend some time
digging around the code and you won't find any trace of any (there's no
attribute on an entity to store such an ID, for starters).
Instead, what the game does is actually remove all blocks that coincide with
the exact top-left corner of the entity, and then create a new one. Destroying
and creating blocks like this all the time is hugely wasteful, but hey, it
worked.
So why did the evaluation order change in 2.3? Well, to understand that,
you'll need to understand 2.2's `active` system. Instead of having an object
be real simply by virtue of it existing, 2.2 had this system where the object
was only real if it had its `active` attribute set to true. In other words,
you would be looking at a fake object that didn't actually exist if its
`active` attribute was false.
On the surface, this doesn't seem that bad. But this can lead to "holes" in a
given vector of objects. A hole is simply an inactive object neighbored by
active objects (or the inactive object could be the first one in the vector,
but then have an active object immediately following it).
If you have a vector of 3 objects, all of them active, then removing the
second one will result in the vector containing an active object, followed by
an inactive object, followed by an active one. However, since the switch to
more properly use vectors instead of relying on this `active` system, there's
no longer any way for holes to exist in a vector. Properly removing an object
from a vector will just shift the rest of the objects down, so if we remove
the second object after the vector fix, then this will simply move the third
object into the slot of where the second object used to be.
So, what happens if you destroy a block and then create a new one in the
`active` system? Let's say that your `obj.blocks` looks like this, and here
I'm denoting each block by writing out its coordinates:
[30,60] [70,90] [80,100]
and that you want to update the position of the second one, because the entity
that that blocks belongs to has been updated. Okay, so, you delete that block,
which then makes things look like this:
[30,60] [-] [80,100]
and then afterwards, you create a new block with the updated position,
resulting in this:
[30,60] [74,90] [80,100]
Since `entityclass::createblock()` will find the first block slot that has a
false `active` attribute, it puts the new object in the same slot as the old
one. What has been essentially done here is that the slot of the block has
basically been reserved for the new block with the new position. Here, the
evaluation order of each block will stay the same.
But then 2.3 comes along and changes things up. So we start with an
`obj.blocks` like this again:
[30,60] [70,90] [80,100]
and we want to update the second block, like before. So we remove the second
block, resulting in this:
[30,60] [80,100]
It should be obvious that unlike before, where the third block stayed in the
third slot, the third block has now been moved to the second slot. But
continuing on; we are now going to create the new block with its updated
position, resulting in this:
[30,60] [80,100] [70,90]
At this point, we can see that the evaluation order of these blocks has been
changed due to the fact that the third block has now been moved to the slot
that was previously the slot of the second block.
So what can we do about this? Well, we can basically emulate what VVVVVV did
in 2.2, which is disable a block without actually removing it - except I'm not
going to reintroduce an `active` attribute or anything. I'll disable the
collision of all blocks at a certain position by setting their widths and
heights to 0, and then re-enable them later by finding the first block at that
same position, updating its position, and re-assigning its width and height
again.
The former is what `entityclass::nocollisionat()` does; the latter is what
`entityclass::moveblockto()` does. The former mimicks turning off the `active`
attribute of all blocks sharing a certain top-left corner; the latter mimicks
creating a new block - and it will only do this for one block, because
`entityclass::createblock()` in 2.2 only looked for the first block with a
false `active` attribute.
Now, some quirks relied on the previous behavior of destroying and creating
blocks, but all of these quirks have been preserved with the way I implemented
this fix.
The first quirk is that platforms passing through 0,0 will destroy all spike
hitboxes, script boxes, activity zones, and one-way hitboxes in the room. The
hitboxes of moving platforms, disappearing platforms, 1x1 quicksand, and
conveyors will not be affected.
This is a consequence of the fact that the former group uses the `x` and `y`
of their `rect`, while the latter group uses the `xp` and `yp` attributes. So
the `xp` and `yp` of the former are both 0. Meaning, a platform passing
through 0,0 destroys them all.
Having these separate coordinates seems like an artifact from the Flash days.
(And furthermore, there's an unused `x` and `y` attribute on all blocks,
making for technically three separate sets of coordinates! This should
probably be cleaned up, except for what I'm about to say...) But actually, if
you merge both sets of coordinates into one, this lets moving platforms
destroy script boxes and activity zones if it passes through the top-left
corner of them, which is probably far worse than the destruction being
localized to a specific coordinate that would never likely be reached
normally.
This quirk is preserved just fine without any special-casing, because instead
of destroying all blocks at 0,0, they just get disabled, which does the same
job. This quirk seems trivial to fix if I made it so that the position of a
platform's block was updated instantaneously instead of having one step to
disable it and another step to re-enable it, but I aim to preserve as much
quirks as possible.
The second quirk is that a moving platform passing through the top-left corner
of a disappearing platform or 1x1 quicksand will destroy the block of that
disappearing platform. This is because, again, when a moving platform updates,
it destroys all blocks at its previous position, not just only one block. This
is automatically preserved because this commit just disables the block of the
disappearing platform instead of removing it. Just like the last one, this
quirk seems extremely trivial to fix, and this time by simply making it so
`entityclass::nocollisionat()` would have a `break` statement, i.e. only
disabling the first block it finds instead of all blocks it finds, but I want
to keep all quirks that are possible to keep.
The last quirk is that, apparently, in order to prevent pushing the player
vertically out of a moving platform if they get inside of one, the game
destroys the block of the moving platform. If I had missed this edge case,
then the block would've been destroyed, leaving the moving platform with no
collision. But I caught it in my testing, so the block gets disabled instead
of destroyed. Also, it seems obtuse for those who don't understand why a
platform's block gets destroyed or disabled whenever the player collides with
it in `entityclass::collisioncheck()`, so I've put up a comment documenting it
as well.
The different platform evaluation order desyncs my Nova TAS, but after
applying this patchset and #504, my TAS syncs fine (save for the different
walkingframe from starting immediately on the ground instead of in the air
(#502), but that's minor and can be easily fixed).
I've attached a test level to the pull request for this commit (#503) to
demonstrate that this patchset not only fixes platform evaluation order, but
preserves some bugs and quirks with the existing block system.
The first room demonstrates the fixed platform evaluation order, by stepping
on the conveyors that both point into each other. In 2.2, Viridian will move
to the right of the background pillar, but in 2.3, Viridian will move to the
left of the pillar. However, after applying this patch, Viridian will now move
to the right of the pillar once again.
The second room demonstrates that the platform-passing-through-0,0 trick still
works (as explained above).
The last room demonstrates that platforms passing through the top-left corners
of disappearing platforms or 1x1 quicksand will remove the blocks of those
entities, causing Viridian to immediately pass through them. This trick is
still preserved after my patchset is applied.
2020-10-10 02:09:11 +02:00
|
|
|
if (obj.entities[i].isplatform)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.moveblockto(obj.entities[i].xp, obj.entities[i].yp, obj.entities[i].xp - 320, obj.entities[i].yp, obj.entities[i].w, obj.entities[i].h);
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-04 21:19:18 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].xp -= 320;
|
Restore previous oldxp/oldyp variables in favor of lerpoldxp/lerpoldyp
I was investigating a desync in my Nova TAS, and it turns out that
the gravity line collision functions check for the `oldxp` and `oldyp`
of the player, i.e. their position on the previous frame, along with
their position on the current frame. So, if the player either collided
with the gravity line last frame or this frame, then the player collided
with the gravity line this frame.
Except, that's not actually true. It turns out that `oldxp` and `oldyp`
don't necessarily always correspond to the `xp` and `yp` of the player
on the previous frame. It turns out that your `oldyp` will be updated if
you stand on a vertically moving platform, before the gravity line
collision function gets ran. So, if you were colliding with a gravity
line on the previous frame, but you got moved out of there by a
vertically moving platform, then you just don't collide with the gravity
line at all.
However, this behavior changed in 2.3 after my over-30-FPS patch got
merged (#220). That patch took advantage of the existing `oldxp` and
`oldyp` entity attributes, and uses them to interpolate their positions
during rendering to make everything look real smooth.
Previously, `oldxp` and `oldyp` would both be updated in
`entityclass::updateentitylogic()`. However, I moved it in that patch to
update right before `gameinput()` in `main.cpp`.
As a result, `oldyp` no longer gets updated whenever the player stands
on a vertically moving platform. This ends up desyncing my TAS.
As expected, updating `oldyp` in `entityclass::movingplatformfix()` (the
function responsible for moving the player whenever they stand on a
vertically moving platform) makes it so that my TAS syncs, but the
visuals are glitchy when standing on a vertically moving platform. And
as much as I'd like to get rid of gravity lines checking for whether
you've collided with them on the previous frame, doing that desyncs my
TAS, too.
In the end, it seems like I should just leave `oldxp` and `oldyp` alone,
and switch to using dedicated variables that are never used in the
physics of the game. So I'm introducing `lerpoldxp` and `lerpoldyp`, and
replacing all instances of using `oldxp` and `oldyp` that my over-30-FPS
patch added, with `lerpoldxp` and `lerpoldyp` instead.
After doing this, and applying #503 as well, my Nova TAS syncs after
some minor but acceptable fixes with Viridian's walkingframe.
2020-10-10 05:58:58 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].lerpoldxp -= 320;
|
2020-04-04 21:13:24 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
De-dupe screen transition / warping logic
I noticed that the code for going to the adjacent room when offscreen
and for warping instead if the room is warping was a bit
copy-and-pasted. To clean up the code a bit, there's now 5 separate
checks in gamelogic():
if (map.warpx)
if (map.warpy)
if (map.warpy && !map.warpx)
if (!map.warpy)
if (!map.warpx)
I made sure to preserve the previous weird horizontal warping behavior
that happens with vertical warping (thus the middle one), and to
preserve the frame ordering just in case there's something dependent on
the frame ordering.
The frame ordering is that first it will warp you horizontally, if
applicable, then it will warp you vertically, if applicable. Then if you
have vertical warping only, that weird horizontal warp. Then it will
screen transition you vertically, if applicable. Then it will screen
transition you horizontally, if applicable.
To explain the weird horizontal warp with the vertical warp: apparently
if an entity is far offscreen enough, and if that entity is not the
player, it will be warped horizontally during a vertical warp. The
points at which it will warp is 30 pixels farther out than normal
horizontal warping.
I think someone ran into this before, but my memory is fuzzy. The best I
can recall is that they were probably createentity()ing a high-speed
horizontally-moving enemy in a vertically warping room, only to discover
that said enemy kept warping horizontally.
2020-04-04 21:39:17 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
if (map.warpy && !map.towermode)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-03 22:50:16 +02:00
|
|
|
for (size_t i = 0; i < obj.entities.size(); i++)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if(obj.entities[i].type<50){ //Don't warp warp lines
|
2020-04-04 21:13:24 +02:00
|
|
|
if (obj.entities[i].yp <= -12)
|
|
|
|
{
|
Restore platform evaluation order to 2.2
This commit restores the evaluation order of moving platforms and conveyors to
be what it was in 2.2. The evaluation order changed in 2.3 after the patchset
to improve the handling of the `obj.entities` and `obj.blocks` vectors (#191).
By evaluation order, I'm talking about the order in which platforms and
conveyors will be evaluated (and thus will take priority) if Viridian stands
on both a conveyor or platform at once, and they either have different speeds
or are pointing in different directions. Nowhere in the main game is there a
place where you can stand on two different conveyors/platforms at once, so
this is solely within the territory of custom levels, which is my specialty.
So what caused this evaluation order to change? Well, every moving platform
and conveyor in the game is actually made up of two objects: an entity, and a
block. The entity is the part that moves around, and the block is the part
that actually has the collision.
But if the entity is the part that moves around, and entities and blocks are
in entirely separate vectors, how is the block part going to move along with
it? Well, maybe you'd guess some sort of unique ID system, but spend some time
digging around the code and you won't find any trace of any (there's no
attribute on an entity to store such an ID, for starters).
Instead, what the game does is actually remove all blocks that coincide with
the exact top-left corner of the entity, and then create a new one. Destroying
and creating blocks like this all the time is hugely wasteful, but hey, it
worked.
So why did the evaluation order change in 2.3? Well, to understand that,
you'll need to understand 2.2's `active` system. Instead of having an object
be real simply by virtue of it existing, 2.2 had this system where the object
was only real if it had its `active` attribute set to true. In other words,
you would be looking at a fake object that didn't actually exist if its
`active` attribute was false.
On the surface, this doesn't seem that bad. But this can lead to "holes" in a
given vector of objects. A hole is simply an inactive object neighbored by
active objects (or the inactive object could be the first one in the vector,
but then have an active object immediately following it).
If you have a vector of 3 objects, all of them active, then removing the
second one will result in the vector containing an active object, followed by
an inactive object, followed by an active one. However, since the switch to
more properly use vectors instead of relying on this `active` system, there's
no longer any way for holes to exist in a vector. Properly removing an object
from a vector will just shift the rest of the objects down, so if we remove
the second object after the vector fix, then this will simply move the third
object into the slot of where the second object used to be.
So, what happens if you destroy a block and then create a new one in the
`active` system? Let's say that your `obj.blocks` looks like this, and here
I'm denoting each block by writing out its coordinates:
[30,60] [70,90] [80,100]
and that you want to update the position of the second one, because the entity
that that blocks belongs to has been updated. Okay, so, you delete that block,
which then makes things look like this:
[30,60] [-] [80,100]
and then afterwards, you create a new block with the updated position,
resulting in this:
[30,60] [74,90] [80,100]
Since `entityclass::createblock()` will find the first block slot that has a
false `active` attribute, it puts the new object in the same slot as the old
one. What has been essentially done here is that the slot of the block has
basically been reserved for the new block with the new position. Here, the
evaluation order of each block will stay the same.
But then 2.3 comes along and changes things up. So we start with an
`obj.blocks` like this again:
[30,60] [70,90] [80,100]
and we want to update the second block, like before. So we remove the second
block, resulting in this:
[30,60] [80,100]
It should be obvious that unlike before, where the third block stayed in the
third slot, the third block has now been moved to the second slot. But
continuing on; we are now going to create the new block with its updated
position, resulting in this:
[30,60] [80,100] [70,90]
At this point, we can see that the evaluation order of these blocks has been
changed due to the fact that the third block has now been moved to the slot
that was previously the slot of the second block.
So what can we do about this? Well, we can basically emulate what VVVVVV did
in 2.2, which is disable a block without actually removing it - except I'm not
going to reintroduce an `active` attribute or anything. I'll disable the
collision of all blocks at a certain position by setting their widths and
heights to 0, and then re-enable them later by finding the first block at that
same position, updating its position, and re-assigning its width and height
again.
The former is what `entityclass::nocollisionat()` does; the latter is what
`entityclass::moveblockto()` does. The former mimicks turning off the `active`
attribute of all blocks sharing a certain top-left corner; the latter mimicks
creating a new block - and it will only do this for one block, because
`entityclass::createblock()` in 2.2 only looked for the first block with a
false `active` attribute.
Now, some quirks relied on the previous behavior of destroying and creating
blocks, but all of these quirks have been preserved with the way I implemented
this fix.
The first quirk is that platforms passing through 0,0 will destroy all spike
hitboxes, script boxes, activity zones, and one-way hitboxes in the room. The
hitboxes of moving platforms, disappearing platforms, 1x1 quicksand, and
conveyors will not be affected.
This is a consequence of the fact that the former group uses the `x` and `y`
of their `rect`, while the latter group uses the `xp` and `yp` attributes. So
the `xp` and `yp` of the former are both 0. Meaning, a platform passing
through 0,0 destroys them all.
Having these separate coordinates seems like an artifact from the Flash days.
(And furthermore, there's an unused `x` and `y` attribute on all blocks,
making for technically three separate sets of coordinates! This should
probably be cleaned up, except for what I'm about to say...) But actually, if
you merge both sets of coordinates into one, this lets moving platforms
destroy script boxes and activity zones if it passes through the top-left
corner of them, which is probably far worse than the destruction being
localized to a specific coordinate that would never likely be reached
normally.
This quirk is preserved just fine without any special-casing, because instead
of destroying all blocks at 0,0, they just get disabled, which does the same
job. This quirk seems trivial to fix if I made it so that the position of a
platform's block was updated instantaneously instead of having one step to
disable it and another step to re-enable it, but I aim to preserve as much
quirks as possible.
The second quirk is that a moving platform passing through the top-left corner
of a disappearing platform or 1x1 quicksand will destroy the block of that
disappearing platform. This is because, again, when a moving platform updates,
it destroys all blocks at its previous position, not just only one block. This
is automatically preserved because this commit just disables the block of the
disappearing platform instead of removing it. Just like the last one, this
quirk seems extremely trivial to fix, and this time by simply making it so
`entityclass::nocollisionat()` would have a `break` statement, i.e. only
disabling the first block it finds instead of all blocks it finds, but I want
to keep all quirks that are possible to keep.
The last quirk is that, apparently, in order to prevent pushing the player
vertically out of a moving platform if they get inside of one, the game
destroys the block of the moving platform. If I had missed this edge case,
then the block would've been destroyed, leaving the moving platform with no
collision. But I caught it in my testing, so the block gets disabled instead
of destroyed. Also, it seems obtuse for those who don't understand why a
platform's block gets destroyed or disabled whenever the player collides with
it in `entityclass::collisioncheck()`, so I've put up a comment documenting it
as well.
The different platform evaluation order desyncs my Nova TAS, but after
applying this patchset and #504, my TAS syncs fine (save for the different
walkingframe from starting immediately on the ground instead of in the air
(#502), but that's minor and can be easily fixed).
I've attached a test level to the pull request for this commit (#503) to
demonstrate that this patchset not only fixes platform evaluation order, but
preserves some bugs and quirks with the existing block system.
The first room demonstrates the fixed platform evaluation order, by stepping
on the conveyors that both point into each other. In 2.2, Viridian will move
to the right of the background pillar, but in 2.3, Viridian will move to the
left of the pillar. However, after applying this patch, Viridian will now move
to the right of the pillar once again.
The second room demonstrates that the platform-passing-through-0,0 trick still
works (as explained above).
The last room demonstrates that platforms passing through the top-left corners
of disappearing platforms or 1x1 quicksand will remove the blocks of those
entities, causing Viridian to immediately pass through them. This trick is
still preserved after my patchset is applied.
2020-10-10 02:09:11 +02:00
|
|
|
if (obj.entities[i].isplatform)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.moveblockto(obj.entities[i].xp, obj.entities[i].yp, obj.entities[i].xp, obj.entities[i].yp + 232, obj.entities[i].w, obj.entities[i].h);
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-04 21:13:24 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].yp += 232;
|
Restore previous oldxp/oldyp variables in favor of lerpoldxp/lerpoldyp
I was investigating a desync in my Nova TAS, and it turns out that
the gravity line collision functions check for the `oldxp` and `oldyp`
of the player, i.e. their position on the previous frame, along with
their position on the current frame. So, if the player either collided
with the gravity line last frame or this frame, then the player collided
with the gravity line this frame.
Except, that's not actually true. It turns out that `oldxp` and `oldyp`
don't necessarily always correspond to the `xp` and `yp` of the player
on the previous frame. It turns out that your `oldyp` will be updated if
you stand on a vertically moving platform, before the gravity line
collision function gets ran. So, if you were colliding with a gravity
line on the previous frame, but you got moved out of there by a
vertically moving platform, then you just don't collide with the gravity
line at all.
However, this behavior changed in 2.3 after my over-30-FPS patch got
merged (#220). That patch took advantage of the existing `oldxp` and
`oldyp` entity attributes, and uses them to interpolate their positions
during rendering to make everything look real smooth.
Previously, `oldxp` and `oldyp` would both be updated in
`entityclass::updateentitylogic()`. However, I moved it in that patch to
update right before `gameinput()` in `main.cpp`.
As a result, `oldyp` no longer gets updated whenever the player stands
on a vertically moving platform. This ends up desyncing my TAS.
As expected, updating `oldyp` in `entityclass::movingplatformfix()` (the
function responsible for moving the player whenever they stand on a
vertically moving platform) makes it so that my TAS syncs, but the
visuals are glitchy when standing on a vertically moving platform. And
as much as I'd like to get rid of gravity lines checking for whether
you've collided with them on the previous frame, doing that desyncs my
TAS, too.
In the end, it seems like I should just leave `oldxp` and `oldyp` alone,
and switch to using dedicated variables that are never used in the
physics of the game. So I'm introducing `lerpoldxp` and `lerpoldyp`, and
replacing all instances of using `oldxp` and `oldyp` that my over-30-FPS
patch added, with `lerpoldxp` and `lerpoldyp` instead.
After doing this, and applying #503 as well, my Nova TAS syncs after
some minor but acceptable fixes with Viridian's walkingframe.
2020-10-10 05:58:58 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].lerpoldyp += 232;
|
2020-04-04 21:13:24 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-04 21:19:18 +02:00
|
|
|
else if (obj.entities[i].yp > 226)
|
2020-04-04 21:13:24 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
Restore platform evaluation order to 2.2
This commit restores the evaluation order of moving platforms and conveyors to
be what it was in 2.2. The evaluation order changed in 2.3 after the patchset
to improve the handling of the `obj.entities` and `obj.blocks` vectors (#191).
By evaluation order, I'm talking about the order in which platforms and
conveyors will be evaluated (and thus will take priority) if Viridian stands
on both a conveyor or platform at once, and they either have different speeds
or are pointing in different directions. Nowhere in the main game is there a
place where you can stand on two different conveyors/platforms at once, so
this is solely within the territory of custom levels, which is my specialty.
So what caused this evaluation order to change? Well, every moving platform
and conveyor in the game is actually made up of two objects: an entity, and a
block. The entity is the part that moves around, and the block is the part
that actually has the collision.
But if the entity is the part that moves around, and entities and blocks are
in entirely separate vectors, how is the block part going to move along with
it? Well, maybe you'd guess some sort of unique ID system, but spend some time
digging around the code and you won't find any trace of any (there's no
attribute on an entity to store such an ID, for starters).
Instead, what the game does is actually remove all blocks that coincide with
the exact top-left corner of the entity, and then create a new one. Destroying
and creating blocks like this all the time is hugely wasteful, but hey, it
worked.
So why did the evaluation order change in 2.3? Well, to understand that,
you'll need to understand 2.2's `active` system. Instead of having an object
be real simply by virtue of it existing, 2.2 had this system where the object
was only real if it had its `active` attribute set to true. In other words,
you would be looking at a fake object that didn't actually exist if its
`active` attribute was false.
On the surface, this doesn't seem that bad. But this can lead to "holes" in a
given vector of objects. A hole is simply an inactive object neighbored by
active objects (or the inactive object could be the first one in the vector,
but then have an active object immediately following it).
If you have a vector of 3 objects, all of them active, then removing the
second one will result in the vector containing an active object, followed by
an inactive object, followed by an active one. However, since the switch to
more properly use vectors instead of relying on this `active` system, there's
no longer any way for holes to exist in a vector. Properly removing an object
from a vector will just shift the rest of the objects down, so if we remove
the second object after the vector fix, then this will simply move the third
object into the slot of where the second object used to be.
So, what happens if you destroy a block and then create a new one in the
`active` system? Let's say that your `obj.blocks` looks like this, and here
I'm denoting each block by writing out its coordinates:
[30,60] [70,90] [80,100]
and that you want to update the position of the second one, because the entity
that that blocks belongs to has been updated. Okay, so, you delete that block,
which then makes things look like this:
[30,60] [-] [80,100]
and then afterwards, you create a new block with the updated position,
resulting in this:
[30,60] [74,90] [80,100]
Since `entityclass::createblock()` will find the first block slot that has a
false `active` attribute, it puts the new object in the same slot as the old
one. What has been essentially done here is that the slot of the block has
basically been reserved for the new block with the new position. Here, the
evaluation order of each block will stay the same.
But then 2.3 comes along and changes things up. So we start with an
`obj.blocks` like this again:
[30,60] [70,90] [80,100]
and we want to update the second block, like before. So we remove the second
block, resulting in this:
[30,60] [80,100]
It should be obvious that unlike before, where the third block stayed in the
third slot, the third block has now been moved to the second slot. But
continuing on; we are now going to create the new block with its updated
position, resulting in this:
[30,60] [80,100] [70,90]
At this point, we can see that the evaluation order of these blocks has been
changed due to the fact that the third block has now been moved to the slot
that was previously the slot of the second block.
So what can we do about this? Well, we can basically emulate what VVVVVV did
in 2.2, which is disable a block without actually removing it - except I'm not
going to reintroduce an `active` attribute or anything. I'll disable the
collision of all blocks at a certain position by setting their widths and
heights to 0, and then re-enable them later by finding the first block at that
same position, updating its position, and re-assigning its width and height
again.
The former is what `entityclass::nocollisionat()` does; the latter is what
`entityclass::moveblockto()` does. The former mimicks turning off the `active`
attribute of all blocks sharing a certain top-left corner; the latter mimicks
creating a new block - and it will only do this for one block, because
`entityclass::createblock()` in 2.2 only looked for the first block with a
false `active` attribute.
Now, some quirks relied on the previous behavior of destroying and creating
blocks, but all of these quirks have been preserved with the way I implemented
this fix.
The first quirk is that platforms passing through 0,0 will destroy all spike
hitboxes, script boxes, activity zones, and one-way hitboxes in the room. The
hitboxes of moving platforms, disappearing platforms, 1x1 quicksand, and
conveyors will not be affected.
This is a consequence of the fact that the former group uses the `x` and `y`
of their `rect`, while the latter group uses the `xp` and `yp` attributes. So
the `xp` and `yp` of the former are both 0. Meaning, a platform passing
through 0,0 destroys them all.
Having these separate coordinates seems like an artifact from the Flash days.
(And furthermore, there's an unused `x` and `y` attribute on all blocks,
making for technically three separate sets of coordinates! This should
probably be cleaned up, except for what I'm about to say...) But actually, if
you merge both sets of coordinates into one, this lets moving platforms
destroy script boxes and activity zones if it passes through the top-left
corner of them, which is probably far worse than the destruction being
localized to a specific coordinate that would never likely be reached
normally.
This quirk is preserved just fine without any special-casing, because instead
of destroying all blocks at 0,0, they just get disabled, which does the same
job. This quirk seems trivial to fix if I made it so that the position of a
platform's block was updated instantaneously instead of having one step to
disable it and another step to re-enable it, but I aim to preserve as much
quirks as possible.
The second quirk is that a moving platform passing through the top-left corner
of a disappearing platform or 1x1 quicksand will destroy the block of that
disappearing platform. This is because, again, when a moving platform updates,
it destroys all blocks at its previous position, not just only one block. This
is automatically preserved because this commit just disables the block of the
disappearing platform instead of removing it. Just like the last one, this
quirk seems extremely trivial to fix, and this time by simply making it so
`entityclass::nocollisionat()` would have a `break` statement, i.e. only
disabling the first block it finds instead of all blocks it finds, but I want
to keep all quirks that are possible to keep.
The last quirk is that, apparently, in order to prevent pushing the player
vertically out of a moving platform if they get inside of one, the game
destroys the block of the moving platform. If I had missed this edge case,
then the block would've been destroyed, leaving the moving platform with no
collision. But I caught it in my testing, so the block gets disabled instead
of destroyed. Also, it seems obtuse for those who don't understand why a
platform's block gets destroyed or disabled whenever the player collides with
it in `entityclass::collisioncheck()`, so I've put up a comment documenting it
as well.
The different platform evaluation order desyncs my Nova TAS, but after
applying this patchset and #504, my TAS syncs fine (save for the different
walkingframe from starting immediately on the ground instead of in the air
(#502), but that's minor and can be easily fixed).
I've attached a test level to the pull request for this commit (#503) to
demonstrate that this patchset not only fixes platform evaluation order, but
preserves some bugs and quirks with the existing block system.
The first room demonstrates the fixed platform evaluation order, by stepping
on the conveyors that both point into each other. In 2.2, Viridian will move
to the right of the background pillar, but in 2.3, Viridian will move to the
left of the pillar. However, after applying this patch, Viridian will now move
to the right of the pillar once again.
The second room demonstrates that the platform-passing-through-0,0 trick still
works (as explained above).
The last room demonstrates that platforms passing through the top-left corners
of disappearing platforms or 1x1 quicksand will remove the blocks of those
entities, causing Viridian to immediately pass through them. This trick is
still preserved after my patchset is applied.
2020-10-10 02:09:11 +02:00
|
|
|
if (obj.entities[i].isplatform)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.moveblockto(obj.entities[i].xp, obj.entities[i].yp, obj.entities[i].xp, obj.entities[i].yp - 232, obj.entities[i].w, obj.entities[i].h);
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-04 21:19:18 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].yp -= 232;
|
Restore previous oldxp/oldyp variables in favor of lerpoldxp/lerpoldyp
I was investigating a desync in my Nova TAS, and it turns out that
the gravity line collision functions check for the `oldxp` and `oldyp`
of the player, i.e. their position on the previous frame, along with
their position on the current frame. So, if the player either collided
with the gravity line last frame or this frame, then the player collided
with the gravity line this frame.
Except, that's not actually true. It turns out that `oldxp` and `oldyp`
don't necessarily always correspond to the `xp` and `yp` of the player
on the previous frame. It turns out that your `oldyp` will be updated if
you stand on a vertically moving platform, before the gravity line
collision function gets ran. So, if you were colliding with a gravity
line on the previous frame, but you got moved out of there by a
vertically moving platform, then you just don't collide with the gravity
line at all.
However, this behavior changed in 2.3 after my over-30-FPS patch got
merged (#220). That patch took advantage of the existing `oldxp` and
`oldyp` entity attributes, and uses them to interpolate their positions
during rendering to make everything look real smooth.
Previously, `oldxp` and `oldyp` would both be updated in
`entityclass::updateentitylogic()`. However, I moved it in that patch to
update right before `gameinput()` in `main.cpp`.
As a result, `oldyp` no longer gets updated whenever the player stands
on a vertically moving platform. This ends up desyncing my TAS.
As expected, updating `oldyp` in `entityclass::movingplatformfix()` (the
function responsible for moving the player whenever they stand on a
vertically moving platform) makes it so that my TAS syncs, but the
visuals are glitchy when standing on a vertically moving platform. And
as much as I'd like to get rid of gravity lines checking for whether
you've collided with them on the previous frame, doing that desyncs my
TAS, too.
In the end, it seems like I should just leave `oldxp` and `oldyp` alone,
and switch to using dedicated variables that are never used in the
physics of the game. So I'm introducing `lerpoldxp` and `lerpoldyp`, and
replacing all instances of using `oldxp` and `oldyp` that my over-30-FPS
patch added, with `lerpoldxp` and `lerpoldyp` instead.
After doing this, and applying #503 as well, my Nova TAS syncs after
some minor but acceptable fixes with Viridian's walkingframe.
2020-10-10 05:58:58 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].lerpoldyp -= 232;
|
2020-04-04 21:13:24 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
De-dupe screen transition / warping logic
I noticed that the code for going to the adjacent room when offscreen
and for warping instead if the room is warping was a bit
copy-and-pasted. To clean up the code a bit, there's now 5 separate
checks in gamelogic():
if (map.warpx)
if (map.warpy)
if (map.warpy && !map.warpx)
if (!map.warpy)
if (!map.warpx)
I made sure to preserve the previous weird horizontal warping behavior
that happens with vertical warping (thus the middle one), and to
preserve the frame ordering just in case there's something dependent on
the frame ordering.
The frame ordering is that first it will warp you horizontally, if
applicable, then it will warp you vertically, if applicable. Then if you
have vertical warping only, that weird horizontal warp. Then it will
screen transition you vertically, if applicable. Then it will screen
transition you horizontally, if applicable.
To explain the weird horizontal warp with the vertical warp: apparently
if an entity is far offscreen enough, and if that entity is not the
player, it will be warped horizontally during a vertical warp. The
points at which it will warp is 30 pixels farther out than normal
horizontal warping.
I think someone ran into this before, but my memory is fuzzy. The best I
can recall is that they were probably createentity()ing a high-speed
horizontally-moving enemy in a vertically warping room, only to discover
that said enemy kept warping horizontally.
2020-04-04 21:39:17 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
if (map.warpy && !map.warpx && !map.towermode)
|
De-dupe screen transition / warping logic
I noticed that the code for going to the adjacent room when offscreen
and for warping instead if the room is warping was a bit
copy-and-pasted. To clean up the code a bit, there's now 5 separate
checks in gamelogic():
if (map.warpx)
if (map.warpy)
if (map.warpy && !map.warpx)
if (!map.warpy)
if (!map.warpx)
I made sure to preserve the previous weird horizontal warping behavior
that happens with vertical warping (thus the middle one), and to
preserve the frame ordering just in case there's something dependent on
the frame ordering.
The frame ordering is that first it will warp you horizontally, if
applicable, then it will warp you vertically, if applicable. Then if you
have vertical warping only, that weird horizontal warp. Then it will
screen transition you vertically, if applicable. Then it will screen
transition you horizontally, if applicable.
To explain the weird horizontal warp with the vertical warp: apparently
if an entity is far offscreen enough, and if that entity is not the
player, it will be warped horizontally during a vertical warp. The
points at which it will warp is 30 pixels farther out than normal
horizontal warping.
I think someone ran into this before, but my memory is fuzzy. The best I
can recall is that they were probably createentity()ing a high-speed
horizontally-moving enemy in a vertically warping room, only to discover
that said enemy kept warping horizontally.
2020-04-04 21:39:17 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-03 22:50:16 +02:00
|
|
|
for (size_t i = 0; i < obj.entities.size(); i++)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-04 21:16:16 +02:00
|
|
|
if(obj.entities[i].type<50 //Don't warp warp lines
|
|
|
|
&&obj.entities[i].rule!=0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (obj.entities[i].xp <= -30)
|
2020-04-04 21:13:24 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
Restore platform evaluation order to 2.2
This commit restores the evaluation order of moving platforms and conveyors to
be what it was in 2.2. The evaluation order changed in 2.3 after the patchset
to improve the handling of the `obj.entities` and `obj.blocks` vectors (#191).
By evaluation order, I'm talking about the order in which platforms and
conveyors will be evaluated (and thus will take priority) if Viridian stands
on both a conveyor or platform at once, and they either have different speeds
or are pointing in different directions. Nowhere in the main game is there a
place where you can stand on two different conveyors/platforms at once, so
this is solely within the territory of custom levels, which is my specialty.
So what caused this evaluation order to change? Well, every moving platform
and conveyor in the game is actually made up of two objects: an entity, and a
block. The entity is the part that moves around, and the block is the part
that actually has the collision.
But if the entity is the part that moves around, and entities and blocks are
in entirely separate vectors, how is the block part going to move along with
it? Well, maybe you'd guess some sort of unique ID system, but spend some time
digging around the code and you won't find any trace of any (there's no
attribute on an entity to store such an ID, for starters).
Instead, what the game does is actually remove all blocks that coincide with
the exact top-left corner of the entity, and then create a new one. Destroying
and creating blocks like this all the time is hugely wasteful, but hey, it
worked.
So why did the evaluation order change in 2.3? Well, to understand that,
you'll need to understand 2.2's `active` system. Instead of having an object
be real simply by virtue of it existing, 2.2 had this system where the object
was only real if it had its `active` attribute set to true. In other words,
you would be looking at a fake object that didn't actually exist if its
`active` attribute was false.
On the surface, this doesn't seem that bad. But this can lead to "holes" in a
given vector of objects. A hole is simply an inactive object neighbored by
active objects (or the inactive object could be the first one in the vector,
but then have an active object immediately following it).
If you have a vector of 3 objects, all of them active, then removing the
second one will result in the vector containing an active object, followed by
an inactive object, followed by an active one. However, since the switch to
more properly use vectors instead of relying on this `active` system, there's
no longer any way for holes to exist in a vector. Properly removing an object
from a vector will just shift the rest of the objects down, so if we remove
the second object after the vector fix, then this will simply move the third
object into the slot of where the second object used to be.
So, what happens if you destroy a block and then create a new one in the
`active` system? Let's say that your `obj.blocks` looks like this, and here
I'm denoting each block by writing out its coordinates:
[30,60] [70,90] [80,100]
and that you want to update the position of the second one, because the entity
that that blocks belongs to has been updated. Okay, so, you delete that block,
which then makes things look like this:
[30,60] [-] [80,100]
and then afterwards, you create a new block with the updated position,
resulting in this:
[30,60] [74,90] [80,100]
Since `entityclass::createblock()` will find the first block slot that has a
false `active` attribute, it puts the new object in the same slot as the old
one. What has been essentially done here is that the slot of the block has
basically been reserved for the new block with the new position. Here, the
evaluation order of each block will stay the same.
But then 2.3 comes along and changes things up. So we start with an
`obj.blocks` like this again:
[30,60] [70,90] [80,100]
and we want to update the second block, like before. So we remove the second
block, resulting in this:
[30,60] [80,100]
It should be obvious that unlike before, where the third block stayed in the
third slot, the third block has now been moved to the second slot. But
continuing on; we are now going to create the new block with its updated
position, resulting in this:
[30,60] [80,100] [70,90]
At this point, we can see that the evaluation order of these blocks has been
changed due to the fact that the third block has now been moved to the slot
that was previously the slot of the second block.
So what can we do about this? Well, we can basically emulate what VVVVVV did
in 2.2, which is disable a block without actually removing it - except I'm not
going to reintroduce an `active` attribute or anything. I'll disable the
collision of all blocks at a certain position by setting their widths and
heights to 0, and then re-enable them later by finding the first block at that
same position, updating its position, and re-assigning its width and height
again.
The former is what `entityclass::nocollisionat()` does; the latter is what
`entityclass::moveblockto()` does. The former mimicks turning off the `active`
attribute of all blocks sharing a certain top-left corner; the latter mimicks
creating a new block - and it will only do this for one block, because
`entityclass::createblock()` in 2.2 only looked for the first block with a
false `active` attribute.
Now, some quirks relied on the previous behavior of destroying and creating
blocks, but all of these quirks have been preserved with the way I implemented
this fix.
The first quirk is that platforms passing through 0,0 will destroy all spike
hitboxes, script boxes, activity zones, and one-way hitboxes in the room. The
hitboxes of moving platforms, disappearing platforms, 1x1 quicksand, and
conveyors will not be affected.
This is a consequence of the fact that the former group uses the `x` and `y`
of their `rect`, while the latter group uses the `xp` and `yp` attributes. So
the `xp` and `yp` of the former are both 0. Meaning, a platform passing
through 0,0 destroys them all.
Having these separate coordinates seems like an artifact from the Flash days.
(And furthermore, there's an unused `x` and `y` attribute on all blocks,
making for technically three separate sets of coordinates! This should
probably be cleaned up, except for what I'm about to say...) But actually, if
you merge both sets of coordinates into one, this lets moving platforms
destroy script boxes and activity zones if it passes through the top-left
corner of them, which is probably far worse than the destruction being
localized to a specific coordinate that would never likely be reached
normally.
This quirk is preserved just fine without any special-casing, because instead
of destroying all blocks at 0,0, they just get disabled, which does the same
job. This quirk seems trivial to fix if I made it so that the position of a
platform's block was updated instantaneously instead of having one step to
disable it and another step to re-enable it, but I aim to preserve as much
quirks as possible.
The second quirk is that a moving platform passing through the top-left corner
of a disappearing platform or 1x1 quicksand will destroy the block of that
disappearing platform. This is because, again, when a moving platform updates,
it destroys all blocks at its previous position, not just only one block. This
is automatically preserved because this commit just disables the block of the
disappearing platform instead of removing it. Just like the last one, this
quirk seems extremely trivial to fix, and this time by simply making it so
`entityclass::nocollisionat()` would have a `break` statement, i.e. only
disabling the first block it finds instead of all blocks it finds, but I want
to keep all quirks that are possible to keep.
The last quirk is that, apparently, in order to prevent pushing the player
vertically out of a moving platform if they get inside of one, the game
destroys the block of the moving platform. If I had missed this edge case,
then the block would've been destroyed, leaving the moving platform with no
collision. But I caught it in my testing, so the block gets disabled instead
of destroyed. Also, it seems obtuse for those who don't understand why a
platform's block gets destroyed or disabled whenever the player collides with
it in `entityclass::collisioncheck()`, so I've put up a comment documenting it
as well.
The different platform evaluation order desyncs my Nova TAS, but after
applying this patchset and #504, my TAS syncs fine (save for the different
walkingframe from starting immediately on the ground instead of in the air
(#502), but that's minor and can be easily fixed).
I've attached a test level to the pull request for this commit (#503) to
demonstrate that this patchset not only fixes platform evaluation order, but
preserves some bugs and quirks with the existing block system.
The first room demonstrates the fixed platform evaluation order, by stepping
on the conveyors that both point into each other. In 2.2, Viridian will move
to the right of the background pillar, but in 2.3, Viridian will move to the
left of the pillar. However, after applying this patch, Viridian will now move
to the right of the pillar once again.
The second room demonstrates that the platform-passing-through-0,0 trick still
works (as explained above).
The last room demonstrates that platforms passing through the top-left corners
of disappearing platforms or 1x1 quicksand will remove the blocks of those
entities, causing Viridian to immediately pass through them. This trick is
still preserved after my patchset is applied.
2020-10-10 02:09:11 +02:00
|
|
|
if (obj.entities[i].isplatform)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.moveblockto(obj.entities[i].xp, obj.entities[i].yp, obj.entities[i].xp + 350, obj.entities[i].yp, obj.entities[i].w, obj.entities[i].h);
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-04 21:16:16 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].xp += 350;
|
Restore previous oldxp/oldyp variables in favor of lerpoldxp/lerpoldyp
I was investigating a desync in my Nova TAS, and it turns out that
the gravity line collision functions check for the `oldxp` and `oldyp`
of the player, i.e. their position on the previous frame, along with
their position on the current frame. So, if the player either collided
with the gravity line last frame or this frame, then the player collided
with the gravity line this frame.
Except, that's not actually true. It turns out that `oldxp` and `oldyp`
don't necessarily always correspond to the `xp` and `yp` of the player
on the previous frame. It turns out that your `oldyp` will be updated if
you stand on a vertically moving platform, before the gravity line
collision function gets ran. So, if you were colliding with a gravity
line on the previous frame, but you got moved out of there by a
vertically moving platform, then you just don't collide with the gravity
line at all.
However, this behavior changed in 2.3 after my over-30-FPS patch got
merged (#220). That patch took advantage of the existing `oldxp` and
`oldyp` entity attributes, and uses them to interpolate their positions
during rendering to make everything look real smooth.
Previously, `oldxp` and `oldyp` would both be updated in
`entityclass::updateentitylogic()`. However, I moved it in that patch to
update right before `gameinput()` in `main.cpp`.
As a result, `oldyp` no longer gets updated whenever the player stands
on a vertically moving platform. This ends up desyncing my TAS.
As expected, updating `oldyp` in `entityclass::movingplatformfix()` (the
function responsible for moving the player whenever they stand on a
vertically moving platform) makes it so that my TAS syncs, but the
visuals are glitchy when standing on a vertically moving platform. And
as much as I'd like to get rid of gravity lines checking for whether
you've collided with them on the previous frame, doing that desyncs my
TAS, too.
In the end, it seems like I should just leave `oldxp` and `oldyp` alone,
and switch to using dedicated variables that are never used in the
physics of the game. So I'm introducing `lerpoldxp` and `lerpoldyp`, and
replacing all instances of using `oldxp` and `oldyp` that my over-30-FPS
patch added, with `lerpoldxp` and `lerpoldyp` instead.
After doing this, and applying #503 as well, my Nova TAS syncs after
some minor but acceptable fixes with Viridian's walkingframe.
2020-10-10 05:58:58 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].lerpoldxp += 350;
|
2020-04-04 21:16:16 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-04 21:19:18 +02:00
|
|
|
else if (obj.entities[i].xp > 320)
|
2020-04-04 21:16:16 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
Restore platform evaluation order to 2.2
This commit restores the evaluation order of moving platforms and conveyors to
be what it was in 2.2. The evaluation order changed in 2.3 after the patchset
to improve the handling of the `obj.entities` and `obj.blocks` vectors (#191).
By evaluation order, I'm talking about the order in which platforms and
conveyors will be evaluated (and thus will take priority) if Viridian stands
on both a conveyor or platform at once, and they either have different speeds
or are pointing in different directions. Nowhere in the main game is there a
place where you can stand on two different conveyors/platforms at once, so
this is solely within the territory of custom levels, which is my specialty.
So what caused this evaluation order to change? Well, every moving platform
and conveyor in the game is actually made up of two objects: an entity, and a
block. The entity is the part that moves around, and the block is the part
that actually has the collision.
But if the entity is the part that moves around, and entities and blocks are
in entirely separate vectors, how is the block part going to move along with
it? Well, maybe you'd guess some sort of unique ID system, but spend some time
digging around the code and you won't find any trace of any (there's no
attribute on an entity to store such an ID, for starters).
Instead, what the game does is actually remove all blocks that coincide with
the exact top-left corner of the entity, and then create a new one. Destroying
and creating blocks like this all the time is hugely wasteful, but hey, it
worked.
So why did the evaluation order change in 2.3? Well, to understand that,
you'll need to understand 2.2's `active` system. Instead of having an object
be real simply by virtue of it existing, 2.2 had this system where the object
was only real if it had its `active` attribute set to true. In other words,
you would be looking at a fake object that didn't actually exist if its
`active` attribute was false.
On the surface, this doesn't seem that bad. But this can lead to "holes" in a
given vector of objects. A hole is simply an inactive object neighbored by
active objects (or the inactive object could be the first one in the vector,
but then have an active object immediately following it).
If you have a vector of 3 objects, all of them active, then removing the
second one will result in the vector containing an active object, followed by
an inactive object, followed by an active one. However, since the switch to
more properly use vectors instead of relying on this `active` system, there's
no longer any way for holes to exist in a vector. Properly removing an object
from a vector will just shift the rest of the objects down, so if we remove
the second object after the vector fix, then this will simply move the third
object into the slot of where the second object used to be.
So, what happens if you destroy a block and then create a new one in the
`active` system? Let's say that your `obj.blocks` looks like this, and here
I'm denoting each block by writing out its coordinates:
[30,60] [70,90] [80,100]
and that you want to update the position of the second one, because the entity
that that blocks belongs to has been updated. Okay, so, you delete that block,
which then makes things look like this:
[30,60] [-] [80,100]
and then afterwards, you create a new block with the updated position,
resulting in this:
[30,60] [74,90] [80,100]
Since `entityclass::createblock()` will find the first block slot that has a
false `active` attribute, it puts the new object in the same slot as the old
one. What has been essentially done here is that the slot of the block has
basically been reserved for the new block with the new position. Here, the
evaluation order of each block will stay the same.
But then 2.3 comes along and changes things up. So we start with an
`obj.blocks` like this again:
[30,60] [70,90] [80,100]
and we want to update the second block, like before. So we remove the second
block, resulting in this:
[30,60] [80,100]
It should be obvious that unlike before, where the third block stayed in the
third slot, the third block has now been moved to the second slot. But
continuing on; we are now going to create the new block with its updated
position, resulting in this:
[30,60] [80,100] [70,90]
At this point, we can see that the evaluation order of these blocks has been
changed due to the fact that the third block has now been moved to the slot
that was previously the slot of the second block.
So what can we do about this? Well, we can basically emulate what VVVVVV did
in 2.2, which is disable a block without actually removing it - except I'm not
going to reintroduce an `active` attribute or anything. I'll disable the
collision of all blocks at a certain position by setting their widths and
heights to 0, and then re-enable them later by finding the first block at that
same position, updating its position, and re-assigning its width and height
again.
The former is what `entityclass::nocollisionat()` does; the latter is what
`entityclass::moveblockto()` does. The former mimicks turning off the `active`
attribute of all blocks sharing a certain top-left corner; the latter mimicks
creating a new block - and it will only do this for one block, because
`entityclass::createblock()` in 2.2 only looked for the first block with a
false `active` attribute.
Now, some quirks relied on the previous behavior of destroying and creating
blocks, but all of these quirks have been preserved with the way I implemented
this fix.
The first quirk is that platforms passing through 0,0 will destroy all spike
hitboxes, script boxes, activity zones, and one-way hitboxes in the room. The
hitboxes of moving platforms, disappearing platforms, 1x1 quicksand, and
conveyors will not be affected.
This is a consequence of the fact that the former group uses the `x` and `y`
of their `rect`, while the latter group uses the `xp` and `yp` attributes. So
the `xp` and `yp` of the former are both 0. Meaning, a platform passing
through 0,0 destroys them all.
Having these separate coordinates seems like an artifact from the Flash days.
(And furthermore, there's an unused `x` and `y` attribute on all blocks,
making for technically three separate sets of coordinates! This should
probably be cleaned up, except for what I'm about to say...) But actually, if
you merge both sets of coordinates into one, this lets moving platforms
destroy script boxes and activity zones if it passes through the top-left
corner of them, which is probably far worse than the destruction being
localized to a specific coordinate that would never likely be reached
normally.
This quirk is preserved just fine without any special-casing, because instead
of destroying all blocks at 0,0, they just get disabled, which does the same
job. This quirk seems trivial to fix if I made it so that the position of a
platform's block was updated instantaneously instead of having one step to
disable it and another step to re-enable it, but I aim to preserve as much
quirks as possible.
The second quirk is that a moving platform passing through the top-left corner
of a disappearing platform or 1x1 quicksand will destroy the block of that
disappearing platform. This is because, again, when a moving platform updates,
it destroys all blocks at its previous position, not just only one block. This
is automatically preserved because this commit just disables the block of the
disappearing platform instead of removing it. Just like the last one, this
quirk seems extremely trivial to fix, and this time by simply making it so
`entityclass::nocollisionat()` would have a `break` statement, i.e. only
disabling the first block it finds instead of all blocks it finds, but I want
to keep all quirks that are possible to keep.
The last quirk is that, apparently, in order to prevent pushing the player
vertically out of a moving platform if they get inside of one, the game
destroys the block of the moving platform. If I had missed this edge case,
then the block would've been destroyed, leaving the moving platform with no
collision. But I caught it in my testing, so the block gets disabled instead
of destroyed. Also, it seems obtuse for those who don't understand why a
platform's block gets destroyed or disabled whenever the player collides with
it in `entityclass::collisioncheck()`, so I've put up a comment documenting it
as well.
The different platform evaluation order desyncs my Nova TAS, but after
applying this patchset and #504, my TAS syncs fine (save for the different
walkingframe from starting immediately on the ground instead of in the air
(#502), but that's minor and can be easily fixed).
I've attached a test level to the pull request for this commit (#503) to
demonstrate that this patchset not only fixes platform evaluation order, but
preserves some bugs and quirks with the existing block system.
The first room demonstrates the fixed platform evaluation order, by stepping
on the conveyors that both point into each other. In 2.2, Viridian will move
to the right of the background pillar, but in 2.3, Viridian will move to the
left of the pillar. However, after applying this patch, Viridian will now move
to the right of the pillar once again.
The second room demonstrates that the platform-passing-through-0,0 trick still
works (as explained above).
The last room demonstrates that platforms passing through the top-left corners
of disappearing platforms or 1x1 quicksand will remove the blocks of those
entities, causing Viridian to immediately pass through them. This trick is
still preserved after my patchset is applied.
2020-10-10 02:09:11 +02:00
|
|
|
if (obj.entities[i].isplatform)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.moveblockto(obj.entities[i].xp, obj.entities[i].yp, obj.entities[i].xp - 350, obj.entities[i].yp, obj.entities[i].w, obj.entities[i].h);
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-04 21:19:18 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].xp -= 350;
|
Restore previous oldxp/oldyp variables in favor of lerpoldxp/lerpoldyp
I was investigating a desync in my Nova TAS, and it turns out that
the gravity line collision functions check for the `oldxp` and `oldyp`
of the player, i.e. their position on the previous frame, along with
their position on the current frame. So, if the player either collided
with the gravity line last frame or this frame, then the player collided
with the gravity line this frame.
Except, that's not actually true. It turns out that `oldxp` and `oldyp`
don't necessarily always correspond to the `xp` and `yp` of the player
on the previous frame. It turns out that your `oldyp` will be updated if
you stand on a vertically moving platform, before the gravity line
collision function gets ran. So, if you were colliding with a gravity
line on the previous frame, but you got moved out of there by a
vertically moving platform, then you just don't collide with the gravity
line at all.
However, this behavior changed in 2.3 after my over-30-FPS patch got
merged (#220). That patch took advantage of the existing `oldxp` and
`oldyp` entity attributes, and uses them to interpolate their positions
during rendering to make everything look real smooth.
Previously, `oldxp` and `oldyp` would both be updated in
`entityclass::updateentitylogic()`. However, I moved it in that patch to
update right before `gameinput()` in `main.cpp`.
As a result, `oldyp` no longer gets updated whenever the player stands
on a vertically moving platform. This ends up desyncing my TAS.
As expected, updating `oldyp` in `entityclass::movingplatformfix()` (the
function responsible for moving the player whenever they stand on a
vertically moving platform) makes it so that my TAS syncs, but the
visuals are glitchy when standing on a vertically moving platform. And
as much as I'd like to get rid of gravity lines checking for whether
you've collided with them on the previous frame, doing that desyncs my
TAS, too.
In the end, it seems like I should just leave `oldxp` and `oldyp` alone,
and switch to using dedicated variables that are never used in the
physics of the game. So I'm introducing `lerpoldxp` and `lerpoldyp`, and
replacing all instances of using `oldxp` and `oldyp` that my over-30-FPS
patch added, with `lerpoldxp` and `lerpoldyp` instead.
After doing this, and applying #503 as well, my Nova TAS syncs after
some minor but acceptable fixes with Viridian's walkingframe.
2020-10-10 05:58:58 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].lerpoldxp -= 350;
|
2020-04-04 21:13:24 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
De-dupe screen transition / warping logic
I noticed that the code for going to the adjacent room when offscreen
and for warping instead if the room is warping was a bit
copy-and-pasted. To clean up the code a bit, there's now 5 separate
checks in gamelogic():
if (map.warpx)
if (map.warpy)
if (map.warpy && !map.warpx)
if (!map.warpy)
if (!map.warpx)
I made sure to preserve the previous weird horizontal warping behavior
that happens with vertical warping (thus the middle one), and to
preserve the frame ordering just in case there's something dependent on
the frame ordering.
The frame ordering is that first it will warp you horizontally, if
applicable, then it will warp you vertically, if applicable. Then if you
have vertical warping only, that weird horizontal warp. Then it will
screen transition you vertically, if applicable. Then it will screen
transition you horizontally, if applicable.
To explain the weird horizontal warp with the vertical warp: apparently
if an entity is far offscreen enough, and if that entity is not the
player, it will be warped horizontally during a vertical warp. The
points at which it will warp is 30 pixels farther out than normal
horizontal warping.
I think someone ran into this before, but my memory is fuzzy. The best I
can recall is that they were probably createentity()ing a high-speed
horizontally-moving enemy in a vertically warping room, only to discover
that said enemy kept warping horizontally.
2020-04-04 21:39:17 +02:00
|
|
|
|
Fix the two-frame-delay when entering a room with an "init" script
This patch is very kludge-y, but at least it fixes a semi-noticeable
visual issue in custom levels that use internal scripts to spawn
entities when loading a room.
Basically, the problem here is that when the game checks for script
boxes and sets newscript, newscript has already been processed for that
frame, and when the game does load a script, script.run() has already
been processed for that frame.
That issue can be fixed, but it turns out that due to my over-30-FPS
game loop changes, there's now ANOTHER visible frame of delay between
room load and entity creation, because the render function gets called
in between the script being loaded at the end of gamelogic() and the
script actually getting run.
So... I have to temporary move script.run() to the end of gamelogic()
(in map.twoframedelayfix()), and make sure it doesn't get run next
frame, because double-evaluations are bad. To do that, I have to
introduce the kludge variable script.dontrunnextframe, which does
exactly as it says.
And with all that work, the two-frame (now three-frame) delay is fixed.
2020-06-28 02:08:57 +02:00
|
|
|
bool screen_transition = false;
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
if (!map.warpy && !map.towermode)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
//Normal! Just change room
|
|
|
|
int player = obj.getplayer();
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(player, obj.entities) && game.door_down > -2 && obj.entities[player].yp >= 238)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[player].yp -= 240;
|
2020-03-31 10:09:42 +02:00
|
|
|
map.gotoroom(game.roomx, game.roomy + 1);
|
Fix the two-frame-delay when entering a room with an "init" script
This patch is very kludge-y, but at least it fixes a semi-noticeable
visual issue in custom levels that use internal scripts to spawn
entities when loading a room.
Basically, the problem here is that when the game checks for script
boxes and sets newscript, newscript has already been processed for that
frame, and when the game does load a script, script.run() has already
been processed for that frame.
That issue can be fixed, but it turns out that due to my over-30-FPS
game loop changes, there's now ANOTHER visible frame of delay between
room load and entity creation, because the render function gets called
in between the script being loaded at the end of gamelogic() and the
script actually getting run.
So... I have to temporary move script.run() to the end of gamelogic()
(in map.twoframedelayfix()), and make sure it doesn't get run next
frame, because double-evaluations are bad. To do that, I have to
introduce the kludge variable script.dontrunnextframe, which does
exactly as it says.
And with all that work, the two-frame (now three-frame) delay is fixed.
2020-06-28 02:08:57 +02:00
|
|
|
screen_transition = true;
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(player, obj.entities) && game.door_up > -2 && obj.entities[player].yp < -2)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[player].yp += 240;
|
2020-03-31 10:09:42 +02:00
|
|
|
map.gotoroom(game.roomx, game.roomy - 1);
|
Fix the two-frame-delay when entering a room with an "init" script
This patch is very kludge-y, but at least it fixes a semi-noticeable
visual issue in custom levels that use internal scripts to spawn
entities when loading a room.
Basically, the problem here is that when the game checks for script
boxes and sets newscript, newscript has already been processed for that
frame, and when the game does load a script, script.run() has already
been processed for that frame.
That issue can be fixed, but it turns out that due to my over-30-FPS
game loop changes, there's now ANOTHER visible frame of delay between
room load and entity creation, because the render function gets called
in between the script being loaded at the end of gamelogic() and the
script actually getting run.
So... I have to temporary move script.run() to the end of gamelogic()
(in map.twoframedelayfix()), and make sure it doesn't get run next
frame, because double-evaluations are bad. To do that, I have to
introduce the kludge variable script.dontrunnextframe, which does
exactly as it says.
And with all that work, the two-frame (now three-frame) delay is fixed.
2020-06-28 02:08:57 +02:00
|
|
|
screen_transition = true;
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
De-dupe screen transition / warping logic
I noticed that the code for going to the adjacent room when offscreen
and for warping instead if the room is warping was a bit
copy-and-pasted. To clean up the code a bit, there's now 5 separate
checks in gamelogic():
if (map.warpx)
if (map.warpy)
if (map.warpy && !map.warpx)
if (!map.warpy)
if (!map.warpx)
I made sure to preserve the previous weird horizontal warping behavior
that happens with vertical warping (thus the middle one), and to
preserve the frame ordering just in case there's something dependent on
the frame ordering.
The frame ordering is that first it will warp you horizontally, if
applicable, then it will warp you vertically, if applicable. Then if you
have vertical warping only, that weird horizontal warp. Then it will
screen transition you vertically, if applicable. Then it will screen
transition you horizontally, if applicable.
To explain the weird horizontal warp with the vertical warp: apparently
if an entity is far offscreen enough, and if that entity is not the
player, it will be warped horizontally during a vertical warp. The
points at which it will warp is 30 pixels farther out than normal
horizontal warping.
I think someone ran into this before, but my memory is fuzzy. The best I
can recall is that they were probably createentity()ing a high-speed
horizontally-moving enemy in a vertically warping room, only to discover
that said enemy kept warping horizontally.
2020-04-04 21:39:17 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
if (!map.warpx && !map.towermode)
|
De-dupe screen transition / warping logic
I noticed that the code for going to the adjacent room when offscreen
and for warping instead if the room is warping was a bit
copy-and-pasted. To clean up the code a bit, there's now 5 separate
checks in gamelogic():
if (map.warpx)
if (map.warpy)
if (map.warpy && !map.warpx)
if (!map.warpy)
if (!map.warpx)
I made sure to preserve the previous weird horizontal warping behavior
that happens with vertical warping (thus the middle one), and to
preserve the frame ordering just in case there's something dependent on
the frame ordering.
The frame ordering is that first it will warp you horizontally, if
applicable, then it will warp you vertically, if applicable. Then if you
have vertical warping only, that weird horizontal warp. Then it will
screen transition you vertically, if applicable. Then it will screen
transition you horizontally, if applicable.
To explain the weird horizontal warp with the vertical warp: apparently
if an entity is far offscreen enough, and if that entity is not the
player, it will be warped horizontally during a vertical warp. The
points at which it will warp is 30 pixels farther out than normal
horizontal warping.
I think someone ran into this before, but my memory is fuzzy. The best I
can recall is that they were probably createentity()ing a high-speed
horizontally-moving enemy in a vertically warping room, only to discover
that said enemy kept warping horizontally.
2020-04-04 21:39:17 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
//Normal! Just change room
|
|
|
|
int player = obj.getplayer();
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(player, obj.entities) && game.door_left > -2 && obj.entities[player].xp < -14)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[player].xp += 320;
|
2020-03-31 10:09:42 +02:00
|
|
|
map.gotoroom(game.roomx - 1, game.roomy);
|
Fix the two-frame-delay when entering a room with an "init" script
This patch is very kludge-y, but at least it fixes a semi-noticeable
visual issue in custom levels that use internal scripts to spawn
entities when loading a room.
Basically, the problem here is that when the game checks for script
boxes and sets newscript, newscript has already been processed for that
frame, and when the game does load a script, script.run() has already
been processed for that frame.
That issue can be fixed, but it turns out that due to my over-30-FPS
game loop changes, there's now ANOTHER visible frame of delay between
room load and entity creation, because the render function gets called
in between the script being loaded at the end of gamelogic() and the
script actually getting run.
So... I have to temporary move script.run() to the end of gamelogic()
(in map.twoframedelayfix()), and make sure it doesn't get run next
frame, because double-evaluations are bad. To do that, I have to
introduce the kludge variable script.dontrunnextframe, which does
exactly as it says.
And with all that work, the two-frame (now three-frame) delay is fixed.
2020-06-28 02:08:57 +02:00
|
|
|
screen_transition = true;
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(player, obj.entities) && game.door_right > -2 && obj.entities[player].xp >= 308)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[player].xp -= 320;
|
2020-03-31 10:09:42 +02:00
|
|
|
map.gotoroom(game.roomx + 1, game.roomy);
|
Fix the two-frame-delay when entering a room with an "init" script
This patch is very kludge-y, but at least it fixes a semi-noticeable
visual issue in custom levels that use internal scripts to spawn
entities when loading a room.
Basically, the problem here is that when the game checks for script
boxes and sets newscript, newscript has already been processed for that
frame, and when the game does load a script, script.run() has already
been processed for that frame.
That issue can be fixed, but it turns out that due to my over-30-FPS
game loop changes, there's now ANOTHER visible frame of delay between
room load and entity creation, because the render function gets called
in between the script being loaded at the end of gamelogic() and the
script actually getting run.
So... I have to temporary move script.run() to the end of gamelogic()
(in map.twoframedelayfix()), and make sure it doesn't get run next
frame, because double-evaluations are bad. To do that, I have to
introduce the kludge variable script.dontrunnextframe, which does
exactly as it says.
And with all that work, the two-frame (now three-frame) delay is fixed.
2020-06-28 02:08:57 +02:00
|
|
|
screen_transition = true;
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
//Right so! Screenwraping for tower:
|
2020-05-05 20:26:26 +02:00
|
|
|
if (map.towermode && map.minitowermode)
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-11-03 00:05:24 +01:00
|
|
|
if (graphics.towerbg.scrolldir == 1)
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
//This is minitower 1!
|
|
|
|
int player = obj.getplayer();
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(player, obj.entities) && game.door_left > -2 && obj.entities[player].xp < -14)
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[player].xp += 320;
|
|
|
|
map.gotoroom(48, 52);
|
|
|
|
}
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(player, obj.entities) && game.door_right > -2 && obj.entities[player].xp >= 308)
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[player].xp -= 320;
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[player].yp -= (71*8);
|
|
|
|
map.gotoroom(game.roomx + 1, game.roomy+1);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
//This is minitower 2!
|
|
|
|
int player = obj.getplayer();
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(player, obj.entities) && game.door_left > -2 && obj.entities[player].xp < -14)
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (obj.entities[player].yp > 300)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[player].xp += 320;
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[player].yp -= (71 * 8);
|
|
|
|
map.gotoroom(50, 54);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[player].xp += 320;
|
|
|
|
map.gotoroom(50, 53);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(player, obj.entities) && game.door_right > -2 && obj.entities[player].xp >= 308)
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[player].xp -= 320;
|
|
|
|
map.gotoroom(52, 53);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (map.towermode)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
//Always wrap except for the very top and very bottom of the tower
|
|
|
|
if(map.ypos>=500 && map.ypos <=5000)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
for (size_t i = 0; i < obj.entities.size(); i++)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (obj.entities[i].xp <= -10)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].xp += 320;
|
Restore previous oldxp/oldyp variables in favor of lerpoldxp/lerpoldyp
I was investigating a desync in my Nova TAS, and it turns out that
the gravity line collision functions check for the `oldxp` and `oldyp`
of the player, i.e. their position on the previous frame, along with
their position on the current frame. So, if the player either collided
with the gravity line last frame or this frame, then the player collided
with the gravity line this frame.
Except, that's not actually true. It turns out that `oldxp` and `oldyp`
don't necessarily always correspond to the `xp` and `yp` of the player
on the previous frame. It turns out that your `oldyp` will be updated if
you stand on a vertically moving platform, before the gravity line
collision function gets ran. So, if you were colliding with a gravity
line on the previous frame, but you got moved out of there by a
vertically moving platform, then you just don't collide with the gravity
line at all.
However, this behavior changed in 2.3 after my over-30-FPS patch got
merged (#220). That patch took advantage of the existing `oldxp` and
`oldyp` entity attributes, and uses them to interpolate their positions
during rendering to make everything look real smooth.
Previously, `oldxp` and `oldyp` would both be updated in
`entityclass::updateentitylogic()`. However, I moved it in that patch to
update right before `gameinput()` in `main.cpp`.
As a result, `oldyp` no longer gets updated whenever the player stands
on a vertically moving platform. This ends up desyncing my TAS.
As expected, updating `oldyp` in `entityclass::movingplatformfix()` (the
function responsible for moving the player whenever they stand on a
vertically moving platform) makes it so that my TAS syncs, but the
visuals are glitchy when standing on a vertically moving platform. And
as much as I'd like to get rid of gravity lines checking for whether
you've collided with them on the previous frame, doing that desyncs my
TAS, too.
In the end, it seems like I should just leave `oldxp` and `oldyp` alone,
and switch to using dedicated variables that are never used in the
physics of the game. So I'm introducing `lerpoldxp` and `lerpoldyp`, and
replacing all instances of using `oldxp` and `oldyp` that my over-30-FPS
patch added, with `lerpoldxp` and `lerpoldyp` instead.
After doing this, and applying #503 as well, my Nova TAS syncs after
some minor but acceptable fixes with Viridian's walkingframe.
2020-10-10 05:58:58 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].lerpoldxp += 320;
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-29 01:45:53 +02:00
|
|
|
else if (obj.entities[i].xp > 310)
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-29 01:45:53 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].xp -= 320;
|
Restore previous oldxp/oldyp variables in favor of lerpoldxp/lerpoldyp
I was investigating a desync in my Nova TAS, and it turns out that
the gravity line collision functions check for the `oldxp` and `oldyp`
of the player, i.e. their position on the previous frame, along with
their position on the current frame. So, if the player either collided
with the gravity line last frame or this frame, then the player collided
with the gravity line this frame.
Except, that's not actually true. It turns out that `oldxp` and `oldyp`
don't necessarily always correspond to the `xp` and `yp` of the player
on the previous frame. It turns out that your `oldyp` will be updated if
you stand on a vertically moving platform, before the gravity line
collision function gets ran. So, if you were colliding with a gravity
line on the previous frame, but you got moved out of there by a
vertically moving platform, then you just don't collide with the gravity
line at all.
However, this behavior changed in 2.3 after my over-30-FPS patch got
merged (#220). That patch took advantage of the existing `oldxp` and
`oldyp` entity attributes, and uses them to interpolate their positions
during rendering to make everything look real smooth.
Previously, `oldxp` and `oldyp` would both be updated in
`entityclass::updateentitylogic()`. However, I moved it in that patch to
update right before `gameinput()` in `main.cpp`.
As a result, `oldyp` no longer gets updated whenever the player stands
on a vertically moving platform. This ends up desyncing my TAS.
As expected, updating `oldyp` in `entityclass::movingplatformfix()` (the
function responsible for moving the player whenever they stand on a
vertically moving platform) makes it so that my TAS syncs, but the
visuals are glitchy when standing on a vertically moving platform. And
as much as I'd like to get rid of gravity lines checking for whether
you've collided with them on the previous frame, doing that desyncs my
TAS, too.
In the end, it seems like I should just leave `oldxp` and `oldyp` alone,
and switch to using dedicated variables that are never used in the
physics of the game. So I'm introducing `lerpoldxp` and `lerpoldyp`, and
replacing all instances of using `oldxp` and `oldyp` that my over-30-FPS
patch added, with `lerpoldxp` and `lerpoldyp` instead.
After doing this, and applying #503 as well, my Nova TAS syncs after
some minor but acceptable fixes with Viridian's walkingframe.
2020-10-10 05:58:58 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].lerpoldxp -= 320;
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
//Do not wrap! Instead, go to the correct room
|
|
|
|
int player = obj.getplayer();
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(player, obj.entities) && game.door_left > -2 && obj.entities[player].xp < -14)
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[player].xp += 320;
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[player].yp -= (671 * 8);
|
|
|
|
map.gotoroom(108, 109);
|
|
|
|
}
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(player, obj.entities) && game.door_right > -2 && obj.entities[player].xp >= 308)
|
2020-04-25 06:19:41 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[player].xp -= 320;
|
|
|
|
map.gotoroom(110, 104);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
//Warp tokens
|
|
|
|
if (map.custommode){
|
2020-04-04 21:13:24 +02:00
|
|
|
if (game.teleport)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
int edi=obj.entities[game.edteleportent].behave;
|
|
|
|
int edj=obj.entities[game.edteleportent].para;
|
|
|
|
int edi2, edj2;
|
|
|
|
edi2 = (edi-(edi%40))/40;
|
|
|
|
edj2 = (edj-(edj%30))/30;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
map.warpto(100+edi2, 100+edj2, obj.getplayer(), edi%40, (edj%30)+2);
|
|
|
|
game.teleport = false;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (game.teleport == false)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.flashlight = 6;
|
|
|
|
game.screenshake = 25;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}else{
|
2020-04-04 21:13:24 +02:00
|
|
|
if (game.teleport)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (game.roomx == 117 && game.roomy == 102)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
int i = obj.getplayer();
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities))
|
2020-06-13 05:36:08 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].yp = 225;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-04 21:13:24 +02:00
|
|
|
map.gotoroom(119, 100);
|
|
|
|
game.teleport = false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (game.roomx == 119 && game.roomy == 100)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
int i = obj.getplayer();
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities))
|
2020-06-13 05:36:08 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].yp = 225;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-04 21:13:24 +02:00
|
|
|
map.gotoroom(119, 103);
|
|
|
|
game.teleport = false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (game.roomx == 119 && game.roomy == 103)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
int i = obj.getplayer();
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities))
|
2020-06-13 05:36:08 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].xp = 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-04 21:13:24 +02:00
|
|
|
map.gotoroom(116, 103);
|
|
|
|
game.teleport = false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (game.roomx == 116 && game.roomy == 103)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
int i = obj.getplayer();
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities))
|
2020-06-13 05:36:08 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].yp = 225;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-04 21:13:24 +02:00
|
|
|
map.gotoroom(116, 100);
|
|
|
|
game.teleport = false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (game.roomx == 116 && game.roomy == 100)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
int i = obj.getplayer();
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities))
|
2020-06-13 05:36:08 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].xp = 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-04 21:13:24 +02:00
|
|
|
map.gotoroom(114, 102);
|
|
|
|
game.teleport = false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (game.roomx == 114 && game.roomy == 102)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
int i = obj.getplayer();
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities))
|
2020-06-13 05:36:08 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].yp = 225;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-04 21:13:24 +02:00
|
|
|
map.gotoroom(113, 100);
|
|
|
|
game.teleport = false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (game.roomx == 116 && game.roomy == 104)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
//pre warp zone here
|
|
|
|
map.warpto(107, 101, obj.getplayer(), 14, 16);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (game.roomx == 107 && game.roomy == 101)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
map.warpto(105, 119, obj.getplayer(), 5, 26);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (game.roomx == 105 && game.roomy == 118)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
map.warpto(101, 111, obj.getplayer(), 34, 6);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (game.roomx == 101 && game.roomy == 111)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
//There are lots of warp tokens in this room, so we have to distinguish!
|
|
|
|
switch(game.teleportxpos)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
case 1:
|
|
|
|
map.warpto(108, 108, obj.getplayer(), 4, 27);
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case 2:
|
|
|
|
map.warpto(101, 111, obj.getplayer(), 12, 27);
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case 3:
|
|
|
|
map.warpto(119, 111, obj.getplayer(), 31, 7);
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case 4:
|
|
|
|
map.warpto(114, 117, obj.getplayer(), 19, 16);
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (game.roomx == 108 && game.roomy == 106)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
map.warpto(119, 111, obj.getplayer(), 4, 27);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (game.roomx == 100 && game.roomy == 111)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
map.warpto(101, 111, obj.getplayer(), 24, 6);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (game.roomx == 119 && game.roomy == 107)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
//Secret lab, to super gravitron
|
|
|
|
map.warpto(119, 108, obj.getplayer(), 19, 10);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (game.teleport == false)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.flashlight = 6;
|
|
|
|
game.screenshake = 25;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
Fix the two-frame-delay when entering a room with an "init" script
This patch is very kludge-y, but at least it fixes a semi-noticeable
visual issue in custom levels that use internal scripts to spawn
entities when loading a room.
Basically, the problem here is that when the game checks for script
boxes and sets newscript, newscript has already been processed for that
frame, and when the game does load a script, script.run() has already
been processed for that frame.
That issue can be fixed, but it turns out that due to my over-30-FPS
game loop changes, there's now ANOTHER visible frame of delay between
room load and entity creation, because the render function gets called
in between the script being loaded at the end of gamelogic() and the
script actually getting run.
So... I have to temporary move script.run() to the end of gamelogic()
(in map.twoframedelayfix()), and make sure it doesn't get run next
frame, because double-evaluations are bad. To do that, I have to
introduce the kludge variable script.dontrunnextframe, which does
exactly as it says.
And with all that work, the two-frame (now three-frame) delay is fixed.
2020-06-28 02:08:57 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (screen_transition)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
map.twoframedelayfix();
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-30 21:32:53 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
//Update colour cycling for final level
|
|
|
|
if (map.finalmode && map.final_colormode)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
map.final_aniframedelay--;
|
|
|
|
if(map.final_aniframedelay==0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
graphics.foregrounddrawn=false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (map.final_aniframedelay <= 0) {
|
|
|
|
map.final_aniframedelay = 2;
|
|
|
|
map.final_aniframe++;
|
|
|
|
if (map.final_aniframe >= 4)
|
|
|
|
map.final_aniframe = 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
if (game.roomchange)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
//We've changed room? Let's bring our companion along!
|
|
|
|
game.roomchange = false;
|
2020-06-13 05:36:08 +02:00
|
|
|
int i = obj.getplayer();
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (game.companion > 0 && INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities))
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
//ok, we'll presume our companion has been destroyed in the room change. So:
|
|
|
|
switch(game.companion)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
case 6:
|
2020-09-08 23:59:23 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-03-31 02:46:36 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.createentity(obj.entities[i].xp, 121.0f, 15.0f,1); //Y=121, the floor in that particular place!
|
2020-09-08 23:59:23 +02:00
|
|
|
int j = obj.getcompanion();
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(j, obj.entities))
|
2020-06-13 05:43:19 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[j].vx = obj.entities[i].vx;
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[j].dir = obj.entities[i].dir;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
break;
|
2020-09-08 23:59:23 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
case 7:
|
|
|
|
if (game.roomy <= 105) //don't jump after him!
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (game.roomx == 110)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-03-31 02:46:36 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.createentity(320, 86, 16, 1); //Y=86, the ROOF in that particular place!
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-03-31 02:46:36 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.createentity(obj.entities[i].xp, 86.0f, 16.0f, 1); //Y=86, the ROOF in that particular place!
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
2020-09-08 23:59:23 +02:00
|
|
|
int j = obj.getcompanion();
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(j, obj.entities))
|
2020-06-13 05:43:19 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[j].vx = obj.entities[i].vx;
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[j].dir = obj.entities[i].dir;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case 8:
|
|
|
|
if (game.roomy >= 104) //don't jump after him!
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (game.roomx == 102)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-03-31 02:46:36 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.createentity(310, 177, 17, 1);
|
2020-09-08 23:59:23 +02:00
|
|
|
int j = obj.getcompanion();
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(j, obj.entities))
|
2020-06-13 05:43:19 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[j].vx = obj.entities[i].vx;
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[j].dir = obj.entities[i].dir;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-03-31 02:46:36 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.createentity(obj.entities[i].xp, 177.0f, 17.0f, 1);
|
2020-09-08 23:59:23 +02:00
|
|
|
int j = obj.getcompanion();
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(j, obj.entities))
|
2020-06-13 05:43:19 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[j].vx = obj.entities[i].vx;
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[j].dir = obj.entities[i].dir;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case 9:
|
|
|
|
if (!map.towermode) //don't go back into the tower!
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (game.roomx == 110 && obj.entities[i].xp<20)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-03-31 02:46:36 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.createentity(100, 185, 18, 15, 0, 1);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-03-31 02:46:36 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.createentity(obj.entities[i].xp, 185.0f, 18.0f, 15, 0, 1);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
2020-09-08 23:59:23 +02:00
|
|
|
int j = obj.getcompanion();
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(j, obj.entities))
|
2020-06-13 05:43:19 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[j].vx = obj.entities[i].vx;
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[j].dir = obj.entities[i].dir;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case 10:
|
|
|
|
//intermission 2, choose colour based on lastsaved
|
|
|
|
if (game.roomy == 51)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-09 08:34:26 +02:00
|
|
|
if (!obj.flags[59])
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.createentity(225.0f, 169.0f, 18, graphics.crewcolour(game.lastsaved), 0, 10);
|
2020-09-08 23:59:23 +02:00
|
|
|
int j = obj.getcompanion();
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(j, obj.entities))
|
2020-06-13 05:43:19 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[j].vx = obj.entities[i].vx;
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[j].dir = obj.entities[i].dir;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (game.roomy >= 52)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-09 08:34:26 +02:00
|
|
|
if (obj.flags[59])
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.createentity(160.0f, 177.0f, 18, graphics.crewcolour(game.lastsaved), 0, 18, 1);
|
2020-09-08 23:59:23 +02:00
|
|
|
int j = obj.getcompanion();
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(j, obj.entities))
|
2020-06-13 05:43:19 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[j].vx = obj.entities[i].vx;
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[j].dir = obj.entities[i].dir;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-09 08:34:26 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.flags[59] = true;
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.createentity(obj.entities[i].xp, -20.0f, 18.0f, graphics.crewcolour(game.lastsaved), 0, 10, 0);
|
2020-09-08 23:59:23 +02:00
|
|
|
int j = obj.getcompanion();
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(j, obj.entities))
|
2020-06-13 05:43:19 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[j].vx = obj.entities[i].vx;
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[j].dir = obj.entities[i].dir;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case 11:
|
|
|
|
//Intermission 1: We're using the SuperCrewMate instead!
|
|
|
|
if(game.roomx-41==game.scmprogress)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
switch(game.scmprogress)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
case 0:
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.createentity(76, 161, 24, graphics.crewcolour(game.lastsaved), 2);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case 1:
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.createentity(10, 169, 24, graphics.crewcolour(game.lastsaved), 2);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case 2:
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.createentity(10, 177, 24, graphics.crewcolour(game.lastsaved), 2);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case 3:
|
|
|
|
if (game.scmmoveme)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.createentity(obj.entities[obj.getplayer()].xp, 185, 24, graphics.crewcolour(game.lastsaved), 2);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
game.scmmoveme = false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.createentity(10, 177, 24, graphics.crewcolour(game.lastsaved), 2);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case 4:
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.createentity(10, 185, 24, graphics.crewcolour(game.lastsaved), 2);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case 5:
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.createentity(10, 185, 24, graphics.crewcolour(game.lastsaved), 2);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case 6:
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.createentity(10, 185, 24, graphics.crewcolour(game.lastsaved), 2);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case 7:
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.createentity(10, 41, 24, graphics.crewcolour(game.lastsaved), 2);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case 8:
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.createentity(10, 169, 24, graphics.crewcolour(game.lastsaved), 2);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case 9:
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.createentity(10, 169, 24, graphics.crewcolour(game.lastsaved), 2);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case 10:
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.createentity(10, 129, 24, graphics.crewcolour(game.lastsaved), 2);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case 11:
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.createentity(10, 129, 24, graphics.crewcolour(game.lastsaved), 2);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case 12:
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.createentity(10, 65, 24, graphics.crewcolour(game.lastsaved), 2);
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case 13:
|
2020-04-01 23:48:11 +02:00
|
|
|
obj.createentity(10, 177, 24, graphics.crewcolour(game.lastsaved));
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (game.scmmoveme)
|
|
|
|
{
|
Bounds check all entity getters that can return 0
The entity getters I'm referring to are entityclass::getscm(),
entityclass::getlineat(), entityclass::getcrewman(), and
entityclass::getcustomcrewman().
Even though the player should always exist, and the player should always
be indice 0, I wouldn't want to make that assumption. I've been wrong
before.
Also, these functions returning 0 lull you into a false sense of
security. If you assume that commands using these functions are fine,
you'll forget about the fact that `i` in those commands could be
potentially anything, given an invalid argument. In fact, it's possible
to index createactivityzone(), flipgravity(), and customposition()
out-of-bounds by setting `i` to anything! Well, WAS possible. I fixed it
so now they can't.
Furthermore, in the game.scmmoveme block in gamelogic(), obj.getplayer()
wasn't even checked, even though it's been checked in all other places.
I only caught it just now because I wanted to bounds-check all usages of
obj.getscm(), too, and that game.scmmove block also used obj.getscm()
without bounds-checking it as well.
2020-09-10 07:31:09 +02:00
|
|
|
int scm = obj.getscm();
|
|
|
|
int player = obj.getplayer();
|
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(scm, obj.entities) && INBOUNDS_VEC(player, obj.entities))
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[scm].xp = obj.entities[player].xp;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
game.scmmoveme = false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
game.activeactivity = obj.checkactivity();
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-30 02:04:25 +02:00
|
|
|
game.oldreadytotele = game.readytotele;
|
2020-08-03 06:02:27 +02:00
|
|
|
if (game.activetele && !game.advancetext && game.hascontrol && !script.running && !game.intimetrial)
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
int i = obj.getplayer();
|
Move all temporary variables off of entityclass
This is a refactor that simply moves all temporary variables off of
entityclass, and makes it so they are no longer global variables. This
makes the resulting code easier to understand as it is less entangled
with global state.
These attributes were:
- colpoint1
- colpoint2
- tempx
- tempy
- tempw
- temph
- temp
- temp2
- tpx1
- tpy1
- tpx2
- tpy2
- temprect
- temprect2
- x (actually unused)
- dx
- dy
- dr
- px
- py
- linetemp
- activetrigger
- skipblocks
- skipdirblocks
Most of these attributes were assigned before any of the times they were
used, so it's easy to prove that ungloballing them won't change any
behaviors. However, dx, dy, dr, and skipblocks are a bit more tricky to
analyze. They relate to blocks, with dx, dy, and dr more specifically
relating to one-way tiles. So after some testing with the quirks of
one-way tiles, it seems that the jankiness of one-way tiles haven't
changed at all, either.
Unfortunately, the attribute k is clearly used without being assigned
beforehand, so I can't move it off of entityclass. It's the same story
with the attribute k that Graphics has, too.
2020-09-26 21:38:57 +02:00
|
|
|
SDL_Rect temprect = SDL_Rect();
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities))
|
2020-06-13 05:36:08 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
Move all temporary variables off of entityclass
This is a refactor that simply moves all temporary variables off of
entityclass, and makes it so they are no longer global variables. This
makes the resulting code easier to understand as it is less entangled
with global state.
These attributes were:
- colpoint1
- colpoint2
- tempx
- tempy
- tempw
- temph
- temp
- temp2
- tpx1
- tpy1
- tpx2
- tpy2
- temprect
- temprect2
- x (actually unused)
- dx
- dy
- dr
- px
- py
- linetemp
- activetrigger
- skipblocks
- skipdirblocks
Most of these attributes were assigned before any of the times they were
used, so it's easy to prove that ungloballing them won't change any
behaviors. However, dx, dy, dr, and skipblocks are a bit more tricky to
analyze. They relate to blocks, with dx, dy, and dr more specifically
relating to one-way tiles. So after some testing with the quirks of
one-way tiles, it seems that the jankiness of one-way tiles haven't
changed at all, either.
Unfortunately, the attribute k is clearly used without being assigned
beforehand, so I can't move it off of entityclass. It's the same story
with the attribute k that Graphics has, too.
2020-09-26 21:38:57 +02:00
|
|
|
temprect.x = obj.entities[i].xp + obj.entities[i].cx;
|
|
|
|
temprect.y = obj.entities[i].yp + obj.entities[i].cy;
|
|
|
|
temprect.w = obj.entities[i].w;
|
|
|
|
temprect.h = obj.entities[i].h;
|
2020-06-13 05:36:08 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
Move all temporary variables off of entityclass
This is a refactor that simply moves all temporary variables off of
entityclass, and makes it so they are no longer global variables. This
makes the resulting code easier to understand as it is less entangled
with global state.
These attributes were:
- colpoint1
- colpoint2
- tempx
- tempy
- tempw
- temph
- temp
- temp2
- tpx1
- tpy1
- tpx2
- tpy2
- temprect
- temprect2
- x (actually unused)
- dx
- dy
- dr
- px
- py
- linetemp
- activetrigger
- skipblocks
- skipdirblocks
Most of these attributes were assigned before any of the times they were
used, so it's easy to prove that ungloballing them won't change any
behaviors. However, dx, dy, dr, and skipblocks are a bit more tricky to
analyze. They relate to blocks, with dx, dy, and dr more specifically
relating to one-way tiles. So after some testing with the quirks of
one-way tiles, it seems that the jankiness of one-way tiles haven't
changed at all, either.
Unfortunately, the attribute k is clearly used without being assigned
beforehand, so I can't move it off of entityclass. It's the same story
with the attribute k that Graphics has, too.
2020-09-26 21:38:57 +02:00
|
|
|
if (help.intersects(game.teleblock, temprect))
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.readytotele += 25;
|
|
|
|
if (game.readytotele >= 255) game.readytotele = 255;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.readytotele -= 50;
|
|
|
|
if (game.readytotele < 0) game.readytotele = 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (game.readytotele > 0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.readytotele -= 50;
|
|
|
|
if (game.readytotele < 0) game.readytotele = 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (game.teleport_to_new_area)
|
2020-03-31 21:38:52 +02:00
|
|
|
script.teleport();
|
2020-05-09 21:52:58 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#if !defined(NO_CUSTOM_LEVELS)
|
|
|
|
if (game.shouldreturntoeditor)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.returntoeditor();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
#endif
|
2020-04-29 03:15:26 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2020-04-29 06:58:19 +02:00
|
|
|
game.prev_act_fade = game.act_fade;
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(game.activeactivity, obj.blocks) && game.hascontrol && !script.running)
|
2020-04-29 03:15:26 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (game.act_fade < 5)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.act_fade = 5;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (game.act_fade < 10)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.act_fade++;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (game.act_fade > 5)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
game.act_fade--;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-29 03:15:56 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (obj.trophytext > 0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
obj.trophytext--;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-29 03:38:43 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
graphics.updatetextboxes();
|
2020-04-29 04:28:16 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!game.colourblindmode)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-04-30 00:25:01 +02:00
|
|
|
if (map.towermode)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-11-03 00:05:24 +01:00
|
|
|
graphics.updatetowerbackground(graphics.towerbg);
|
2020-04-30 00:25:01 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
graphics.updatebackground(map.background);
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-29 04:28:16 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
2020-04-29 06:17:16 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!game.blackout)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
//Update line colours!
|
|
|
|
if (graphics.linedelay <= 0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
graphics.linestate++;
|
|
|
|
if (graphics.linestate >= 10) graphics.linestate = 0;
|
|
|
|
graphics.linedelay = 2;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
graphics.linedelay--;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
Fix, for in-GAMEMODE sprites, their colors updating too fast
Okay, so the problem here is that Graphics::setcol() is called right
before a sprite is drawn in a render function, but render functions are
done in deltatime, meaning that the color of a sprite keeps being
recalculated every time. This only affects sprites that use fRandom()
(the other thing that can dynamically determine a color is help.glow,
but that's only updated in the fixed-timestep loop), but is especially
noticeable for sprites that flash wildly, like the teleporter, trinket,
and elephant.
To fix this, we need to make the color be recalculated only in the
fixed-timestep loop. However, this means that we MUST store the color of
the sprite SOMEWHERE for the delta-timesteps to render it, otherwise the
color calculation will just be lost or something.
So each entity now has a new attribute, `realcol`, which is the actual
raw color used to render the sprite in render functions. This is not to
be confused with their `colour` attribute, which is more akin to a color
"ID" of sorts, but which isn't an actual color.
At the end of gamelogic(), as well as when an entity is first created,
the `colour` is given to Graphics::setcol() and then `realcol` gets set
to the actual color. Then when it comes time to render the entity,
`realcol` gets used instead.
Gravitron squares are a somewhat tricky case where there's technically
TWO colors for it - one is the actual sprite itself and the other is the
indicator. However, usually the indicator and the square aren't both
onscreen at the same time, so we can simply switch the realcol between
the two as needed.
However, we can't use this system for the sprite colors used on the
title and map screen, so we'll have to do something else for those.
2020-05-01 02:34:37 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
graphics.trinketcolset = false;
|
|
|
|
for (int i = obj.entities.size() - 1; i >= 0; i--)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (obj.entities[i].invis)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
obj.entities[i].updatecolour();
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-05-02 19:31:48 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (map.finalmode)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
map.glitchname = map.getglitchname(game.roomx, game.roomy);
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-05-02 19:45:35 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#if !defined(NO_CUSTOM_LEVELS)
|
2020-05-02 19:49:41 +02:00
|
|
|
ed.oldreturneditoralpha = ed.returneditoralpha;
|
2020-05-02 19:45:35 +02:00
|
|
|
if (map.custommode && !map.custommodeforreal && ed.returneditoralpha > 0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
ed.returneditoralpha -= 15;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-06-13 02:20:37 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Editor ghosts!
|
|
|
|
if (game.ghostsenabled)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (map.custommode && !map.custommodeforreal)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (game.gametimer % 3 == 0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
int i = obj.getplayer();
|
|
|
|
GhostInfo ghost;
|
|
|
|
ghost.rx = game.roomx-100;
|
|
|
|
ghost.ry = game.roomy-100;
|
Use explicit INBOUNDS_VEC() instead of checking sentinel -1
It's better to do INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities) instead of 'i > -1'.
'i > -1' is used in cases like obj.getplayer(), which COULD return a
sentinel value of -1 and so correct code will have to check that value.
However, I am now of the opinion that INBOUNDS_VEC() should be used and
isn't unnecessary.
Consider the case of the face() script command: it's not enough to check
i > -1, you should read the routine carefully. Because if you look
closely, you'll see that it's not guaranteed that 'i' will be initialized
at all in that command. Indeed, if you call face() with invalid
arguments, it won't be. And so, 'i' could be something like 215, and
that would index out-of-bounds, and that wouldn't be good. Therefore,
it's better to have the full bounds check instead of checking only one
bounds. Many commands are like this, after some searching I can also
name position(), changemood(), changetile(), changegravity(), etc.
It also makes the code more explicit. Now you don't have to wonder what
-1 means or why it's being checked, you can just read the 'INBOUNDS' and
go "oh, that checks if it's actually inbounds or not".
2020-09-09 13:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (INBOUNDS_VEC(i, obj.entities))
|
2020-06-13 02:20:37 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
ghost.x = obj.entities[i].xp;
|
|
|
|
ghost.y = obj.entities[i].yp;
|
|
|
|
ghost.col = obj.entities[i].colour;
|
2020-06-13 02:34:19 +02:00
|
|
|
ghost.realcol = obj.entities[i].realcol;
|
2020-06-13 02:20:37 +02:00
|
|
|
ghost.frame = obj.entities[i].drawframe;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
ed.ghosts.push_back(ghost);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (ed.ghosts.size() > 100)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
ed.ghosts.erase(ed.ghosts.begin());
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-05-02 19:45:35 +02:00
|
|
|
#endif
|
2020-01-01 21:29:24 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|