Anachron said:
Not really. You can't make a missile that has no aim with your timer system.
Well you can, but you have to know what you're doing. You can't just send random missiles on their way, but you can improvise and make it look like they have no target when they really do. This is a much better work-around than having all of your projectiles as mindlessly moving units.
Anachron said:
As for now, yes, I am forcing them to input proper values.
Stop trying to use words like "proper values" to save your pride. You force the users to do the math themselves because your system is unstable. This has nothing to do with "proper values". An improper value is a string when a real is required, not 5 when 3 is ideal.
Anachron said:
That is not really math, everybody that can use the object editor can use my missile engine
Yes, that is math. Anybody can choose random numbers but those random numbers won't always work. Mathematics is required to ensure the numbers chosen
do work.
Anachron said:
Not allowing the user to reference the timer iteration is not forcing him to create his own framework. The only thing is forces them to do is use their own timer, that is not a framework. I suggest you look up the definitions of words before throwing them around.
I suggest staying at the main topic before writing any more sentence.
What? I was answering a topic that
you brought up and now you're telling me to stay on topic? If you want to stay on topic then don't bring up irrelevant information. God man you're not too bright.
Anachron said:
I didn't, and I did tons of system changings to include the features.
Coming from the same guy who won't use time because the mathematics is too complex, I have a hard time seeing what complex changes you could have possibly incorporated that "enabled" these amazing features that don't work without strict values.
Just to clear things up, too, I'm not talking about giving a projectile 30000 speed and seeing whether or not it will break, I'm talking about precise mathematical situations where common problems can arise due to the incoherency of your calculations.
Anachron said:
Not about if it works nor not, but more HOW it works.
Exactly. Nobody cares about how many features you have it's about how stable those features are. Well, nobody with half a brain anyway.
Anachron said:
I am just not liking time, is that that hard to understand? Just get it.
Do you really expect me to believe that? If you could use time and have absolute accuracy you would, you just don't understand the math behind it and you don't want to do the work that would be required to use a more accurate method of target-detection.
Anachron said:
Stupid values bring stupid results. Even your engine will break if I insert some stupid things into it.
Please provide some examples instead of just pulling things out of your ass to throw at me. Monkey-boy.
Anachron said:
But since you have rarely anything for the user to test, you can tell that it works, because it nearly does have no functionality
I don't really know what you're trying to say here. You haven't provided any examples or situations where my system breaks, as I have for you, so I'll assume you mean that you couldn't actually find anything to present.
because it nearly does have no functionality
This sentence makes about as much sense as your argument as a whole.
Anachron said:
It's because you are doing it wrong.
Since when is the malfunction of a system the user's fault?
Anachron said:
Nope, the last part belonged to the "removing the zArc while flying", learn to read.
You tell me that it's easy to break my system, and then you follow up by saying, quite simply, that you can't. In fact you use the word "impossible".
I like how you're telling me to learn how to read after a sentence like this one:
because it nearly does have no functionality.
Learn how to write a proper sentence, and perhaps some properly functioning code to. Then get back to me.
Anachron said:
You are only trying to say why your system is so great whatever, without even looking what I have to argue.
What are you talking about? I've picked absolutely every inch of your arguments apart and revealed how much bullshit that you produce. Not only that but you haven't actually provided a single fact, screen-shot, or example to back up any of your arguments.
Also, I am not trying to say "how great my system is" I am trying to show you how much error you have in yours. This isn't about me. It's about you, and this system. That's why we're in this thread. I found problems with
your system, and since I happen to have a projectiles system I thought I'd help you out, but you're too bloody arrogant and ignorant to learn from people who
actually know what they're doing.
Anachron said:
You don't know anything of this system, and since you don't want to, I think you really shouldn't post anything more, not that I don't like feedback, most of your feedback just isn't helpful in any way.
What do you mean, I don't know anything about this system? Last time I checked you were coming to my submission thread asking me why your event handler (the idea of which you stole from me) did not work.