After jump you move straight to specific cordinates.
pegperegogaucho
You move a specific distance in a direction
hesopesomeso
Each frame.
adrientd
I updated the ground flags, they are now defined in the json as properties of CGround:
adrientd
One question for all: Here I renamed Walkable to Active, as I'm pretty sure what it does is just to tell if the Ground works or not.
If you disable it, it's like it didn't exist or got removed.
adrientd
So is it ok? Or anyone has a better term? Or keep Walkable?
pegperegogaucho
I always though walkable is very confusing
pegperegogaucho
Because you might think turning off walkable and enabling slide will make the ground continue to work, which is not true at all.
by just looking at the second screen without knowing ANYTHING or reading the conversion, I asumn it is about a marked floor.
It has 2 parameters.
First: Either Bouncing (like on a tent), kills me (like jumping in lava), getting damaged like in UXXL Helvetia parcour to the catapult or it is a slide to slide down collecting everything. It could also be the sliding effect when it is too high...
Second: says if its water, a normal ground, high grass like on helvetia start or a ground with no shadow for inside buildings.
The rest is not definable for me as it makes so sense for me regarding a "Ground" or a "Floor"
pegperegogaucho
Oh there is a double space there
pegperegogaucho
You got it, but the parameters can all be enabled at once, so you can have a bouncing death ground
pegperegogaucho
Also, I love how in every other message schmeling65 includes a reference to UXXL so we know what he is talking about
adrientd
Other evens also hade double space I think this was done to align the word with the other events.
adrientd
like that
schmeling65
Also a Hint that "everything can be activated" would be good. I thought that too by the first screenshot but it is just stupid. But maybe someone wants that stupidity, then it is good to know; or vise versa: People know that they should not do that to make normal layers.
pegperegogaucho
looks good, but we should be consistent with the capitalisation