Would "ALPHA CHANNEL COLLISION MASKING" make Game Salad a more likely tool of choice?

BigCatBigCat Member, BASIC Posts: 19
edited June 2012 in Working with GS (Mac)
I've wondered, nearly since the day I started using GS - WHY IS THERE NO ALPHA CHANNEL COLLISION MASKING?? - I've mentioned it in a post here and there - I've tried asking directly, but for some peculiar reason there just ISN'T an answer. So - I figured perhaps it's time we investigate to see if anyone else feels the same way... so - do you?

Comments

  • tenrdrmertenrdrmer Member, Sous Chef, Senior Sous-Chef Posts: 9,934
    GameSalad is working on more collision options. it has been said many times that they are working on Polygonal Collisions.
    Warning There was an error rendering this rich post.
  • BigCatBigCat Member, BASIC Posts: 19
    tenrdrmer, In all seriousness - alpha channel masking can be any shape anyone wants it to be. If there's a pixel that isn't transparent - it collides. Then if you want to create a different shape - you can. You could have an octopus with 100 percent accurate collisions on each of it's tentacles, ONLY the suction cups; just by designing the sprites with a little forethought.

    Don't get me wrong - I love gamesalad. I REALLY do! But I like it because it helps me. IF/When something comes along that helps me more - I will be foolish to remain loyal to GS.
  • gyroscopegyroscope I am here.Member, Sous Chef, PRO Posts: 6,598



    ;-)

    ""You are in a maze of twisty passages, all alike." - Zork        temp domain http://spidergriffin.wix.com/alphaghostapps

  • 95orange95orange PRO Posts: 18
    Of course I'd like any feature I can get, but will pixel collisions make Gamesalad 1000 times better? No.

    Part of the appeal of GS is its simplicity. It contains a very small, easily learned set of rules and behaviors... but with a little creativity, those limited elements are all you need to make about 90% of the 2D games you could think of... Plus there are always people finding new techniques and workarounds to do things that were previously thought not possible with GS.

    So while I'd certainly use the feature ;) , not sure how much "better" that would make GS.
  • tenrdrmertenrdrmer Member, Sous Chef, Senior Sous-Chef Posts: 9,934
    Of course I'd like any feature I can get, but will pixel collisions make Gamesalad 1000 times better? No.

    Part of the appeal of GS is its simplicity. It contains a very small, easily learned set of rules and behaviors... but with a little creativity, those limited elements are all you need to make about 90% of the 2D games you could think of... Plus there are always people finding new techniques and workarounds to do things that were previously thought not possible with GS.

    So while I'd certainly use the feature ;) , not sure how much "better" that would make GS.
    Well said…

    And no I don't think we even need pixel collision. 2D games are not expected to have real life collisions and such. They are games and its all up to the developer to make the game fun regardless of realism. Its just no nessacary IMO. Definitely not worth the amount of time and effort it would take to recode a major part of the engine behind gamesalad.
    Warning There was an error rendering this rich post.
  • gyroscopegyroscope I am here.Member, Sous Chef, PRO Posts: 6,598
    edited June 2012

    Hi @BigCat

    I agree with the other guys to a certain extent: pixel-collision won't make GSC a thousand times better by a long shot (I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate!) But it'd still be nice to have, I guess but in "real-world" situations, you can get away with not having this feature - as @tenrdrmer said, you perhaps don't need it at all. And when you really do, then transparent actors, angled and/or set to circle collision overlaid and constrained to the visible actor is a decent workaround (probably best with very large images, otherwise it's not worth doing, in my opinion).

    For certain, I don't think it's so important that, if you don't see this feature in GSC in the near future, it should make you dump GSC for another developer...

    ""You are in a maze of twisty passages, all alike." - Zork        temp domain http://spidergriffin.wix.com/alphaghostapps

  • EatingMyHatEatingMyHat Member Posts: 1,246
    I wouldn't say no if GS offered it, but it is unlikely that it will happen and I wouldn't go as far as 1000 times better...

    better collision will be great, joints will be better...
  • BigCatBigCat Member, BASIC Posts: 19
    I'm currently working on a game which involves gears meshing and actually pulling a chain like the mechanics of a bicycle. Tell me that being able to determine an items actual shape (in 2 dimensions) has nothing to do with making that MUCH easier to accomplish. If there is an easier way - I honestly would love to know what it is. Overcoming this need to glue 30 actors together just to make a complex shape seems like a catastrophic waste of resources.

    T-SHIRTBooth - Thank you for your response. That makes at least some sense.
  • BigCatBigCat Member, BASIC Posts: 19
    By the way - if you actually read the responses that you're voting for - it makes it very clear that the "1000 times" thing was an exageration. Some folks should put a little more energy into exploring the question than nit-picking the delivery.
  • MetzoPainoMetzoPaino Member Posts: 195
    I've occasionally had game ideas where this would help, but I just made something else that better suits GameSalad's strengths.

    It would be nice, but I'd prefer universal builds, retina splash screen art, the none Lua GS etc.
  • ORBZORBZ Member Posts: 1,304
    edited June 2012
    Nah, it's not needed and it's too CPU intensive. Just let us define our own collision rectangle.

    Also, specifying the rotation pivot point would be nice.
  • tenrdrmertenrdrmer Member, Sous Chef, Senior Sous-Chef Posts: 9,934
    Nah, it's not needed and it's too CPU intensive. Just let us define our own collision rectangle.

    Also, specifying the rotation pivot point would be nice.
    The King has spoken ;)

    Man I would love the offset rotation point being built in. would make life so much easier. I would expect that is something that will almost have to come with joints though so hopefully in the new Lua-Free Engine.
    Warning There was an error rendering this rich post.
  • gyroscopegyroscope I am here.Member, Sous Chef, PRO Posts: 6,598
    edited June 2012

    Despite my previous remark, I've just remembered one game genre where proper alpha collision/touch detection would be a necessity really: hidden object games. Obviously the invisible boxes overlaid workaround would be OK, but a lot of work if there's hundreds of objects...

    ""You are in a maze of twisty passages, all alike." - Zork        temp domain http://spidergriffin.wix.com/alphaghostapps

  • IsabelleKIsabelleK Member, Sous Chef Posts: 2,807
    Couldn't resist :D
  • EatingMyHatEatingMyHat Member Posts: 1,246
    edited June 2012
    Couldn't resist :D
    Had to join in.

    GO 'AL-FA CHANNILL' !!!
  • MarkOnTheIronMarkOnTheIron Member Posts: 1,447
    I don't now if it will make the Creator a better tool, but certainly it would help a lot the design process for some types of games.

    Unfortunately until GS will continue to use Box 2D we won't have pixel collisions, but at least we can hope they will give us something more than circles an rectangles :)

    Warning There was an error rendering this rich post.
  • kinzuakinzua Member Posts: 554
    edited June 2012
    Hey,

    like mentioned.. polygonal collisions are being worked upon + joints. Compared to alpha channel masking, this would open up a plethora of options for GS developers. Add tons of realism possibilities to the same. Every idea has a 100 ways of execution, so one should just appreciate of what is being offered and make their way through.

    More is not always good, and will never be enough.
  • MobileRocketGamesMobileRocketGames Member Posts: 128
    edited June 2012
    I didnt vote because there was no option for "Only if it doesnt lag the !@#$% out of the game."
    Really, having to calculate every single pixel of a 512x512 image? what if that image is on an actor, and that actor is squished or scalled? Lets say the actor is 400x400, so now some of those pixels don't take up a full pixel in space... Or worse, what if that image is animated? now its cycling through 24fps and it has to calculate whether anything is touching any of the pixels. That's a lot of calculatations.
    Maybe with the new lua-free editor this may be optimized in some way? But i can't really think of any way to do that without an iphone exploding.
    I wont hold my breath.

    Oh god though, user defined collision rectangles would be perfect. I hate how squishing an actor with a circular collision doesn't squish the collision circle. That makes me sad.
  • tenrdrmertenrdrmer Member, Sous Chef, Senior Sous-Chef Posts: 9,934
    I didnt vote because there was no option for "Only if it doesnt lag the !@#$% out of the game."
    haha Quote of the day right there.

    and yeah I could do so much with even just an oval Collision shape.
    Warning There was an error rendering this rich post.
  • TrampskeyTrampskey Member Posts: 4
    This sort of thing would be great for me for an easy reason, I am working on a circle maze game, it would be nice if telling the engine where the was is didn't take 2 hours per level, with 100 levels to work on, unfortunately im not smart enough to use another engine yet, so, oh well.
  • BigCatBigCat Member, BASIC Posts: 19
    edited October 2012
    Pixel mapped collisions aren't taxing. There are other engines that use it very successfully. Its really very simple; either there's a collision with a pixel thats part of the alpa channel, or there isn't. The "calculations" were done long before the collision occurs. Otherwise the image couldn't have been transparent in the first place.

    As for any comments that were meant to come across as condescending, they'll have fallen on deaf ears. The results of the poll speak for themselves.
  • BigCatBigCat Member, BASIC Posts: 19
    Gyroscope - the video you posted (way back when) isn't permitted to play for me. Which is sad - because I actually was curious to know what it was.
Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025