New Feature Idea - Anchor Chains

synthesissynthesis Member Posts: 1,693
edited November -1 in Working with GS (Mac)
I made a new feature suggestion to Gendai - it read as follows:
____________________

I was thinking that it would be quite beneficial (I think) towards expanding the physics potential of GS if we had an additional physics shape to work with (in addition to circle and square shapes). This would be a triangle.

What would really make it cool is if it had anchor points to it - 1 at each point and 1 at each midpoint and 1 at the center.

I think a triangle shape could have a lot of potential...especially if you could anchor a point to another shapes point...allowing things like ragdolls, centipedes, or stickmen to be built with an anchored chain of shapes...each child shape anchored to a parent shape via a point or points.

Anchor points in squares (corners, midpoints and center), circles (quadrants and center) and triangles could give us the potential to create much richer and deeper (and more complex) physics based game and could open the door to some exciting new game concepts.

I know this isn't critical as I am still in minority favor of you guys (Gendai) continuing with optimization over features. But I thought this one might be one to put into the hopper.

Maybe this is achievable after the physics overhead improvements are finished and the collision/physics engine is refined.

Thanks for reading!


_________________

What do you all think? Do you see potential here...or is it low priority in your minds.

(BTW - Did I do something wrong or is the "New Features" separate from the forum?...as it did not show up in the thread directory after I posted it there....as I assumed it created a forum thread)

Comments

  • firemaplegamesfiremaplegames Member Posts: 3,211
    I would love this, as well as all the features of the Box2D system, to be implemented eventually.
  • gyroscopegyroscope I am here.Member, Sous Chef, PRO Posts: 6,598
    I like this suggestion; I can see it'd be useful, but I guess, for me, its not a priority. I'd rather see collision detection of irregular shapes, ignoring transparency, much ahead of this, to be honest.

    :-)

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

  • beefy_clyrobeefy_clyro Member Posts: 5,394
    that would be good but its not the 1st thing on my priority list
  • AfterBurnettAfterBurnett Member Posts: 3,474
    Would be a good addition, for sure... would help out with something I'm working on at the mo. But yeah, I'd rather have stability and better collision options first.
Sign In or Register to comment.