Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Separate "Player Trail Mode" Option #593

Merged

Conversation

andrikpowell
Copy link
Contributor

This setting in the menu is long and formatted in an awkward way.
As a result the option is hard to fit well in the menus, and can be a bit confusing being two options.

I've separated the option "Player Trail Mode" into 2 separate options:

  • "Player Trail" (off/on)
  • "Include Collisions" (off/on)

I feel this is easier to understand and easier to fit in the menus compared to its current iteration.

The main downside is there isn't an easy way to convert the current setting a user has into these two options.

Copy link
Collaborator

@Pedro-Beirao Pedro-Beirao left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I do prefer this since the menu wont need that weird offset no more (and its such a rare feature to use, that no one will notice it being reset).
But the logic here is wrong.

Try setting Player Trail to On and Collisions Off.

You can work with collisions as a separate bool, or go back to map_trail_mode_off into the enum. But the way its done right now is wrong.

@andrikpowell andrikpowell force-pushed the separate-player-trail-option branch from f210201 to 22c1f82 Compare February 14, 2025 02:48
@andrikpowell
Copy link
Contributor Author

I do prefer this since the menu wont need that weird offset no more (and its such a rare feature to use, that no one will notice it being reset). But the logic here is wrong.

Try setting Player Trail to On and Collisions Off.

You can work with collisions as a separate bool, or go back to map_trail_mode_off into the enum. But the way its done right now is wrong.

Thanks, you are correct. My logic was faulty in AM_initPlayerTrail(). Check out the new force pushed code. Tested it and it now works correctly. Perhaps I'm dumb, but I can't really tell the difference between "Collisions" on/off.

@Pedro-Beirao
Copy link
Collaborator

Pedro-Beirao commented Feb 17, 2025

Perhaps I'm dumb, but I can't really tell the difference between "Collisions" on/off.

Only a select number of trails squares are allowed on screen at a time (map trail size). When you move, a new square is made, and possibly an older square is removed.

So with collisions on, instead of creating new square when you move a few units, it creates new squares when attempting to move. So even if you attempt to move into a wall and getting stopped by the collision, it will make a new square.

@andrikpowell andrikpowell force-pushed the separate-player-trail-option branch 2 times, most recently from 2b68681 to f1efc5f Compare February 20, 2025 14:59
@andrikpowell andrikpowell force-pushed the separate-player-trail-option branch from 030d01f to d7eac57 Compare February 20, 2025 15:06
@Pedro-Beirao
Copy link
Collaborator

Ive already approved this, but before I merge, could you change false to map_trail_mode_off? Its more correct.
Sry 😅

map_trail_mode = dsda_IntConfig(dsda_config_map_trail) ? trail_collisions : false;

@andrikpowell
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ive already approved this, but before I merge, could you change false to map_trail_mode_off? Its more correct. Sry 😅

map_trail_mode = dsda_IntConfig(dsda_config_map_trail) ? trail_collisions : false;

done :)

@Pedro-Beirao Pedro-Beirao merged commit 51d4226 into kraflab:master Feb 27, 2025
5 checks passed
@Pedro-Beirao
Copy link
Collaborator

Thank you!

@andrikpowell andrikpowell deleted the separate-player-trail-option branch February 27, 2025 15:33
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants