feature request: layer offset

Discussion and feedback on Construct 2

Post » Fri Jan 23, 2015 1:38 pm

I'm in as well, +1 from me too.
ImageImageImageImage
B
158
S
66
G
43
Posts: 2,603
Reputation: 35,868

Post » Thu May 28, 2015 5:17 pm

@Ashley - Layer offsets, Any chance of this happening?
Image
B
33
S
11
G
2
Posts: 564
Reputation: 5,163

Post » Thu May 28, 2015 5:51 pm

I'm in for it also! I could use it immediately and it could make for some very interesting features.
Follow me on Twitter @evgLabs
B
34
S
14
G
4
Posts: 251
Reputation: 4,074

Post » Thu May 28, 2015 6:01 pm

@YetAnotherSuperhero - I like the idea of having control over the way in which layers are rendered, rather than having it tied to parallax :)
Image
B
33
S
11
G
2
Posts: 564
Reputation: 5,163

Post » Thu May 28, 2015 6:05 pm

+1. Would be very useful.
B
39
S
16
G
6
Posts: 543
Reputation: 7,619

Post » Fri May 29, 2015 10:18 am

Nobody has provided any actual use case so I'm not persuaded at all yet. What kind of actual games or features would this make possible that you can't already easily do?

This kind of feature can have significant code complexity implications and possibly significant performance implications too: the collision cells and render cells optimisations are strongly dependent on the predictability of the positions of objects. Layer parallax forces the collision cells optimisation to be disabled since cells no longer line up correctly. I think a layer offset feature would have the same effect. Usually parallax is just for decorative purposes so it's not important if collision cells get disabled. However with layer offsets I can imagine that you simply offset your main layer by 1px for some reason or other, and then it completely tanks the collision performance because collision cells no longer line up and it reverts to brute forcing collisions.

So I'd need a pretty darn compelling reason to implement this feature which exceeds the complexity and performance implications, and so far it's just a thread of "+1 sounds interesting". So right now I'm thinking "no way this is worth it".
Scirra Founder
B
399
S
236
G
89
Posts: 24,519
Reputation: 195,351

Post » Fri May 29, 2015 11:22 am

@Ashley: From reading the first page, I have a feeling what people actually want is an offset (X/Y position) of the parallax layer instead of a percentile value set in the layer's properties. The parallax percentile value can already be modified "on the fly" at runtime, possibly ppl want to set exactly a pixel amount of offset.
That's my understanding of posts in the first page though.
New to Construct ? Where to start

Image Image

Image Image

Please attach a capx to any help request or bug report !
Moderator
B
293
S
117
G
96
Posts: 7,310
Reputation: 71,069

Post » Fri May 29, 2015 11:28 am

I could imagine quite some use cases with isometric related games and height differences.
Who dares wins
B
57
S
17
G
21
Posts: 1,878
Reputation: 19,572

Post » Fri May 29, 2015 11:43 am

@Ashley , the first think that came to my mind when I saw this post was earthquakes! Moving all Sprites on a layer together interdependently from Sprites that live on other layers can have great potential I think. Also, linking layer positions to sine behaviors could create very interesting movements. What Kyatric wrote is also true, the way parallax works now is weird, it doesn't allow for accurate control, everything "shifts" from to 0,0 coordinates and many times I find my self wishing for the offset to happen from the actual scrollx, scrolly positions (relative post here).

It is a suggestion that has nothing more or nothing less that what I said, potential.
composer - multimedia artist
www.eli0s.com/en/
B
69
S
27
G
6
Posts: 1,146
Reputation: 10,379

Post » Fri May 29, 2015 12:27 pm

What we really need is a more robust Families system so that this can be done trivially in events.
B
92
S
31
G
24
Posts: 3,191
Reputation: 32,699

PreviousNext

Return to Construct 2 General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests