Jump to content
Stray Fawn Community

Lurkily

Moderator
  • Posts

    1,540
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Lurkily

  1. I always considered the heating projectiles to be an enemy in and of themselves, like something the rays have a symbiotic relationship with. They certainly behave as if alive.
  2. I just turn up the shields and pound the hell out of them on approach.
  3. I want to cry with sympathy pain just imagining it.
  4. So, indiscriminate transmitter/receiver parts, each one set to whitelist or blacklist, with a list of signals? And based on that list, accepting only those signals, or all signals except those? And receivers, like a button, would split nothing, checking all transmitters for signals, filtered by their list, if they have one? That would provide directional signals, segregate the signals sent/received, and be simple and self-explanatory, in my opinion. It would solve just about any issue with wireless, and fulfill a number of feature requests, more or less.
  5. I think it gave ME cancer.
  6. Only as long as they put a bathroom on the drone.
  7. I'm beginning to think that converting wireless transmitters to indiscriminate transmitter/receiver parts, and having receivers transmit to ALL connected parts, while not a solution in detail, is simple and provides enough building blocks to solve any of our issues with connectivity, and that won't change if logic goes local.
  8. My edit failed, and I had to copy it, reload, and I thought I'd replaced text instead of duplicated it when I pasted. Oops. That would require four parts - a pair for single-keys, a pair for general purpose. I'm not happy with changing one part to four to seek simplicity. So let's do a thought experiment. My failures with wireless control over drones include logic under a wireless part unable to interact with the subdrone's logic. The parts it can interact with, also crosstalk. If we had all-key transmitters and receivers, can someone think of something that would NOT be able to handle? Give me an example, and we'll see if we can solve that example with indiscriminate transmitter-receiver connectors. Keep in mind receivers in this model would be able to transmit to ALL connected parts of a sub-drone. It would act like a button, reproducing signals that reach the transmitter.
  9. I found a picture of the surgical scar. Here's the injury that might have killed me, a month or so later.
  10. I would hide the abilities in progression menus, unlock new capabilities. But really, a novice drone builder might like the idea of hinges, but what chance do they have of using them well?
  11. I missed that you said 'all tags'. Receivers and transmitters might clear some of the issues we have with sub drone control, but I think single - key capability would make such control quite easy and straightforward. Hmm. Let me examine the problems again, load up my wireless ship, examine the various conditions I'd like to solve. It's not easy to hold it all in my head at once. Now that I'm seeing ways to eliminate all splitting function from a connector, I think we must. I still think a receiver's children would have to transmit to ALL connected parts, not just children. And I am still concerned that there would be situations where it would be difficult to separate signals that need to be separated, though I can't imagine a specific circumstance now.
  12. I think you are bonkers. Not that this is a bad thing, mind you.
  13. I have no issues with receivers and transmitters being separate parts ; I mentioned much the same thing in my first reply. I think it will very much help explain by example.
  14. My revised suggestion is that the receiver talk to all connected parts. Parents, children, cousins, all of it. If you can segregate signal flow with single-key transmitters, you don't need to juggle which signals travel past the receiver and which don't. The receiver would just act like any button, and not split any signals, whether wireless or local. The only splitter part would be the aptly named splitter. Thus wireless parts would not separate any signal, and treat all signals separately.
  15. Well then, its a perfect time to ask these questions and plant these seeds.
  16. I had hoped for more response, so I'll post my own thoughts in detail. I'd like to be able to add multiple inputs and reactions. Each input would have a rotation speed, rotation angle, and a toggle for whether you rotate to that angle, or rotate that many degrees. Normal rotation can be achieved with 1 or 0 degree increments. Do not stack multiple activation. Every activation of the sensor resets the rotation required, instead of adding to it. Normal scanning, to keep sensors stable, can be at limited speed. (Though a way to address sensor stability would be welcome.) Sensors at a 15 degree spread left or right can turn the turret very quickly to that exact angle.
  17. I have revised my opinion. I'm now a proponent of a different suggestion. If you upvoted this, please consider uprooting that, after reading my reasoning here:
  18. I want to revisit this. I've been a proponent of two modifications - making logic local, and letting local signals cross connectors. It would give us the ability to control drones through ONLY selected signals. I've revised my opinion. I think local logic, and adding transceiver function (as described above) to connectors, and receivers transmitting to ALL connected parts, parent or child, is much better. If you can segregate which signals you send, you don't have to segregate which signals can cross a receiver. Have its signals provided to all connected parts. (In technical terms, have any hub mirror the signals of a child receiver, which poll transmitters for their signals.) Thus there is no signal a connector blocks, every signal is treated consistently, as if it were just a button itself. It eliminates any and all ambiguity from wireless connectivity. No special cases, no blocked signals without a real splitter in place. I want to make sure @Micha sees this, after all the text I dropped trying to tell him that my first idea was where I thought things should go. I don't change my mind easily, as some of you have no doubt noticed. I think this is important, and good for the game, and that my idea was not the ideal solution.
  19. What about procedurally generated tracks? Generate a waypoint pattern, generate debris or dangers that stay outside the 'rivers' between waypoints? (Rivers are what you call the paths of empty space up and down a book's page, too.) I'd hate to see the top drones be specifically built to navigate THE maps, instead of being built to navigate well, period.
  20. Do you only have to get close to them, or cross a line that crosses the track there? I still like the idea of a 'rabbit' that runs the track ahead of you. It can be given waypoints, too, where it slows down to keep closer to you. (So you can turn corners.) I say have waypoint/rabbit races, AND free races, and tracks with moving obstacles for both. Also, some kind of random influence, (procedural obstacles, wind, asteroids?) so that races aren't deterministic. Any plans for a track editor?
  21. The biggest bit of advice I can give in that regard is to try and avoid cyclic patterns of light. Given the nature of this game, a player can make a strobe if they want, so that's hard to avoid, but you can at least try and avoid things that strobe by default. The trigger is usually somehow cyclic - flashing or flickering lights or images. Sometimes very specific patterns of light-and-dark. (Such as a curtain behind a barred window, with bars of a specific ratio of width to space, viewed at the right distance.) It's fairly rare, and I don't have that form of epilepsy. It affects about 1 in 400 epilepsy sufferers. From the Wikipedia article on photosensitive epilepsy: Again, I don't suffer that form of epilepsy, and my condition is controlled by medication, so don't worry about me too much.
  22. I had a seizure while on a bus. I had been to two funerals in a short span, and I was a bit of a mess, and had missed a few doses of meds. I don't remember much from a seizure, or the time before it, but I was told I 'did a faceplant' on the bus. I have an existing spinal issue, a narrow spot in the spinal canal that can cause a pinched nerve. It bruised the spinal cord, and it was swelling in a space too narrow to contain it. They took me to surgery, cut a pie wedge out of three vertebrae to give it room, and installed hardware to keep the vertebrae aligned, since they didn't stack right anymore. It caused tingling in my hands and feet, starting with wrists and angles, and severe discoordination. For a while, I couldn't run or handle anything well. Typing or writing was brutally frustrating. Luckily I regained all my coordination and the tingling subsided, so I no longer have an issue with my sense of touch. The first hospital missed it. They were going to write it off as a side effect of a seizure, something I'd never experienced before. (And as an epileptic, I'm familiar with how my seizures progress.) My mom and my neurologist got me in to GMU that night for a CAT scan. It's lucky, too. That kind of interference can stop very important signals, such as those keeping me breathing - it's the injury that killed Freddie Grey, the guy who died after a 'rough ride' in a police van.
  23. But that's exactly what a 1-way splitter would do; treat signals differently based on whether they were coming or going. It's what connectors do now, letting signals flow down the hierarchy, but not up. It's what my suggestion for wireless parts not acting as splitters would do - segregate signals based on whether they were wireless or not. It splitters were the only part that segregated signals and connectors sent only a single signal, instead of all signals, connectors could just connect everything, and splitters just split everything. No special cases, no direction of travel, very straightforward operation and simple segregation of which signals are sent. I like that solution better than my suggestion to let local signals cross a connector. It makes signal behavior completely consistent regardless of what direction it travels or whether it's local. I'll add a feature request tomorrow. When I can caffeinate, and after sleeping on the matter.
  24. The reason is because you won't have connectors that disconnect signals. Wireless receivers would bring a signal to connected parts - ALL connected parts. Signals don't only go downstream, and children aren't isolated from parents, there's no need to treat wireless signals and local signals differently. Splitters, as their name implies, are the one and only part that split, and wireless parts don't separate anything from anything. All signals are treated consistently.
×
×
  • Create New...