Nada Epoch
The Librarian
Join date: 4 Nov 2002
Posts: 1,423
|
12-06-2002 19:00
I think it would be good if when you turned off parts of the phsycallity of an object, then the library calls that work on the non-physical portions of an object should be allowed to control the part that is turned off. For example, if I set all the stats_rotations to false, then i think that I ought to be able to use the llSetRot() command to controll the rotation of the object.
_____________________
i've got nothing. 
|
bUTTONpUSHER Jones
professional puddlejumper
Join date: 10 Oct 2002
Posts: 172
|
12-07-2002 20:17
that sounds like it may be a good idea, although i don't understand what you mean. can you give a simple example(for my simple brain)?
bp
|
Nada Epoch
The Librarian
Join date: 4 Nov 2002
Posts: 1,423
|
an example
12-07-2002 22:50
integer i; default { //In the state entry, we are just going to set all the flags //necessary to illustrate this point, namely the physical and //rotational status of the object.
state_entry() { llSetStatus(STATUS_PHYSICS, TRUE); //makes object physical.
llSetStatus(STATUS_ROTATE_X|STATUS_ROTATE_Y|STATUS_ROTATE_Z, FALSE); //makes it so that no force will cause the object to rotate //about any axis. } //Ok so if it worked the way i want it to, we could then use the //functions we us on non-physical objects to rotate our object //(the theory being that we turned off that physical quality of //the object when we set the statuses to false.
touch_start(integer a) { i+=1; //counter so it rotates 45 degrees each time.
rotation rot = llAxisAngle2Rot(<0,1,0>, i*PI/4); //creates a quaternion from a euclidean axis and angle.
llSetRot(rot); //Sets the rotation of the object to the ever changing //rotation rot. } }
The whole basis of my argument is that by locking some of the properties of a physical object, we are making those properties into non-physical, so I would like to be able to access/change those properties using functions that we use on non-physical objects, like, llSetRot().
_____________________
i've got nothing. 
|
Celerity Epoch
Genius in absentia
Join date: 13 Nov 2002
Posts: 179
|
That only illustrates 1/2 your point
12-08-2002 07:28
you should throw in a MoveToTarget at the same point just to drive the idea home =)
|
bUTTONpUSHER Jones
professional puddlejumper
Join date: 10 Oct 2002
Posts: 172
|
12-09-2002 04:03
is this making the object half physical and half non-physical? if i drop it will it bounce?
bp
|
Nada Epoch
The Librarian
Join date: 4 Nov 2002
Posts: 1,423
|
12-09-2002 07:12
it will bounce  cause the only thing that isn't physical is is the rotation parameters, so all other physical properties remain intact.
_____________________
i've got nothing. 
|
bUTTONpUSHER Jones
professional puddlejumper
Join date: 10 Oct 2002
Posts: 172
|
12-09-2002 17:35
llSetRot() is an instantaneous rotation, right? that would mean infinite torque. hmm, yes, i want this for my battlebot!
bp
|
Celerity Epoch
Genius in absentia
Join date: 13 Nov 2002
Posts: 179
|
*heh* that's a cool application
12-09-2002 20:12
On the other hand, for all we know that might cause the end of this world as we know it.
Infinite torque might be a problem for the physics engine =)
more likely it would zap the item and replace it with a turned one, the way setpos works, It reaches the second state without traveling through any of the intervening ones.
|