ID:278013
 
This doesn't exactly fit in any of the topics, but I have a favor to ask of you guys.

I need the source code for a builder/icon game. Any builder game will do (provided it actually works and can save and load the map). The reason I need this is so I can work on a system compatible for said games and I'm far, far too lazy to create my own builder game just so I can test my code.

I know there's a few out there, so if anyone wants to lend me a hand (or point me in the right direction even) I'd be really appreciative.

Thanks in advance!

Edit: Just realized that I lied about any source code being fine. I need code compatible with BYOND version 3.5. Other than that though, it's all good.
mob/verb/build()new/obj/thing(src.loc)

Combine that with Lummox JR's SwapMaps and you have yourself a building game.
Edit: Just realized that I lied about any source code being fine. I need code compatible with BYOND version 3.5. Other than that though, it's all good.

No one uses 3.5 anymore, it would be like using Windows DOS over Windows XP.
In response to Jeff8500
I use BYOND 3.5, I don't like 4.0
In response to Trosh Kubyo
What's so bad about 4.0? 3.5 had no interfaces, no alpha transparency, and (again) no interfaces! Not to mention that you're limiting the number of games you can actually play.
In response to Jeff8500
Jeff8500 wrote:
What's so bad about 4.0? 3.5 had no interfaces, no alpha transparency, and (again) no interfaces! Not to mention that you're limiting the number of games you can actually play.

Actually ,3.5 to 4.0 is more like Windows XP to Windows Vista. Sure, it doesn't have some of the features, but it's sill a little more reliable while the many bugs are being worked out of its newer version.

There are still several issues with BYOND 4.0 that cause frustration to users and developers alike. This is probably the main reason why 3.5 is still around and 4.0 hasn't taken over completely.

Anyway, until such time as I have to switch to 4.0, I prefer to stick with 3.5
In response to SuperAntx
SuperAntx wrote:
mob/verb/build()new/obj/thing(src.loc)

Combine that with Lummox JR's SwapMaps and you have yourself a building game.

Thanks, this should do nicely.
What bugs? I think most of them have been squashed in the last year and four months.
In response to Jeff8500
Jeff8500 wrote:
What bugs? I think most of them have been squashed in the last year and four months.

Most, just not all. For example, one of the issues with 4.0 that still affects me is that when I set a macro and try and activate it, there's kind of like a 50% chance of it actually working. That gets REALLY frustrating really quickly when I'm playing a game, and have to repeatedly mash the button combination in order to get my macro to activate. Sometimes it won't even let me do it unless I click away from the text box first.

Then there's features that get annoying, such as the blur that happens when a map's dimensions aren't in exact multiples of 16 or 32, depending on the type of icons you are using. It makes it frustrating to build interfaces knowing that you have to add systems to ensure that the map doesn't get blurry when it's resized etc.

Stuff like that, you know?
Did you ever report the macro thing? I never got that problem, nor do most (if not all >_>) BYONDers. As far as the map thing goes, set the icon-size param to 32 to keep the size static so it won't blur.
In response to SuperAntx
One question about the SwapMaps thing. Is there a way to code it so that mobs in the same party will view the same swapped map? Like a group of players entering an instanced dungeon (instanced meaning that only that player can see that particular version of the map). I hope that explains it :\ If not, I can try to clarify.
In response to Mizukouken Ketsu
Mizukouken Ketsu wrote:
One question about the SwapMaps thing. Is there a way to code it so that mobs in the same party will view the same swapped map? Like a group of players entering an instanced dungeon (instanced meaning that only that player can see that particular version of the map). I hope that explains it :\ If not, I can try to clarify.

Not exactly. Everyone shares the same one map, however with clever use of the image proc you can create custom objects (and thus maps) that only certain players can see. Of course, then you have to implement your own collision code for those maps.
A much easier way would be to generate maps, and prevent players from entering them if they aren't supposed to.
In response to Jeff8500
Jeff8500 wrote:
A much easier way would be to generate maps, and prevent players from entering them if they aren't supposed to.

Well that WOULD work, except then you have to isolate the players and make space for all of the new maps. If you want something that allows you to see the other players nearby, or even something properly dynamic, images are probably a better way to go.
Making space isn't exactly hard, and swap maps automatically takes things like that into account and increases map size as necessary. Isolating the players isn't difficult, either. Plus, if you want more than one player in a certain map, then just put more than one player in that map. It's the standard procedure for this type of thing; I doubt anyone created a dynamic movement system with images complete with collision handling.
In response to Jeff8500
Nah, I didn't bother to report it since I'm not really actively engaged with using 4.0

BYOND has a whole bundle of people who are practically dedicated to testing and messing with its features, so anything as simple as the issues I had was surely already picked up. Basically, I'm just waiting for the point where 4.0 becomes necessary before I switch... if that ever happens.
Nobody picked it up to my knowledge, that's not very good logic. If you spot a bug, you submit it; it's for the betterment of the software itself.
Perpetr8r the Perpetu8r wrote:
Actually ,3.5 to 4.0 is more like Windows XP to Windows Vista. Sure, it doesn't have some of the features, but it's sill a little more reliable while the many bugs are being worked out of its newer version.

Nah, I think the comparison between Vista and DOS is more accurate. There is not much of a difference between Vista and XP, and most of the bugs have been squashed. There are a few remaining, but that's because no one knows about them--so obviously, you won't notice them.

There are still several issues with BYOND 4.0 that cause frustration to users and developers alike. This is probably the main reason why 3.5 is still around and 4.0 hasn't taken over completely.

Everyone I know thinks 3.5 is frustrating compared to 4.0, and developing for 4.0 is no different than developing for 3.5, save for that 4.0 has quite a bit more functionality (awesome functionality, by the way) that isn't exactly required to get anything running.

Also, you are the last one on BYOND using 3.5.
Perpetr8r the Perpetu8r wrote:
Jeff8500 wrote:
What's so bad about 4.0? 3.5 had no interfaces, no alpha transparency, and (again) no interfaces! Not to mention that you're limiting the number of games you can actually play.

Actually ,3.5 to 4.0 is more like Windows XP to Windows Vista. Sure, it doesn't have some of the features, but it's sill a little more reliable while the many bugs are being worked out of its newer version.

Terrible analogy. 3.5 to 4.0 is more like Windows 98 to Windows XP.

There are still several issues with BYOND 4.0 that cause frustration to users and developers alike. This is probably the main reason why 3.5 is still around and 4.0 hasn't taken over completely.

Removing the download link and putting a force upgrade would probably take care of that. Personally, I've found zero frustrations with the later versions of BYOND. I'm free to use my creativity without being limited by interfaces and the like.

Anyway, until such time as I have to switch to 4.0, I prefer to stick with 3.5

May that day come soon, and we can be forever rid of 3.5.

--

What do you need the source of an icon builder utility for to test code? I highly doubt you need the building system, administrative system, communication systems and the like to test code, it doesn't make sense. Modular Programming is a concept to keep in mind when making something.

If you require the source to something you want to appeal too, then it should be plug and play or at least require very minimal handling by the programmer. As no one mans source is identical to another's, the fact it works on your local machine holds no proof that it'll work on someone else's program.
epic failure of a post. 3.5 may have been more stable than 4.0 during the beta builds and maybe even the first couple of non-beta builds, but to say that 3.5 is more stable than the current 4.0 builds shows that you have absolutely no real understanding of the updates made in 4.0

-Repairing the flaws that caused almost guaranteed eventual server lockdown, ie loginscreen bug, ie background processes not terminating properly.

-Fixing the problem with overlays in which the more use of overlays your game employed the faster the game would eventually completly break and run out of overlays completly, this was a huge problem for any game that was graphically intensive and completly hamstringed developers in what they could do. (see NarutoGOA, DBO2(according to kobata), MegamanNT:The navi wars)

-Interfaces, hello?, do you not see the benefit to a more flexible macro system and the ability to actually tailor the games interface to the way its played?

-Alpha values in icons. This graphical jump has moved BYONDs potential for a 2D game up so freaking far.

+Hundreds of random bugs and problems that have been addressed since 4.0s release.

3.5 has absolutely NO discernible benefit over 4.0, find me one. One feature or more stable aspect and ill gladly debunk it for you. I cannot explain to you how much has improved for developers since 3.5 wrapped up, I cant even start. It isnt even a matter of opinion, you can do anything you could do in 3.5 in 4.0, so it isnt really something you can argue is a preference difference, 4.0 is more features and better stability. Please though, defend your argument.

What issues exist? Do you know how annoying such a vague statement must be for Tom and LummoxJr?
Page: 1 2