- #Clickteam fastloops not exporting windows exporter code#
- #Clickteam fastloops not exporting windows exporter Pc#
Thus, the newly created pear is neither destroyed nor faded. Because the first action applies to the 5 pre-existing pears, the third action does too. And it explains that since the first pear action encountered in Example newl圜reated #4 applies to all 5 pre-existing pears, the scoping is cemented to those 5 pears (which is why fading is applied later to those 5, but not to the 6th that was created a moment after the scoping took place). It explains that when a pear is first encountered in Example newl圜reated #5 it cements the scope to that 1 pear (only that pear is faded). The above hypothesis appears to agree with everything we've seen so far. Perhaps, the first time an object is encountered in an action, its scoping is cemented for the rest of the event (including any scoping inherited from conditions, naturally). Who knows how exactly it works under the hood? But I can start to cobble together a hypothesis: Only the newly created pear is faded. This all seems pretty inconsistent and weird. In the above example (exactly the same as the preceding one, except that the tilting action is applied to apples instead of pears) the c reate new pear action does indeed affect scope. Regardless, as long as you remain aware of this idiosyncrasy, it's not likely to cause you many problems.
Hopefully this will help you get an intuitive sense of why Fusion only scopes objects from the left. And since computers have a much lower tolerance for ambiguity than humans do, you can imagine that a computer would struggle to make that inference. There's something a bit off about the second statement, right? You can still infer that Fred's spoon came from the same drawer that was the third from the top, but it's not 100% clear. The drawer was the third from the top, and Fred got himself a spoon It's a bit like, instead of saying.įred went to the the third drawer, and got himself a spoon While that second statement isn't exactly broken, it's kind of.odd, right? The focus of the sentence seems now to be the number 100, so it doesn't feel entirely right to assume that we're talking about any specific pears. If 100 is less than the Y position of a pear, then rotate the pear. If the Y position of a pear is greater than 100, then rotate the pear. The first statement, essentially, reads as follows: It's called volPROFILER, and the Clickteam developers among you can get it on the Clickstore for just $2.99. But it's still pretty damn useful, if I do say so myself.
#Clickteam fastloops not exporting windows exporter code#
Well, it's a few weeks later, and I'm now pleased to say that I've gotten around these problems, and have built Fusion's first ever code profiler that can accurately measure code performance in microseconds! I'm sure it's not as full-featured as the profilers that come with 'real' programming environments like Visual Studio, and it only measures the performance of your Fusion code (not, for example, the DirectX & GPU side of things). And cobbling together one's own was more or less impossible because Fusion didn't provide the means to measure code time finely enough. The trouble is that Fusion doesn't have any kind of native profiler built-in. A very helpful commenter pointed out that I really shouldn't be blindly optimising everything I can, but should be profiling the code to find the bottlenecks, and then devote my energy optimising those.
#Clickteam fastloops not exporting windows exporter Pc#
Overall, the old girl copes pretty well with what I throw at her, but I'm still taking optimising very seriously, to make sure that Spryke runs smoothly on as many PC setups as possible.Ī while ago, I wrote a post describing some of my optimisation efforts. That means that I push the Clickteam Fusion 2.5 engine pretty hard. I'm cramming as much eye candy and mechanical nuance into Spryke as I can, to make it as impressive and satisfying to play as it can possibly be.
0 kommentar(er)
