4 ms·
Interesting to see the evolution from the original game loop to the final system, kind of reminded me of these drawings "from ape to modern homo sapiens". One t
by mercurial 13y ago
Interesting to see the evolution from the original game loop to the final system, kind of reminded me of these drawings "from ape to modern homo sapiens". One thing that bothers me with the final result, though, is that you end with a system where you can't tell the difference between two kinds of entities. If in your system infantry can climb aboard a spaceship but not the reverse, you can't guarantee that statically, unless you have a separate layer for this kind of logic.
- supercoder 13y agoYou'd define a climbing behaviour by a component on the entity. So your spaceship might have a 'Climeable' component on it and your infantry might have a 'Climber' component. So only a 'Climber' could go onto a 'Climeable' , but not the reverse.
- Jare 13y agoYou will also need to qualify these interactions beyond the "class-compatible" test, using flags or exclusion groups or a similar technique to say which climbers can climb atop which climbables. This happens in many areas of interaction between entity components: damage, physics, visibility, etc.