Discussion Parent/Child Relationships in room?

[hippyman]

I'm back with another idea I think would be cool to have in GMS2. I'd really like to see some sort of parent/child hierarchy that you can setup in the level editors. So that when you have an object as a child to a root object, it will follow the root object's position, angle, scale, etc.

Is this one of those things where it's just too simple to consider for the engine? Personally I feel like this could be extremely helpful in many cases. A couple examples off the top of my head is for easier management of large rooms and skeletal animation systems or even something as simple as making an object always follow another object. It would cut down a ton of code on our end if you added a system like this. As usual, I'm interested in what anybody has to say about this.

 

[Juju]

This is typically called a "scene graph".

I belieeeve YYG have nixed this one, though don't take my word for it. Keeping up at this point is a full time job (can we get an FAQ?).

 

[gnysek]

//create event:
parent = -1;

if (parent > 0 and instnace_exists(parent)) {
image_xscale = parent.image_xscale;
image_yscale = parent.image_yscale;
image_angle = parent.image_angle;
mp_linear_step(parent.x, parent.y, 4, false);
}

in parent:

with (instance_create_depth(x,y,instanceChild,0)) {parent = other.id;}

Ta da!

Yes, that is too simple, and hard to keep it flexible enough, it's better when user write it on it's own.

 

[hippyman]

//create event:
parent = -1;

Yes, that is too simple, and hard to keep it flexible enough, it's better when user write it on it's own.

What do you mean by "hard to keep it flexible?" It's a simple concept that enables flexibility if anything. It makes it where you don't need every object to inherit from this one object. Not to mention, being able to set these things up in rooms vs code is obviously faster. If we code this ourselves, then we also have to make a room editor that supports this.

This is typically called a "scene graph".

I belieeeve YYG have nixed this one, though don't take my word for it. Keeping up at this point is a full time job (can we get an FAQ?).

Is it pointless to make suggestions? I'm getting sick of hearing the same thing all the time.

 

[GMWolf]

When i asked about it, i think they said it was on their wish list.

 

[hippyman]

I'm going to have to just take a break from GMS for a year or something and just come back hoping that I like it. I'm tired of making suggestions.

 

[Juju]

I'm tired of making suggestions.

I hear ya. I started on a compilation of what YYG have said this morning to make things clearer.

 

[babyjeans]

Is it pointless to make suggestions? I'm getting sick of hearing the same thing all the time.

Well, your suggestion came back with some replies on how to achieve it without yoyo games assistance... Juju was merely mentioning what was already said about this topic since it has been potentially answered before, but that doesn't mean you need to tuck tail and think it's pointless.

I for one get a lot of value out of these suggestions and like to see the solutions people have come up with via using script.

 

[hippyman]

Well, your suggestion came back with some replies on how to achieve it without yoyo games assistance... Juju was merely mentioning what was already said about this topic since it has been potentially answered before, but that doesn't mean you need to tuck tail and think it's pointless.

I for one get a lot of value out of these suggestions and like to see the solutions people have come up with via using script.

I wasn't asking for ways to do it on my own. I already know how to do this just fine. This would be in the programming section if I wanted to know how to do it, so if anything it was a bit insulting, but that's more than likely me being too sensitive. I'm sure gnysek had no intention on insulting me.

My frustration just stems from making suggestions and then always getting the same replies and I never get any discussion from the developers themselves. Not to devalue the community's opinions. But it gets annoying when I have to hear from a community member and not a staff member, that there's probably no interest in this. I'd really appreciate it if the devs could try to have a discussion. I mean it's not like I'm suggesting pointless things. I'm suggesting modern things that pretty much every other engine has. but for some reason, it's just not doable with GM because for some reason it's not deemed worthy to put in the time.

The groundwork needs to be done first though before those features can be added, and the general user base (who may not have any other programming background - in fact they generally don't)

I read this quote in another post and I couldn't help but feel like I need to accept that I'm part of that "general user base" so I apologize if I come off as rude or ungrateful because of my own ignorance. I just want to see 2.x grow into something amazing. I'm still interested in discussing this topic further if anybody wants too.

 

[Nocturne]

@hippyman this is a community forum and if the devs have time to come online and answer then they do, but they can't (and won't) answer every topic that is posted, so don't take a lack of response as a personal insult, and understand that as a community run forum you should appreciate community replies.

As for the suggestions stuff, you guys are forgetting that GMS2 is still in beta and hasn't even been fully launched yet. This means that you are offering suggestions on an unfinished product without actually knowing how the released product will be (and like all software, once 2.0 goes out the door, 2.1 will come along later, then 2.2, etc... all with changes and additions, some of which will have been suggested and accepted by the devs from the forums). Just keep in mind that some of these suggestions fit in with the YYG vision, and others are accepted as being compatible with the YYG vision and so added for future revision and possible inclusion, and then some of these ideas are rejected as not being feasible or desired by the devs. They can't say "yes" to everything, especially when there are business and education considerations to take into account (to name but two of the multitude of factors in play).

I will also say that some time in the near(ish) future the bug database for 2 will be made public and in that you will be able to see a lot of the suggestions and changes that have been accepted from the community and a rough estimate of when they are planned. So, hopefully, that'll be better than having a simple roadmap...

 

[gnysek]

@Nocturne even if GM:S 2.0 will be released, we still won't get list of features that are coming in future, so there still be questions about them, again and again. While we know, that there's a lot of features coming, since Mike and Russell mentioned they are on their list. But in more than 7000 posts on this subforum, it's hard to find and remember which features they mentioned.

 

[Nocturne]

@Nocturne even if GM:S 2.0 will be released, we still won't get list of features that are coming in future, so there still be questions about them, again and again. While we know, that there's a lot of features coming, since Mike and Russell mentioned they are on their list. But in more than 7000 posts on this subforum, it's hard to find and remember which features they mentioned.

I will also say that some time in the near(ish) future the bug database for 2 will be made public and in that you will be able to see a lot of the suggestions and changes that have been accepted from the community and a rough estimate of when they are planned. So, hopefully, that'll be better than having a simple roadmap...

 

[gnysek]

@Nocturne - yeah, but I have suggestions accepted back in 2012 and still not added to GM:S... so I can take mantis bugs more like "we consider this in a future" or even "nice idea, but theres 5000 more important things to do first" rather than official high priority list.

Maybe, if you start to use priorities in Mantis...