Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Author
Message
Sasuke
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2005
Location: Milton Keynes UK
Posted: 12th Dec 2013 17:00
Say I have 3 boxes (2d) in a line all with different widths against each other that fill a max width and I want to add another box. How do you scale all the other boxes to make room for the new box within the max width?

It's funny how the simplest things turn out to be hardest.

"Get in the Van!" - Van B
chafari
Valued Member
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd May 2006
Location: Canary Islands
Posted: 12th Dec 2013 18:19 Edited at: 12th Dec 2013 18:24
Not exactly sure what you want....somthing like this....




Edited What this piece of code do, is scale second object whichever size the first has...

I'm not a grumpy grandpa
Sasuke
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2005
Location: Milton Keynes UK
Posted: 12th Dec 2013 19:38 Edited at: 12th Dec 2013 19:39


Say if the window these frames are on is 800 in width, and I want to add a frame to the far left that's 200 in width. All the other frames need to be rescaled (and shifted to the right) to fit the 600 space left! I just can't work out what needs to be done when all frames are different sizes!

@chafari, thanks for the help, if I needed that I'm sure it would of helped

"Get in the Van!" - Van B

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Derek Darkly
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2011
Location: Whats Our Vector, Victor?
Posted: 12th Dec 2013 19:42
Ok, so if you're going to add a frame 200 in width, the first thing to decide is - Do you want to downsize the boxes evenly or according to their starting size? (Evenly would probably be easier.)

Let me know this and I can *probably* figure something out.

D.D.
Sasuke
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2005
Location: Milton Keynes UK
Posted: 12th Dec 2013 19:44
Evenly Derek and cheers. I'm currently experimenting also so let the race to victory begin!

"Get in the Van!" - Van B
chafari
Valued Member
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd May 2006
Location: Canary Islands
Posted: 12th Dec 2013 19:58 Edited at: 12th Dec 2013 20:02
Aahh..!! now I understand you...you wanna do something like lightmapping rig the space to fit all images in it. I Once tried and never did....I suppose we have to take into account maximun x,y , and if we have a big image to fit and not room for it, it goes down to x=0 to maximum y...something like :

if max_x+image width>800 then paste new_image 0,max_y

Edited

Another possibility , is to size sprite to the size you want, and then divide the space in the number of image you need ...let say 32x32.

I'm not a grumpy grandpa
MonoCoder
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Dec 2005
Location: england
Posted: 12th Dec 2013 20:14 Edited at: 5th Jan 2014 23:32
This might help, if I've not got the wrong end of the stick.

edit: images linked to make thread lighter
boxfitting.png


boxfitting2a.png
boxfitting2b.png
Sasuke
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2005
Location: Milton Keynes UK
Posted: 12th Dec 2013 20:20 Edited at: 12th Dec 2013 20:23
I'm an idiot! I just figured it out

You take the new space and divide it by the old space to work out the percentage you'd scale all the frame points by!

I feel stupid now!

@MonoCoder, that's what I just thought of, you may have one this race

@chafari, not entirely sure what your talking about

"Get in the Van!" - Van B
chafari
Valued Member
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd May 2006
Location: Canary Islands
Posted: 12th Dec 2013 21:01
@MonoCoder
Great example


Quote: "@chafari, not entirely sure what your talking about"


Some time ago, I have tried to do something like that, and I never could figure out how..., so I decided to resize all images to 32*32, and then paste to a bitmap of 400x400.

I'm not a grumpy grandpa
Sasuke
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2005
Location: Milton Keynes UK
Posted: 12th Dec 2013 22:01 Edited at: 12th Dec 2013 22:38
Quote: "Some time ago, I have tried to do something like that, and I never could figure out how..., so I decided to resize all images to 32*32, and then paste to a bitmap of 400x400."


Aha now I get

So I've figured it out! So now the question is how do you combine this with fixed size frames? Where the some frames can't change size!

Edit: I'm thinking for scalar we just work out the total scalable width and only apply it to the non fixed frame widths.

@MonoCoder, there awesome examples

"Get in the Van!" - Van B
Sasuke
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2005
Location: Milton Keynes UK
Posted: 12th Dec 2013 23:33 Edited at: 12th Dec 2013 23:35
Well it's working so far... (little tweaks)


Note: still can't work out the scalar with fixed size frames though

"Get in the Van!" - Van B

Attachments

Login to view attachments
MonoCoder
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Dec 2005
Location: england
Posted: 13th Dec 2013 00:41 Edited at: 5th Jan 2014 23:33
That looks good
If I could make a recommendation though, I'd inset the corner-drag elements or replace them with hori/vert splitters between panes. Otherwise, its an elegant design.

Meanwhile, this might help you on the fixed frame issue.

edit: images linked to make thread lighter
boxfitting3a.png
boxfitting3b.png

note: enforcing limits on sizes so that an element can't crush the others into nothingness, plus a few other details, are left as exercises to the reader
Sasuke
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2005
Location: Milton Keynes UK
Posted: 13th Dec 2013 01:46 Edited at: 13th Dec 2013 01:52
Quote: "I'd inset the corner-drag elements or replace them with hori/vert splitters between panes."

Haha damn, I forgot I applied them to the tabs as well cause I wanted to see what they looked like over just the frames when there not on a window.

Quote: "note: enforcing limits on sizes so that an element can't crush the others into nothingness"

Quote: "So now the question is how do you combine this with fixed size frames?"

Exactly what I was asking and you've answered that for me also

The Frames are actually invisible or have no appearance there just used to attach stuff to, in this case tabs or other things if I wanted to (viewport will be in the mid). You can detach tabs and put them anywhere or put them into a window. Below is an example of me detaching all the tabs but the fixed one (visible frames).



But these examples you've put up are incredible useful! Thank you so much!

Quote: "Otherwise, its an elegant design."

Wish I could take the credit but it's based of UnrealEd 4, I just wanted similar functionality so if I made it to produce the same thing then I know I've got the functionality I was looking for!

"Get in the Van!" - Van B

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Phaelax
DBPro Master
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 14th Dec 2013 07:25
Quote: "Say if the window these frames are on is 800 in width, and I want to add a frame to the far left that's 200 in width. All the other frames need to be rescaled (and shifted to the right) to fit the 600 space left! I just can't work out what needs to be done when all frames are different sizes!"


First calculate the percentage that each frame occupies in the 800px window. Say for instance frames 1 and 2 in your pic are 150px wide:
150/800 = 0.1875

Then subtract 200px from 800 and now you have 600px that all the current frames must fit within. Multiply 600 by each of the calculated percentages to get their new widths. Boom! Done!

Sasuke
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2005
Location: Milton Keynes UK
Posted: 14th Dec 2013 11:00
Late to the game Phaelax but cheers! Boom

"Get in the Van!" - Van B
Sasuke
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2005
Location: Milton Keynes UK
Posted: 15th Dec 2013 15:23 Edited at: 15th Dec 2013 15:24




Still having trouble trying to implement this! I get messed up when there's more than one locked box!

"Get in the Van!" - Van B
Sasuke
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2005
Location: Milton Keynes UK
Posted: 15th Dec 2013 20:55 Edited at: 15th Dec 2013 21:43
Still not having any luck with this! Does anyone know what this technique is called so I can look it up? Main problem with programming is there's no way to work out the names of techniques with out knowing what they relate to. This isn't a GUI problem, it's a math problem meaning it'll probably be named after someone eg. "david autofitboxington problem algorithm" so I can only guess and hope I get lucky... no luck of yet!

The bit I'm struggling with is how you position boxes after a locked box because you can't simply offset it by the scaled about since the scalar doesn't account for the locked boxes.

"Get in the Van!" - Van B
Phaelax
DBPro Master
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 16th Dec 2013 14:36 Edited at: 16th Dec 2013 14:37
So you want the children to compress but have the possibility to expand or flow outside their parent container? You need to set a minimum compressed size for the boxes or limit the container to not shrink below the minimum size of the children.

Quote: "The bit I'm struggling with is how you position boxes after a locked box because you can't simply offset it by the scaled about since the scalar doesn't account for the locked boxes."

Subtract the width of the locked box from the container before calculating the percentages.

Sasuke
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2005
Location: Milton Keynes UK
Posted: 16th Dec 2013 15:27
Quote: "So you want the children to compress but have the possibility to expand or flow outside their parent container? You need to set a minimum compressed size for the boxes or limit the container to not shrink below the minimum size of the children."


I need all the children to compress to the size of their parent container.

Quote: "Subtract the width of the locked box from the container before calculating the percentages."


Still doesn't help with positioning. The Scalar doesn't account for if there's a locked box before a compressible box and will end up overlapping the locked box. If all position/sizes are scaled by the same amount then anything that isn't scaled (locked sizes in this case) will overlap. This is what I'm stuck on!

"Get in the Van!" - Van B
Phaelax
DBPro Master
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 16th Dec 2013 15:49 Edited at: 16th Dec 2013 15:52
Quote: "If all position/sizes are scaled by the same amount then anything that isn't scaled (locked sizes in this case) will overlap. "

You don't scale everything by the same amount.


Does this help? Click on a box to lock its width (shown with a red box) and drag the right side of the blue container box to resize.



Sasuke
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2005
Location: Milton Keynes UK
Posted: 16th Dec 2013 16:20 Edited at: 16th Dec 2013 16:31
We have to use a scale because boxes will be inserted from the left/top/right and bottom so you can't simply position them one after the other because they won't be in order in the array. It's exactly the same as how docking windows in an editor (or any application with docking) works which is what I want. Because they won't be in order, I have zero clue how you account for locked boxes.



You can see in this example. The numbers represent the order the boxes were put into the container. The green box is the new box we're inserting and the blue fill boxes is locked. Since the new box takes up the whole height of the container everything left of it will be scaled, but the locked boxes width.

"Get in the Van!" - Van B

Attachments

Login to view attachments
MrValentine
AGK Backer
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 16th Dec 2013 16:44
This is interesting

MonoCoder
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Dec 2005
Location: england
Posted: 16th Dec 2013 17:19 Edited at: 5th Jan 2014 23:34
Not sure what to say to the ordering issue, but otherwise the problem you've presented is interesting:

edit: images linked to make thread lighter
boxfitting4.png

Ultimately something will have to give to fit that new box.

edit: I'm currently trying to put an example together, but its gone a bit more general and off-topic... but Phaelax's example is pretty good (although as yet we've no real solution for the 2D, rather than 1D, case).

edit: actually, box 7 could be immediately shrunk on introduction. In your problem, shrinking boxes 1, 2, 4-6, and 7 will leave enough room; in my simplified version, the new box would shrink to 0 width... but it'd fit
In that case you might look at ways to flow the new box underneath, providing there's room; or leave it to the user to, say, resize the window to give it room.

edit: here's an elaboration on that:

boxfitting5.png

(please excuse the glut of pictures, they help me think )


Edit: Here is one more of the above, with pixel-exact measurements (I've been pretty much eyeballing it up to now). I haven't checked to see if it works when the new box is less than the full container height, but I can't think of a reason why it shouldn't.
Sasuke
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2005
Location: Milton Keynes UK
Posted: 16th Dec 2013 20:37 Edited at: 17th Dec 2013 14:10
@MonoCoder, I should of stated that the pic I put up isn't accurate widths though I don think it wouldn't need to be because the problem would still exist if the container was larger.

Quote: "(please excuse the glut of pictures, they help me think )"

These pics are great by the way, what do you produce them on?

What the snippet produces:


The snippet does all sides with unlocked boxes, though I'm gonna try and make it fit this example only on left docking for now to include locked boxes. If we can get one side working then I think it'll be easier to figure out the rest. Press the buttons to add boxes:


EDIT: Think I've got an idea! If I check to see if anything overlaps or is in a locked box then shift everything in front of it based on it's dimension by the overlap amount then it should work. Implementing now

Ooooooh! It's messy but it works:


"Get in the Van!" - Van B

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Sasuke
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2005
Location: Milton Keynes UK
Posted: 20th Dec 2013 20:48 Edited at: 20th Dec 2013 21:33
This is a nightmare I can tell ya! As much as I want to scrap this approach I still want to continue. I posted this problem on other forums to see if anyone new what type of technique this is but nope, no one has any clue and can only offer ideas on how to achieve this. I'M NOT QUITTING YET!

"Get in the Van!" - Van B
Le Verdier
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jan 2012
Location: In the mosh-pit
Posted: 21st Dec 2013 02:34 Edited at: 21st Dec 2013 02:51
I have not read the whole thread so maybe i missed the important thing or will be redundant..
I needed something quite similar a long ago and here what i used:
Say a 800 width screen, a properties panel of 200 a viewport of 200 and another viewport of 400
The panel have a locked size and the viewport are variables. The total variable size is 600.
Vp A is 33% and Vp B is 66% of this value
Case 1, we add a panel of 100 locked size. The new tvs avaible is 500. Keeping the same ratios, the Vp A is now 166, B is 333.
Case 2 we add a third viewport. Say they have equal size 600/3 =200. Let's take this for Vp C. The A and B, must spread into 600-200=400. A=133 And B=266 !
This is a basic view which does not take all the refinements into account but hope that help a little..
There several approches to this, especially for the specific cases...

Sasuke
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2005
Location: Milton Keynes UK
Posted: 5th Jan 2014 12:22
Cheers Le Verdier, currently the main issue is how to position things after locked boxes. working out the width is quite easy but it's the positions that's really difficult. I'm still going at this until I figure it out

"Get in the Van!" - Van B
Le Verdier
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jan 2012
Location: In the mosh-pit
Posted: 5th Jan 2014 17:55
For my old forementioned project, I used a simpliflied form of framesets, a bit like web browsers. Basically, a frameset is a table of "frames" where frames are box coordinates and some data. Each frame contains either final data or another frameset with inverted orientation. Benefit of this, the changes in size are localised to a box and all can be updated recursively..

Sasuke
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2005
Location: Milton Keynes UK
Posted: 5th Jan 2014 18:53 Edited at: 5th Jan 2014 18:54
Quote: "For my old forementioned project, I used a simpliflied form of framesets, a bit like web browsers. Basically, a frameset is a table of "frames" where frames are box coordinates and some data. Each frame contains either final data or another frameset with inverted orientation. Benefit of this, the changes in size are localised to a box and all can be updated recursively..
"


Exactly what mine is. But here we're talking about positioning and compressing frames.



In this example say if I wanted to expand frame 4 downwards, it would affect frames 3/5/6/7/8/9 and 10. 5 and 8 are locked frames. And here's we're I'd draw a blank, I have no clue the order to which you calculate things that affect other things. Everything is depended on whats next to it. Locked frame 5 would only affect the total height of frame 3. 6 and 7 would compress normally but frames next to frame 7 outside frame 4's field of movement would also be affected. Frame 9 would have to expand and frame 8 and 10 would have to move down.

Now just imagine expanding frame 1 right, gets even more complex

"Get in the Van!" - Van B

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Le Verdier
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jan 2012
Location: In the mosh-pit
Posted: 5th Jan 2014 20:29
The best advice I can give is to consider using something less complicated.
This will not decrease the quality.
I look the picture, it's a good example. If a frameset scheme was used, this layout would never happen.
For example the frame 7 with width of f8 and f10, the frame 6 with the height of f5 and f3
Would have been correct...
Quote: "say if I wanted to expand frame 4 downwards"

With the modified layout, only 4/3/5/6 are (easily) changed
Quote: "Now just imagine expanding frame 1 right"

Why f1 only?? Say f1 and f2 are properties panel in a dock bar, the point would be to change
The whole dock bar width or f1/f2 height inside the dock bar.

For me, the frameset scheme seems to be best tradeoff.

Sasuke
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2005
Location: Milton Keynes UK
Posted: 5th Jan 2014 21:02
A frameset scheme is a good idea but ultimately I'm still going at this cause even if it's complicated, I want to know how to achieve it even if I don't use it, sort of to expand my knowledge. It's surprising that so many programs can achieve complex framing like this but there seems to be no documentation to what technique they use to deploy... believe me! I've looked for hours.

Also, no one it there right mind would set up frames like this (I hope), I'm just using it as an example cause the same math would apply I believe.

Let me have a play with a frameset and this, maybe combine the two to add more flexibility to a frameset! Post the code later

"Get in the Van!" - Van B
Le Verdier
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jan 2012
Location: In the mosh-pit
Posted: 5th Jan 2014 21:32
So good luck ...
I agree experimenting is the best way to learn
And If you' re making an editor, there will be a load of complicated problems ahead you...
(I remember myself just finishing some tedious code "..the next part should be easy compared to this..." and to suddenly
Realize than the next part is harder ...)

MonoCoder
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Dec 2005
Location: england
Posted: 5th Jan 2014 23:23 Edited at: 5th Jan 2014 23:29
Verdier makes a good point about the layout, being (probably) impossible to implement in most frameset-like systems. For example, if you grab the bottom of frame 6 and begin pulling it upwards, does the top of frame 7 rise with it? If so, what happens when we pass the bottom of frame 9? Do we disallow dragging further, or leave 7 behind (leaving a gap under frame 6), or squash frame 9? and so on.

I've had a think about one of the simpler cases (sizing frame 1). Here's the first part (linked for size and because not essential), and here's the second:



I've assumed for the example that all the none-locked frames fill into the free space left after locked frames are considered. I think the main takeaway is considering all frames as defined by horizontal and vertical gridlines, in which case frames 1 and 2 share a common left and right, 6, 8 and 10 share their bottom edge with the top of 7, etc. From there, you probably want to constrain each line (and thus the frames that lay on them).

This is devolving into waffle, so I'd just recommend having a look at the css3 grid and flexbox specifications for tips. I also visualised some potential adjustment cases for the example so you can see if they're along the lines you're wanting.

addendum: [1] some layouts might be best implemented by nesting one grid in another; [2] for order, I think you need only calculate fixed frames before non-fixed frames - other than that, try to keep size dependencies between frames explicit, ie. rather than a chain of "dragging x changes x, changing x changes y, etc" have "dragging w changes x and y simultaneously".
Sasuke
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2005
Location: Milton Keynes UK
Posted: 6th Jan 2014 01:13 Edited at: 6th Jan 2014 01:21
I finally found another program that does exactly what I want. UnrealEd 4 isn't out yet so I couldn't show you that, but Unity does exactly what I want, where by you can place the frames anywhere (well, either the sides of the container or spilt a frame your over into half).



Aha! So it's not impossible! I just need to work out how to do. The theory is easy, the implementing isn't.

MonoCoder, your visualization really do impress me But your right. Usually things that run parallel add to the initial field of movement. So moving frame 1, you'd add frame 2 to it and that would be the region you'd move. And yes, you would having dragging constraints so no gaps are left.

If you guys need a video of Unity showing how the frames work I can make one, just let me know.

"Get in the Van!" - Van B

Attachments

Login to view attachments
MonoCoder
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Dec 2005
Location: england
Posted: 6th Jan 2014 17:40 Edited at: 6th Jan 2014 17:43
Here's a video [~1min30] of a wip implementation of the grid thing. In it I replicate your example complex layout and mess about with it. At the moment it has no locked boxes, proportion-keeping, min/max size constraints etc. - I'll be working on those soon.

edit: a video of unity would be handy. If you can upload one or link an existing one showing off the behaviours your expecting, that'd help zone in on an answer
Sasuke
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2005
Location: Milton Keynes UK
Posted: 7th Jan 2014 01:00
I can't seem to make a video of it at the moment. I've only got fraps and I can't force it to record the whole screen because of the viewports in the editor. I guess it see it as an active window and only focus on that.

Your grid example is really good. What would need to be altered thou is when you add another box you have to push/compress everything next to it to make up the space of the new box, well that's the important part (you can split frames in to two by docking a frame on the edge of a frame, so your example pretty much covers that). In Unity, it step through each box in the direction your moving or add to see if that box can be compress to make the space, if not it then goes onto the next box to see if that combined with the first box (or region) can make up the space. So the idea is it step through each next box compressing them until it makes the space for the next frame.

In Unity when you drag a frame or grid line, it will compress then next box in the field of movement. If that box has hit it's minimum then it will start compressing the next box to it and so on.

I'll see if I can find an alternative recording app in the mean time.

"Get in the Van!" - Van B
Sasuke
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2005
Location: Milton Keynes UK
Posted: 11th Jan 2014 18:15
This must have a name or terminology where I can look at some example or source?

"Get in the Van!" - Van B
Le Verdier
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jan 2012
Location: In the mosh-pit
Posted: 11th Jan 2014 19:17 Edited at: 11th Jan 2014 19:21
http://wiki.freepascal.org/Category: Docking

Remove the spc between : and D

MonoCoder
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Dec 2005
Location: england
Posted: 13th Jan 2014 20:18 Edited at: 13th Jan 2014 20:37
I've put the grid to one side and have been tackling the box-fitting issue more directly. After a few days and a bit of scribbling, the problem of ordering has (contrary to my earlier assumption) shown itself to be a Hard Problem.

I've attempted a basic flex-box (1D) in this code, and within that scope I think I'm on the right track. Over the next few days/week I'll try to work this into the bidirectional grid and/or add support for a proper tree of frames.




It requires advanced2d and M1U to run, though all the a2d (except the wrapped box-text) can be replaced with standard DBP stuff (I might edit this post to add a non-a2d copy). Pic.

Things to try:
- Change the three DEBUG switches at the top (FRAMESUMMARY is probably most useful).
- In the Frame Setup section, swap in different box setups by commenting in and out the 6 presets (also be sure to change numFrames to required).
- Make custom sets.

- Set 5's frame 5 can be adjusted with the up/down arrow keys.
- The width of the container is adjusted by moving the mouse.

Things to note:
- It's a wip so there's probably a couple of loose ends and unused variables.
- There are a couple of assumptions in the code. %-sized frames scale with the size of the container when there is free space available in the container; they scale with the amount of remaining space when there is not. The behaviour with frames that have min-width greater than max-width is undefined (read: I haven't tried it yet).
- At the moment the "inner" width of the container is equal to its "outer" width. That is, there is no overflow (content wider than the box, usually with a scrollbar). If you have two frames, both set to take 100% of the space, they will follow the assumption above and take up 100/200th's of available space each (that is, they'll behave as though they were both 50%), whereas with overflow you'd have a scrollbar and the "inner" width would be twice that of the "outer" width.

Let me know if it breaks
Sasuke
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2005
Location: Milton Keynes UK
Posted: 14th Jan 2014 00:03
Quote: "the problem of ordering has (contrary to my earlier assumption) shown itself to be a Hard Problem."


Couldn't have said it better myself. I had no clue this would be so hard when I started but this is more complex than some of the advance physics stuff I've done.

I will take a look at your code when I'm on a more capable computer Cheers

I had an idea. For the bidirectional gird adjustments, on creation of the frames or split frames we determine if it's a part of a region. The idea is each region will have a minimum size and will only affect other region's if it's at it's minimum. This will make calculations easier since we don't have to check what frame is next to what frame, we just see what's assigned to the region.

Quote: "Let me know if it breaks"


Oh I will

Thanks for the big help btw

"Get in the Van!" - Van B

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-05-09 22:50:38
Your offset time is: 2024-05-09 22:50:38