Attachables: Radius Effect by Bit-Crust · Pull Request #156 · cortex-command-community/Cortex-Command-Community-Project

Bit-Crust · 2024-11-18T04:43:16Z

Decorative, illustrative, or physically minute attachments, such as hair, wounds, or flashes, can currently affect parent radius (in absence of hardcoded special cases), which is taken to be both visual and physical, so that an actor will crouch unnecessarily if something were to drag behind it or far away, or if a flash were to be emitted from something other than the barrel of a HDFirearm.

This can be partially solved by allowing an attachable to opt out, using m_AffectsRadius, which is included.
The diameter is also needed to determine which intermediate bitmap to use while settling the MOSR, however, so there has to be a metric of the largest bounding diameter, maybe m_BoundingDiameter.
This also means there are two different radii to update with MOSRotating::HandlePotentialRadiusAffectingAttachable, so the function will have to be modified to update both accurately without wasting computation.
Considering a property for if a non-radius affecting attachable's own attachables should be able to affect the radius of it's parent. I don't remember why I was considering this.
With this change, flashes and wounds and such could be changed to just include AffectsRadius = 0.
With all flashes and wounds marked as such whereever, a couple C++ checks are genericized and can be dropped.

Bit-Crust · 2024-11-18T04:43:16Z

Decorative, illustrative, or physically minute attachments, such as hair, wounds, or flashes, can currently affect parent radius (in absence of hardcoded special cases), which is taken to be both visual and physical, so that an actor will crouch unnecessarily if something were to drag behind it or far away, or if a flash were to be emitted from something other than the barrel of a HDFirearm.

This can be partially solved by allowing an attachable to opt out, using m_AffectsRadius, which is included.
The diameter is also needed to determine which intermediate bitmap to use while settling the MOSR, however, so there has to be a metric of the largest bounding diameter, maybe m_BoundingDiameter.
This also means there are two different radii to update with MOSRotating::HandlePotentialRadiusAffectingAttachable, so the function will have to be modified to update both accurately without wasting computation.
Considering a property for if a non-radius affecting attachable's own attachables should be able to affect the radius of it's parent. I don't remember why I was considering this.
With this change, flashes and wounds and such could be changed to just include AffectsRadius = 0.
With all flashes and wounds marked as such whereever, a couple C++ checks are genericized and can be dropped.

Bit-Crust · 2024-11-18T04:43:16Z

Decorative, illustrative, or physically minute attachments, such as hair, wounds, or flashes, can currently affect parent radius (in absence of hardcoded special cases), which is taken to be both visual and physical, so that an actor will crouch unnecessarily if something were to drag behind it or far away, or if a flash were to be emitted from something other than the barrel of a HDFirearm.

This can be partially solved by allowing an attachable to opt out, using m_AffectsRadius, which is included.
The diameter is also needed to determine which intermediate bitmap to use while settling the MOSR, however, so there has to be a metric of the largest bounding diameter, maybe m_BoundingDiameter.
This also means there are two different radii to update with MOSRotating::HandlePotentialRadiusAffectingAttachable, so the function will have to be modified to update both accurately without wasting computation.
Considering a property for if a non-radius affecting attachable's own attachables should be able to affect the radius of it's parent. I don't remember why I was considering this.
With this change, flashes and wounds and such could be changed to just include AffectsRadius = 0.
With all flashes and wounds marked as such whereever, a couple C++ checks are genericized and can be dropped.

Bit-Crust · 2024-11-18T04:43:16Z

Decorative, illustrative, or physically minute attachments, such as hair, wounds, or flashes, can currently affect parent radius (in absence of hardcoded special cases), which is taken to be both visual and physical, so that an actor will crouch unnecessarily if something were to drag behind it or far away, or if a flash were to be emitted from something other than the barrel of a HDFirearm.

This can be partially solved by allowing an attachable to opt out, using m_AffectsRadius, which is included.
The diameter is also needed to determine which intermediate bitmap to use while settling the MOSR, however, so there has to be a metric of the largest bounding diameter, maybe m_BoundingDiameter.
This also means there are two different radii to update with MOSRotating::HandlePotentialRadiusAffectingAttachable, so the function will have to be modified to update both accurately without wasting computation.
Considering a property for if a non-radius affecting attachable's own attachables should be able to affect the radius of it's parent. I don't remember why I was considering this.
With this change, flashes and wounds and such could be changed to just include AffectsRadius = 0.
With all flashes and wounds marked as such whereever, a couple C++ checks are genericized and can be dropped.

Bit-Crust · 2024-11-18T04:43:16Z

Decorative, illustrative, or physically minute attachments, such as hair, wounds, or flashes, can currently affect parent radius (in absence of hardcoded special cases), which is taken to be both visual and physical, so that an actor will crouch unnecessarily if something were to drag behind it or far away, or if a flash were to be emitted from something other than the barrel of a HDFirearm.

This can be partially solved by allowing an attachable to opt out, using m_AffectsRadius, which is included.
The diameter is also needed to determine which intermediate bitmap to use while settling the MOSR, however, so there has to be a metric of the largest bounding diameter, maybe m_BoundingDiameter.
This also means there are two different radii to update with MOSRotating::HandlePotentialRadiusAffectingAttachable, so the function will have to be modified to update both accurately without wasting computation.
Considering a property for if a non-radius affecting attachable's own attachables should be able to affect the radius of it's parent. I don't remember why I was considering this.
With this change, flashes and wounds and such could be changed to just include AffectsRadius = 0.
With all flashes and wounds marked as such whereever, a couple C++ checks are genericized and can be dropped.

Bit-Crust · 2024-11-18T04:43:16Z

Decorative, illustrative, or physically minute attachments, such as hair, wounds, or flashes, can currently affect parent radius (in absence of hardcoded special cases), which is taken to be both visual and physical, so that an actor will crouch unnecessarily if something were to drag behind it or far away, or if a flash were to be emitted from something other than the barrel of a HDFirearm.

This can be partially solved by allowing an attachable to opt out, using m_AffectsRadius, which is included.
The diameter is also needed to determine which intermediate bitmap to use while settling the MOSR, however, so there has to be a metric of the largest bounding diameter, maybe m_BoundingDiameter.
This also means there are two different radii to update with MOSRotating::HandlePotentialRadiusAffectingAttachable, so the function will have to be modified to update both accurately without wasting computation.
Considering a property for if a non-radius affecting attachable's own attachables should be able to affect the radius of it's parent. I don't remember why I was considering this.
With this change, flashes and wounds and such could be changed to just include AffectsRadius = 0.
With all flashes and wounds marked as such whereever, a couple C++ checks are genericized and can be dropped.

Bit-Crust · 2024-11-18T04:43:16Z

Decorative, illustrative, or physically minute attachments, such as hair, wounds, or flashes, can currently affect parent radius (in absence of hardcoded special cases), which is taken to be both visual and physical, so that an actor will crouch unnecessarily if something were to drag behind it or far away, or if a flash were to be emitted from something other than the barrel of a HDFirearm.

This can be partially solved by allowing an attachable to opt out, using m_AffectsRadius, which is included.
The diameter is also needed to determine which intermediate bitmap to use while settling the MOSR, however, so there has to be a metric of the largest bounding diameter, maybe m_BoundingDiameter.
This also means there are two different radii to update with MOSRotating::HandlePotentialRadiusAffectingAttachable, so the function will have to be modified to update both accurately without wasting computation.
Considering a property for if a non-radius affecting attachable's own attachables should be able to affect the radius of it's parent. I don't remember why I was considering this.
With this change, flashes and wounds and such could be changed to just include AffectsRadius = 0.
With all flashes and wounds marked as such whereever, a couple C++ checks are genericized and can be dropped.

Bit-Crust · 2024-11-18T04:43:16Z

Decorative, illustrative, or physically minute attachments, such as hair, wounds, or flashes, can currently affect parent radius (in absence of hardcoded special cases), which is taken to be both visual and physical, so that an actor will crouch unnecessarily if something were to drag behind it or far away, or if a flash were to be emitted from something other than the barrel of a HDFirearm.

This can be partially solved by allowing an attachable to opt out, using m_AffectsRadius, which is included.
The diameter is also needed to determine which intermediate bitmap to use while settling the MOSR, however, so there has to be a metric of the largest bounding diameter, maybe m_BoundingDiameter.
This also means there are two different radii to update with MOSRotating::HandlePotentialRadiusAffectingAttachable, so the function will have to be modified to update both accurately without wasting computation.
Considering a property for if a non-radius affecting attachable's own attachables should be able to affect the radius of it's parent. I don't remember why I was considering this.
With this change, flashes and wounds and such could be changed to just include AffectsRadius = 0.
With all flashes and wounds marked as such whereever, a couple C++ checks are genericized and can be dropped.