-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fix teleports #16
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Fix teleports #16
Conversation
GustavoAndretto
commented
Aug 1, 2022
- Noatun -> Khepra
- Khepra -> Noatun
- Khepra -> KhepraBoss
- Noatun -> Kephra - Khepra -> Noatun - Khepra -> KhepraBoss
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Alterar em TMFieldScene a iteração sobre o g_TeleportTable em FrameMove
@@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ const static TMVector3 g_vecItemBillPos[28] = | |||
{0.76899999f, 0.509f, -1.143f}, | |||
}; | |||
|
|||
const static stTeleportPos g_TeleportTable[37] = | |||
const static stTeleportPos g_TeleportTable[42] = |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Vamos aproveitar e mudar para
constexpr std::array g_TeleportTable
A inicialização fica assim (sem contar com a parte que você adicionou):
constexpr std::array g_TeleportTable =
{
stTeleportPos { 2116, 2100, 700, g_pMessageStringTable[209] },
stTeleportPos { 2480, 1716, 700, g_pMessageStringTable[209] },
stTeleportPos { 2456, 2016, 700, g_pMessageStringTable[209] },
stTeleportPos { 3648, 3108, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[209] },
stTeleportPos { 1044, 1724, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[125] },
stTeleportPos { 1044, 1716, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[126] },
stTeleportPos { 1044, 1708, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[173] },
stTeleportPos { 1048, 1764, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[210] },
stTeleportPos { 2140, 2068, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[213] },
stTeleportPos { 2468, 1716, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[211] },
stTeleportPos { 2364, 2284, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[212] },
stTeleportPos { 144, 3788, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[213] },
stTeleportPos { 2668, 2156, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[212] },
stTeleportPos { 144, 3772, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[213] },
stTeleportPos { 148, 3780, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[215] },
stTeleportPos { 144, 3780, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[215] },
stTeleportPos { 1004, 4028, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[214] },
stTeleportPos { 408, 4072, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[215] },
stTeleportPos { 1004, 4064, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[214] },
stTeleportPos { 744, 3820, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[215] },
stTeleportPos { 1004, 3992, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[214] },
stTeleportPos { 680, 4076, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[216] },
stTeleportPos { 916, 3820, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[215] },
stTeleportPos { 876, 3872, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[216] },
stTeleportPos { 932, 3820, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[215] },
stTeleportPos { 188, 188, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[126] },
stTeleportPos { 2548, 1740, 1000, g_pMessageStringTable[322] },
stTeleportPos { 1824, 1772, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[218] },
stTeleportPos { 1172, 4080, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[211] },
stTeleportPos { 1516, 3996, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[220] },
stTeleportPos { 1304, 3816, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[219] },
stTeleportPos { 2452, 1716, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[211] },
stTeleportPos { 2452, 1988, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[211] },
stTeleportPos { 3648, 3140, 700, g_pMessageStringTable[211] },
stTeleportPos { 2480, 1648, 700, g_pMessageStringTable[301] },
stTeleportPos { 1052, 1708, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[321] },
stTeleportPos { 1056, 1724, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[485] }
};
Sendo assim, trocaremos os acessos para um range-based for loop ou pelo menos usar o size()
para iterar usando o índice. Solicito isto porque chequei o código, e você alterou apenas um dos acessos a array g_TeleportTable
, e alterando já para .len() ou range-based for torna mais difícil de errar no futuro.
@@ -228,7 +228,12 @@ const static stTeleportPos g_TeleportTable[37] = | |||
{ 3648, 3140, 700, g_pMessageStringTable[211] }, | |||
{ 2480, 1648, 700, g_pMessageStringTable[301] }, | |||
{ 1052, 1708, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[321] }, | |||
{ 1056, 1724, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[485] } | |||
{ 1056, 1724, 0, g_pMessageStringTable[485] }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fiquei na dúvida quanto as posições.
Você seguiu o padrão das posições acima? Se não me engano, a posição fica centralizada no teleporte. Gostaria apenas de confirmar
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
eu fiz como solicitado , o teleporte de Noatun -> Khepra foi corrigido . Mas o teleporte de Khepra -> Noatun ainda continua bugado mesmo eu colocando a coordenada da forma que vc pôs na imagem 2364, 4072
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Bom, eu vou dar uma olhada nas coordenadas e analisar o problema melhor antes de mergear.
De qualquer forma, eu solicite mudanças quanto a array. Quando tiver um tempo para isso :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
opa meu querido acabei de notar que tem que alterar aqui tb
em : TMFieldScene.cpp
na linha 7860 : for (int ll = 0; ll < 42; ++ll)